Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for Oregon Spotted Frog, 53581-53623 [2013-20986]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Vol. 78
Thursday,
No. 168
August 29, 2013
Part IV
Department of the Interior
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for
Oregon Spotted Frog; Proposed Rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
53582
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
102, Lacey, WA 98503, by telephone
360–753–9440 or by facsimile 360–753–
9445. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS–R1–ES–2013–0013; 4500030113]
RIN 1018–AZ04
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Threatened Status for
Oregon Spotted Frog
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, propose to list the
Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa), as
a threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act. If we finalize
this rule as proposed, it would extend
the Act’s protections to this species. The
effect of this regulation is to add this
species to the list of Endangered and
Threatened wildlife under the Act.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
October 28, 2013. Comments submitted
electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES
section, below) must be received by
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing
date. We must receive requests for
public hearings, in writing, at the
address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by October 15,
2013.
SUMMARY:
Written Comments: You
may submit comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter FWS–R1–ES–2013–0013, which is
the docket number for this rulemaking.
You may submit a comment by clicking
on ‘‘Comment Now!’’
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R1–ES–2013–
0013; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS
2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments
only by the methods described above.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see the
Public Comments section below for
more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken
Berg, Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife
Office, 510 Desmond Drive SE., Suite
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under
the Act, if a species is determined to be
an endangered or threatened species
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range, we are required to promptly
publish a proposal in the Federal
Register and make a determination on
our proposal within 1 year. Listing a
species as an endangered or threatened
species can be completed only by
issuing a rulemaking. The Oregon
spotted frog is a candidate for listing
and, by virtue of a settlement agreement
with Wild Earth Guardians, we must
make a final listing determination under
the Act by the end of fiscal year 2014.
• This rule will propose to list the
Oregon spotted frog as threatened.
The basis for our action. Under the
Act, we can determine that a species is
an endangered or threatened species
based on any of five factors: (A) The
present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) Disease or
predation; (D) The inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)
Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
We have determined that the Oregon
spotted frog is impacted by one or more
of the following factors to the extent that
the species meets the definition of a
threatened species under the Act:
• Habitat necessary to support all life
stages is continuing to be impacted and/
or destroyed by human activities that
result in the loss of wetlands to land
conversions; hydrologic changes
resulting from operation of existing
water diversions/manipulation
structures, new and existing residential
and road developments, drought, and
removal of beavers; changes in water
temperature and vegetation structure
resulting from reed canarygrass
invasions, plant succession, and
restoration plantings; and increased
sedimentation, increased water
temperatures, reduced water quality,
and vegetation changes resulting from
the timing and intensity of livestock
grazing (or in some instances, removal
of livestock grazing at locations where it
maintains early seral stage habitat
essential for breeding);
• Predation by nonnative species,
including nonnative trout and bullfrogs;
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
• Inadequate existing regulatory
mechanisms that result in significant
negative impacts such as habitat loss
and modification; and
• Other natural or manmade factors
including small and isolated breeding
locations, low connectivity, low genetic
diversity within occupied sub-basins,
and genetic differentiation between subbasins.
We will seek peer review. We are
seeking comments from knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise to
review our analysis of the best available
science and application of that science
and to provide any additional scientific
information to improve this proposed
rule. Because we will consider all
comments and information received
during the comment period, our final
determination may differ from this
proposal.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action
resulting from this proposed rule will be
based on the best scientific and
commercial data available and be as
accurate and as effective as possible.
Therefore, we request comments or
information from the public, other
concerned governmental agencies,
Native American tribes, the scientific
community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning this
proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) The species’ biology, range, and
population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding,
breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range
including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population
levels, and current and projected trends;
and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation
measures for the species, its habitat or
both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for
making a listing determination for a
species under section 4(a) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are:
(a) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or
other relevant data concerning any
threats (or lack thereof) to this species
and existing regulations that may be
addressing those threats.
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
(4) Additional information concerning
the historical and current status, range,
distribution, and population size of this
species, including the locations of any
additional populations of this species.
(5) Any information on the biological
or ecological requirements of the
species, and ongoing conservation
measures for the species and its habitat.
(6) Land use designations and current
or planned activities in the areas
occupied by the species and possible
impacts of these activities on this
species.
(7) Information on the projected and
reasonably likely impacts of climate
change on the Oregon spotted frog.
(8) Information on the type,
application of, and methods of
monitoring chemical contaminants, in
addition to the projected and reasonably
likely impacts of chemical contaminants
on the Oregon spotted frog.
(9) The development of a 4(d) special
rule. We are also considering
developing a special rule to exempt
certain ongoing land and water
management activities (e.g., grazing,
mechanical vegetation management,
water level manipulation) from take
prohibitions of the Act if the Oregon
spotted frog is listed, when those
activities are conducted in a manner
consistent with the conservation of the
frog. Under section 4(d) of the Act, the
Secretary may publish a special rule
that modifies the standard protections
for threatened species with special
measures tailored to the conservation of
the species that are determined to be
necessary and advisable. Note that a
4(d) special rule will not remove or alter
in any way the consultation
requirements under section 7 of the Act.
We see meaningful opportunities to
conserve the Oregon spotted frog by
allowing and promoting ongoing, and
possibly new, activities on non-Federal
lands that contribute to the conservation
of this now largely managementdependent species. The Service is
continuing to evaluate the range and
scope of activities that may be
consistent with the conservation of the
frog and the range of options for
providing ‘‘take’’ coverage (e.g., special
rules, Habitat Conservation Plans, Safe
Harbor Agreements, and other types of
conservation agreements) for nonFederal landowners conducting these
activities that further Oregon spotted
frog conservation. We are specifically
seeking information and comments
regarding:
(a) What measures are necessary and
advisable for the conservation and
management of the Oregon spotted frog
that are appropriate for a proposed 4(d)
special rule to encourage landowners to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
manage their lands for the benefit of the
Oregon spotted frog.
(b) Information regarding the types of
activities that occur within Oregon
spotted frog habitat and how they are or
can be implemented (e.g., timing,
extent) consistent with maintaining or
advancing conservation of the frog.
(c) Whether the Service should
develop a 4(d) special rule to allow
incidental take of Oregon spotted frog if
the take results from implementation of
a comprehensive State conservation
program or regional or local
conservation programs.
(d) Information concerning whether it
would be appropriate to include in the
4(d) special rule a provision for take of
Oregon spotted frog in accordance with
applicable State law for educational or
scientific purposes, the enhancement of
propagation or survival of the species,
zoological exhibition, and other
conservation purposes consistent with
the Act.
(e) Additional provisions the Service
may wish to consider for a 4(d) special
rule in order to conserve, recover, and
manage the Oregon spotted frog.
Please include sufficient information
with your submission (such as scientific
journal articles or other publications) to
allow us to verify any scientific or
commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely
stating support for or opposition to the
action under consideration without
providing supporting information,
although noted, will not be considered
in making a determination, as section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any
species is an endangered or threatened
species must be made ‘‘solely on the
basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.’’
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposed rule
by one of the methods listed in the
ADDRESSES section. We request that you
send comments only by the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section.
If you submit information via https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the Web site. If your submission is
made via a hardcopy that includes
personal identifying information, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from
public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We will post all hardcopy submissions
on https://www.regulations.gov. Please
include sufficient information with your
comments to allow us to verify any
scientific or commercial information
you include.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
53583
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this proposed rule,
will be available for public inspection
on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Previous Federal Actions
We received a petition dated May 1,
1989, from the Board of Directors of the
Utah Nature Study Society on May 4,
1989. The petition requested that the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service
or USFWS) add the spotted frog (Rana
pretiosa) to the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Species.
The Service published a notice of a 90day finding in the Federal Register (54
FR 42529) on October 17, 1990, stating
that substantial information indicates
that the petitioned action may be
warranted. On May 7, 1993, the Service
published a 12-month finding in the
Federal Register (58 FR 27260)
indicating that the spotted frog (Rana
pretiosa) warranted listing as threatened
in some portions of its range, but was
precluded by other higher priority
listing actions. Subsequent genetic
analyses separated the spotted frog into
two separate species, Rana pretiosa
(Oregon spotted frog) and Rana
luteiventris (Columbia spotted frog). The
Service recognized these taxonomic
changes in the Federal Register (62 FR
49398) on September 19, 1997, and
assigned a listing priority number of ‘‘2’’
to the Oregon spotted frog and a listing
priority number of ‘‘3’’ (Wasatch Front
population), ‘‘6’’ (West Desert
population), or ‘‘9’’ (Great Basin
population) for the Columbia spotted
frog. The candidate status for Oregon
spotted frog was most recently
reaffirmed in the October 26, 2011,
Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR) (76
FR 66370).
In a settlement agreement with
plaintiff WildEarth Guardians on May
10, 2011, the Service submitted a
workplan to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia in re
Endangered Species Act Section 4
Deadline Litigation, No. 10–377 (EGS),
MDL Docket No. 2165 (D. DC May 10,
2011), and obtained the court’s approval
to systematically, over a period of 6
years, review and address the needs of
more than 250 candidate species to
determine if they should be added to the
Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. The
Oregon spotted frog is one of the
candidate species identified in the May
2011 workplan.
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
53584
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Status Assessment for Oregon Spotted
Frog
Background
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Species Description
The Oregon spotted frog is named for
the characteristic black spots covering
the head, back, sides, and legs. The dark
spots have ragged edges and light
centers, usually associated with a
tubercle or raised area of skin. These
spots become larger and darker, and the
edges become more ragged with age
(Hayes 1994, p. 14). Body color also
varies with age. Juveniles are usually
brown or, occasionally, olive green on
the back and white, cream, or fleshcolored with reddish pigments on the
underlegs and abdomen (McAllister and
Leonard 1997, pp. 1–2). Adults range
from brown to reddish brown but tend
to become redder with age. Large,
presumably older, individuals may be
brick red over most of the dorsal (back)
surfaces (McAllister and Leonard 1997,
pp. 1–2). Red surface pigments on the
adult abdomen also increase with age,
and the underlegs of adults are a vivid
orange red. Tan to orange folds along
the sides of the back (dorsolateral folds)
extend from behind the eye to midway
along the back (McAllister and Leonard
1997, p. 1). The eyes are upturned; there
is a faint mask, and a light jaw stripe
extends to the shoulder. Small bumps
and tubercles usually cover the back
and sides (Leonard et al. 1993, p. 130).
The hind legs are short relative to body
length, and the hind feet are fully
webbed (Leonard et al. 1993, p. 130).
The Oregon spotted frog is a mediumsized frog that ranges from about 44 to
105 millimeters (mm) (1.7 to 4.1 inches
(in)) in body length (McAllister and
Leonard 1997, p. 1; Rombough et al.
2006, p. 210). Females are typically
larger than males; females reach up to
105 mm (4 in) (Rombough et al. 2006,
p. 210) and males to 75 mm (3 in)
(Leonard et al. 1993, p. 130).
Morphological characters can be used
to distinguish Oregon spotted frogs from
other closely related spotted frogs.
Mottling with dark pigments and
fragmentation of the superficial red or
orange-red wash on the abdomen can
distinguish the Oregon spotted frog from
some Columbia spotted frog populations
(Hayes 1997, p. 3; Hayes et al. 1997, p.
1). Coloration of the underlegs and
abdomen, size and shapes of spots,
groin mottling, eye positions, relative
length of hind legs to body size, degree
of webbing, behaviors, and other
characteristics can be used to
distinguish among adults of closely
related species. However, tadpoles are
difficult to distinguish among species
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
(Corkran and Thoms 1996, p. 150;
McAllister and Leonard 1997, p. 6).
The Oregon spotted frog has a weak
call consisting of a rapid series of six to
nine low clucking notes described as
sounding like a distant woodpecker’s
tapping. Males will call at any time,
both day and night (McAllister and
Leonard 1997, p. 12). Males have been
documented to call from submerged
sites that are physically distant (tens to
hundreds of meters) from oviposition
(egg-laying) sites (Bowerman 2010, p.
85). These submerged calls are
inaudible at the surface and begin
several days prior to breeding.
Submerged calling is more frequent at
night, although daytime calling has been
recorded during overcast days
(Bowerman 2010, pp. 85–86). It is
unclear if mate selection takes place
during this period of calling remotely
from the breeding site, but it seems
likely (Bowerman 2010, p. 86). This
species rarely vocalizes except during
the breeding season, which occurs in
the spring (Leonard et al. 1993, p. 132);
however, vocalizations have been heard
during the fall (Leonard et al. 1997, pp.
73–74; Pearl 2010, pers. comm.).
Taxonomy
The common name ‘‘spotted frog’’ and
the scientific name Rana pretiosa (order
Anura; family Ranidae) were first
applied to a series of five specimens
collected in 1841 by Baird and Girard
(1853, p. 378) from the vicinity of Puget
Sound. Two of these specimens were
later determined to be northern redlegged frogs (Rana aurora) (Hayes 1994,
p. 4; Green et al. 1997, p. 4). Dunlap
(1955) demonstrated the morphological
differences between northern red-legged
frogs, Cascades frogs, and spotted frogs.
Subsequently, the ‘‘spotted frog’’ was
separated into two species, Rana
pretiosa (Oregon spotted frog) and Rana
luteiventris (Columbia spotted frog)
based on genetic analyses (Green et al.
1996, 1997).
Phylogenetic analyses were
conducted on samples of Oregon
spotted frogs collected from 3 locations
in Washington and 13 locations in
Oregon (Funk et al. 2008). Results
indicate two well-supported clades (a
group of biological taxa (as species) that
includes all descendants of one
common ancestor) nested within the
Oregon spotted frog: the Columbia clade
(Trout Lake Natural Area Preserve
(NAP) and Camas Prairie) and the
southern Oregon clade (Wood River and
Buck Lake in the Klamath Basin). The
Columbia River does not appear to act
as a barrier, as the two sites that
comprise the Columbia clade occur in
Washington (Trout Lake NAP) and in
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Oregon (Camas Prairie). Haplotype and
nucleotide diversity was low for Oregon
spotted frogs in general and was very
low for each of the two nested clades,
respectively (Funk et al. 2008, p. 203).
Only six haplotypes were found across
the entire range of the Oregon spotted
frog, indicating low genetic variation
(Funk et al. 2008, p. 205). Recent genetic
work conducted by Robertson and Funk
(2012, p. 6) in the Deschutes and
Klamath basins indicate the sampled
Oregon spotted frog sites are
characterized by very small effective
population sizes and little genetic
variation (i.e., measured as low
heterozygosity and low allelic richness).
Blouin et al. (2010) performed genetic
analyses on Oregon spotted frogs from
23 of the known sites in British
Columbia, Washington, and Oregon for
variation at 13 microsatellite loci and
298 base pairs of mitochondrial DNA.
Their results indicate that Rana pretiosa
comprised six major genetic groups: (1)
British Columbia; (2) the Chehalis
drainage in Washington, (3) the
Columbia drainage in Washington, (4)
Camas Prairie in northern Oregon, (5)
the central Cascades of Oregon, and (6)
the Klamath basin (Blouin et al. 2010,
pp. 2184–2185). Within the northern
genetic groups, the British Columbia
(Lower Fraser River) and Chehalis
(Black River) populations form the next
natural grouping (Blouin et al. 2010, p.
2189). Recently discovered locales in
the Sumas, South Fork Nooksack, and
Samish Rivers occur in-between these
two groups. While no genetic testing has
been done on these newly found
populations, it is reasonable to assume
that they are likely to be closely related
to either the British Columbia or
Chehalis group, or both, given their
proximity and use of similar lowland
marsh habitats.
Levels of genetic variation in the
Oregon spotted frog groups are low
compared to other ranid frogs,
suggesting these populations are very
small and/or very isolated (Blouin et al.
2010, p. 2184). Blouin et al. (2010)
found a high frequency of mitochondrial
DNA private alleles (i.e., an allele found
in only one population or geographic
location) in the central Cascades and
Klamath Basin groups. This finding
suggests an historical (rather than
recent) isolation between individual
groups (Blouin et al. 2010, p. 2189).
This finding also reinforces
microsatellite-based conclusions that
gene flow among sites has been very
low, even on small geographic scales
(Blouin et al. 2010, p. 2188). Recent
work by Robertson and Funk (2012) in
the Deschutes and Klamath basins
reinforces the Blouin et al. (2010)
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
findings. Due to Oregon spotted frogs’
highly aquatic habits, connectivity
between Oregon spotted frog sites
depends on the connectivity of streams,
rivers, and lakes. Gene flow (based on
both microsatellite and mitochondrial
analyses) is extremely low beyond 6 mi
(10 km) (Blouin et al. 2010, pp. 2186,
2188) and most Oregon spotted frog
populations are separated by more than
6.2 miles (mi) (10 kilometers (km).
Therefore, Blouin et al. (2010, p. 2189),
and Robertson and Funk (2012, p. 5)
hypothesize that low aquatic
connectivity and small isolated
populations are important causes of the
low genetic diversity within sites and
the high genetic differentiation among
sites.
Life-History
Male Oregon spotted frogs are not
territorial and often gather in large
groups of 25 or more individuals at
specific locations (Leonard et al. 1993,
p. 132). Breeding occurs in February or
March at lower elevations and between
early April and early June at higher
elevations (Leonard et al. 1993, p. 132).
Males and females separate soon after
egg-laying with females returning to
fairly solitary lives. Males often stay at
the breeding site, possibly for several
weeks, until egg-laying is completed
(McAllister and Leonard 1997, p. 13)
(The term egg-laying site or habitat is
used interchangeably with breeding site
or habitat throughout this rule).
Oregon spotted frogs’ eggs are
extremely vulnerable to desiccation and
freezing as a result of the species’ laying
habits. Females may deposit their egg
masses at the same locations in
successive years, indicating the sites
may have unique characteristics. For
example, some marked males and
females at Sunriver (Upper Deschutes
River, OR) returned to the same
breeding site for 3 or more years
(Bowerman 2006, pers. comm.). Further,
at several sites in Oregon and
Washington, the same egg-laying
locations have been used for more than
a decade (Hayes 2008, pers. comm.).
Although egg masses are occasionally
laid singly, the majority of egg masses
are laid communally in groups of a few
to several hundred (Licht 1971, p. 119;
Nussbaum et al. 1983, p. 186; Cooke
1984, p. 87; Hayes et al. 1997 p. 3;
Engler and Friesz 1998, p. 3). They are
laid in shallow, often temporary, pools
of water; gradually receding shorelines;
on benches of seasonal lakes and
marshes; and in wet meadows. These
sites are usually associated with the
previous year’s emergent vegetation, are
generally no more than 14 in (35
centimeters (cm)) deep (Pearl and Hayes
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
2004, pp. 19–20), and most of these sites
dry up later in the season (Joe Engler,
FWS, pers. comm. 1999). Shallow water
is easily warmed by the sun, and
warmth hastens egg development
(McAllister and Leonard 1997, p. 8).
However, laying eggs in shallow water
can result in high mortality rates for
eggs and hatchling larvae due to
desiccation or freezing.
Licht (1974, pp. 617–625)
documented the highly variable
mortality rates for spotted frog lifehistory stages in marsh areas in the
lower Fraser Valley, BC: embryos (30
percent), tadpoles (99 percent), and
post-metamorphic (after the change
from tadpole to adult, or
‘‘metamorphosis’’) frogs (95 percent).
Licht (1974, p. 625) estimated mortality
of each life stage and predicted only a
1 percent chance of survival of eggs to
metamorphosis, a 67 percent chance of
juvenile survival for the first year, and
a 64 percent adult annual survival with
males having a higher mortality rate
than females. An average adult betweenyear survival of 37 percent was
estimated by a mark-recapture study at
Dempsey Creek in Washington between
1997 and 1999 (Watson et al. 2000, p.
19).
Adult Oregon spotted frogs begin to
breed by 1–3 years of age, depending on
sex, elevation, and latitude. Males may
breed at 1 year at lower elevations and
latitudes but generally breed at 2 years
of age. Females breed by 2 or 3 years of
age, depending on elevation and
latitude. Longevity of the species is not
well understood; however, there are
multiple examples of Oregon spotted
frogs living beyond 7 years of age
(Watson et al. 2000, p. 21; Kelly
McAllister, WDOT 2008, pers. comm.;
Jill Oertley, U.S. Forest Service 2005,
pers. comm.; Pearl 2005, pers. comm.).
Egg-laying can begin as early as
February in British Columbia and
Washington and as late as early June in
the higher elevations. Tadpoles
metamorphose into froglets (tiny frogs)
(about 16–43 mm (0.6–1.75 in) in
length) during their first summer
(Leonard et al. 1993, p. 132; Pearl and
Bowerman 2005, pers. comm.).
Tadpoles are grazers, having rough tooth
rows for scraping plant surfaces and
ingesting plant tissue and bacteria. They
also consume algae, detritus, and
probably carrion (Licht 1974, p. 624;
McAllister and Leonard 1997, p. 13).
Post-metamorphic Oregon spotted
frogs are opportunistic predators that
prey on live animals, primarily insects,
found in or near the water. Important
prey groups of adult frogs include leaf
beetles (Chrysomelidae), ground beetles
(Carabidae), spiders (Arachnidae), rove
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
53585
beetles (Staphylinidae), syrphid flies
(Syrphidae), long-legged flies
(Dolichopodidae), ants (Formicidae),
water striders (Gerridae), spittlebugs
(Cercopidae), leaf hoppers
(Cicadellidae), aphids (Aphididae),
dragonflies and damsel flies (Odonates),
and yellowjackets (Vespidae) (Licht
1986a, pp. 27–28). Oregon spotted frogs
also eat adult Pacific tree frogs
(Pseudacris regilla), small red-legged
frogs, and newly metamorphosed redlegged frogs and western toad (Bufo
boreas) juveniles (Licht 1986a, p. 28;
Pearl and Hayes 2002, pp. 145–147;
Pearl et al. 2005a, p. 37).
Similar to many North American
pond-breeding anurans (belonging to the
Order Anura, which contains all frogs),
predators can strongly affect the
abundance of larval and postmetamorphic Oregon spotted frogs. The
heaviest losses to predation are thought
to occur shortly after tadpoles emerge
from eggs, when they are relatively
exposed and poor swimmers (Licht
1974, p. 624). However, the odds of
survival appear to increase as tadpoles
grow in size and aquatic vegetation
matures, thus affording cover (Licht
1974, p. 624). Adult Oregon spotted
frogs have a number of documented and
potential natural predators, including
garter snakes (Thamnophis species
(spp.)), great blue herons (Ardea
herodias), green-backed herons
(Butorides virescens), American bitterns
(Botaurus lentiginosus), belted
kingfishers (Ceryle alcyon), sandhill
cranes (Grus canadensis), raccoons
(Procyon lotor), coyotes (Canis latrans),
striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis),
mink (Mustela vison), river otters (Lutra
canadensis), and feral cats (Felis
domesticus) (McAllister and Leonard
1997, p. 13; Hayes et al. 2005, p. 307;
Hayes et al. 2006, p. 209). Tadpoles may
be preyed upon by numerous vertebrate
predators including belted kingfishers,
hooded mergansers (Lophodytes
cucullatus), common garter snakes
(Thamnophis sirtalis), western
terrestrial garter snakes (Thamnophis
elegans), larval and adult roughskin
newts (Taricha granulosa), larval
northwestern salamanders (Ambystoma
gracile), cutthroat trout (Oncorynchus
clarki), Olympic mudminnows
(Novumbra hubbsi), and three-spined
sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus)
(McAllister and Leonard 1997, p. 14).
Subadult Oregon spotted frogs have
been observed within dense
aggregations of recently hatched Oregon
spotted frog tadpoles, and stomach
flushing verified that these subadult
Oregon spotted frogs had consumed
(cannibalized) recently hatched
conspecific (belonging to the same
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
53586
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
species) tadpoles (K. McAllister, pers.
comm. 2008). Invertebrate predators
include dytiscid beetles (Dytiscus spp.),
giant water bugs (Lethocerus
americanus), backswimmers (Notonecta
undulata and N. kirbyi), water scorpions
(Ranatra sp.), dragonfly nymphs
(Odonata), and worm-leeches
(Arhynchobdellida) (McAllister and
Leonard 1997, p. 14). Leeches and other
invertebrates, roughskin newts, and
northwestern salamanders are likely
Oregon spotted frog egg predators
(McAllister and Leonard 1997, p. 14).
The introduction of nonnative species
into the historical range of the Oregon
spotted frog is believed to have
contributed to the decline of this and
other species of frogs (Hayes and
Jennings 1986, pp. 491–492, 494–496;
Hayes 1994, p. 5; 61 FR 25813;
McAllister and Leonard 1997, pp. 25–
26; Pearl et al. 2004, pp. 17–18).
Bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeiana) are
known predators of Oregon spotted
frogs (R. Haycock and R.A. Woods,
unpubl. data, 2001 cited in COSFRT
2012, p. 19), and introduced fish such
as brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)
and centrarchids (Micropterus and
Lepomis spp.) are also likely predators
(Pearl et al. 2009a, p. 140).
Habitat
Watson et al. (2003, p. 298)
summarized the conditions required for
completion of the Oregon spotted frog
life cycle as shallow water areas for egg
and tadpole survival, perennially deep,
moderately vegetated pools for adult
and juvenile survival in the dry season,
and perennial water for protecting all
age classes during cold wet weather.
The Oregon spotted frog inhabits
emergent wetland habitats in forested
landscapes, although it is not typically
found under forest canopy. Historically,
this species was also associated with
lakes in the prairie landscape of the
Puget lowlands (McAllister and Leonard
1997, p. 16). This is the most aquatic
native frog species in the Pacific
Northwest, as all other species have a
terrestrial life stage. It is almost always
found in or near a perennial body of
water, such as a spring, pond, lake,
sluggish stream, irrigation canal, or
roadside ditch (Engler 1999, pers.
comm.). The observation that extant
Oregon spotted frog populations tend to
occur in larger wetlands led Hayes
(1994, Part II pp. 5, 7) to hypothesize
that a minimum size of 9 acres (ac) (4
hectares (ha)) may be necessary to reach
suitably warm temperatures and support
a large enough population to persist
despite high predation rates. However,
Oregon spotted frogs also occupy
smaller sites and are known to occur at
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
sites as small as 2.5 ac (1 ha) and as
large as 4,915 ac (1,989 ha) (Pearl and
Hayes 2004, p. 11). Oregon spotted frogs
have been found at elevations ranging
from near sea level in the Puget Trough
lowlands in Washington to
approximately 5,000 feet (ft) (1,500
meters (m)) in the Oregon Cascades in
western Oregon (Dunlap 1955, p. 316;
Hayes 1997, p. 16; McAllister and
Leonard 1997, pp. 8–10).
Oregon spotted frogs can make use of
a variety of pond types as long as there
is sufficient vegetation and seasonal
habitat available for breeding, summer
feeding, and overwintering (Pearl et al.
2009a, p. 144). Oregon spotted frogs at
Dempsey Creek in Washington selected
areas of relatively shallow water with
less emergent vegetation but more
submergent vegetation than adjacent
habitats. They avoided dry, upland
areas of pasture grass (Watson et al.
1998, p. 10; 2000, pp. 54–57; 2003, p.
297). Radio telemetry data indicates
Oregon spotted frogs at Dempsey Creek
also make extensive use of scrub-shrub
wetland habitats adjacent to forested
uplands (Risenhoover et al. 2001a, p.
13).
Oregon spotted frogs breed in shallow
pools (2–12 in (5–30 cm) deep) that are
near flowing water, or which may be
connected to larger bodies of water
during seasonally high water or at flood
stage. Characteristic vegetation includes
grasses, sedges, and rushes, although
eggs are laid where the vegetation is low
or sparse, such that vegetation structure
does not shade the eggs (McAllister and
Leonard 1997, p. 17). While native
vegetation is the preferred substrate, the
frog may also use short, manipulated
canarygrass/native vegetation mix (J.
Engler, pers. comm. 1999). Full solar
exposure seems to be a significant factor
in breeding habitat selection (McAllister
and White 2001, p. 12; Pearl and Hayes
2004, p. 18). The availability of the
unique characteristics of traditional egglaying sites is limited, and adults may
have limited flexibility to switch sites
(Hayes 1994, p. 19). This may make the
Oregon spotted frog particularly
vulnerable to modification of egg-laying
sites (Hayes 1994, p. 19).
After breeding, during the dry season,
Oregon spotted frogs move to deeper,
permanent pools or creeks (Watson et
al. 2003, p. 295). They are often
observed near the water surface basking
and feeding in beds of floating and
submerged vegetation (Watson et al.
2003, pp. 292–298; Pearl et al. 2005a,
pp. 36–37).
Known overwintering sites are
associated with flowing systems, such
as springs and creeks, that provide welloxygenated water (Hallock and Pearson
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2001, p. 15; Hayes et al. 2001, pp. 20–
23, Tattersall and Ultsch 2008, pp. 123,
129, 136) and sheltering locations
protected from predators and freezing
(Risenhoover et al. 2001b; Watson et al.
2003, p. 295). Oregon spotted frogs
apparently burrow in mud, silty
substrate, clumps of emergent
vegetation, woody accumulations
within the creek, and holes in creek
banks when inactive during periods of
prolonged or severe cold (Watson et al.
2003, p. 295; Hallock and Pearson 2001,
p. 16; McAllister and Leonard 1997, p.
17); however, they are intolerant of
anoxic (absence of dissolved oxygen)
conditions and are unlikely to burrow
into the mud for more than a day or two
(Tattersall and Ultsch 2008, p. 136)
because survival under anoxic
conditions is only a matter of 4–7 days
(Tattersall and Ultsch 2008, p. 126).
This species remains active during the
winter in order to select microhabitats
that can support aerobic metabolism
and allow it to evade predators (Hallock
and Pearson 2001, p. 15; Hayes et al.
2001, pp. 20–23; Tattersall and Ultsch
2008, p. 136). In central Oregon, where
winters generally result in ice cover
over ponds, Oregon spotted frogs follow
a fairly reliable routine of considerable
activity and movement beneath the ice
during the first month following freezeup. Little movement is observed under
the ice in January and February, but
activity steadily increases in midMarch, even when ice cover persists
(Bowerman 2006, pers. comm.). Radiotracked frogs remained active all winter,
even under the ice at Trout Lake NAP
(Hallock 2009, pers comm.) and Conboy
National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) (Hayes
et al. 2001, pp. 16–19).
Results of a habitat utilization and
movement study at Dempsey Creek in
Washington indicate that adult frogs
made infrequent movements between
widely separated pools and more
frequent movements between pools in
closer proximity (Watson et al. 2003, p.
294), but remained within the study
area throughout the year. Home ranges
averaged 5.4 ac (2.2 ha), and daily
movement was 16–23 ft (5–7 m)
throughout the year (Watson et al. 2003,
p. 295). During the breeding season
(February–May), frogs used about half
the area used during the rest of the year.
During the dry season (June–August),
frogs moved to deeper, permanent
pools, and occupied the smallest range
of any season, then moved back toward
their former breeding range during the
wet season (September–January)
(Watson et al. 2003, p. 295). Individuals
equipped with radio transmitters stayed
within 2,600 ft (800 m) of capture
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
locations at the Dempsey Creek site
(Watson et al. 1998, p. 10) and within
1,312 ft (400 m) at the Trout Lake NAP
(Hallock and Pearson 2001, p. 16).
Recaptures of Oregon spotted frogs at
breeding locations in the Buck Lake
population in Oregon indicated that
adults often move less than 300 ft (100
m) between years (Hayes 1998a, p. 9).
However, longer travel distances, while
infrequent, have been observed between
years and within a single year between
seasons. Three adult Oregon spotted
frogs (one male and two females)
marked in a study at Dempsey Creek
and the Black River in Washington
moved a distance of 1.5 mi (2.4 km)
between seasons along lower Dempsey
Creek to the creek’s mouth from the
point where they were marked
(McAllister and Walker 2003, p. 6).
Adult female Oregon spotted frogs
traveled 1,434 ft (437 m) between
seasons from their original capture
location at the Trout Lake Wetland NAP
(Hallock and Pearson 2001, p. 8). Two
juvenile frogs at the Jack Creek site in
Oregon were recaptured the next
summer 4,084 ft (1,245 m) and 4,511 ft
(1,375 m) downstream from where they
were initially marked, and one adult
female moved 9,183 ft (2,799 m)
downstream (Cushman and Pearl 2007,
p. 13). Oregon spotted frogs at the
Sunriver site routinely make annual
migrations of 1,640 to 4,265 ft (500 to
1,300 m) between the major egg-laying
complex and an overwintering site
(Bowerman 2006, pers. comm.).
While these movement studies are
specific to Oregon spotted frogs, the
number of studies and size of the study
areas are limited and haven’t been
conducted over multiple seasons or
years. In addition, the ability to detect
frogs is challenging because of the
difficult terrain in light of the need for
the receiver and transmitter to be in
close proximity. Hammerson (2005)
recommends that a 3.1-mile (5-km)
dispersal distance be applied to all
ranid frog species, because the
movement data for ranids are consistent.
The preponderance of data indicates
that a separation distance of several
kilometers may be appropriate and
practical for delineation of occupancy,
despite occasional movements that are
longer or that may allow some genetic
interchange between distant
populations (for example, the 6.2-mi
(10-km) distance noted by Blouin et al.
2010, pp. 2186, 2188). Accordingly,
based on the best available scientific
information, we presume that Oregon
spotted frog habitats are connected for
purposes of genetic exchange when
occupied/suitable habitats fall within a
53587
maximum movement distance of 3.1 mi
(5 km).
Historical Range/Distribution
Historically, the Oregon spotted frog
ranged from British Columbia to the Pit
River basin in northeastern California
(Hayes 1997; p. 40; McAllister and
Leonard 1997, p. 7). Oregon spotted
frogs have been documented at 61
historical localities in 48 watersheds (3
in British Columbia, 13 in Washington,
29 in Oregon, and 3 in California) in 31
sub-basins (McAllister et al. 1993, pp.
11–12; Hayes 1997, p. 41; McAllister
and Leonard 1997, pp. 18–20; COSEWIC
2011, pp. 12–13) (See Table 1). We are
assuming the watersheds that have
recently been documented to be
occupied were also occupied
historically based on their complete
disconnect from known-occupied
watersheds and the limited dispersal
ability of Oregon spotted frog. For the
rest of the document, we will describe
historical and current range or
distribution based on river sub-basins/
watersheds. A river sub-basin is
equivalent to a 4th field watershed and
a hydrologic unit code of 8. A watershed
is equivalent to a 5th field watershed
and a hydrologic unit code of 10.
TABLE 1—OREGON SPOTTED FROG HISTORICAL AND EXTANT DISTRIBUTION THROUGHOUT RANGE
Location
Sub-basins *: Watersheds
British Columbia ...................
• Lower Fraser River sub-basin near Sumas Prairie in Abbotsford, Nicomen Island in Matsqui, and in Langley
Township. Recently (1996/1997 and 2008) discovered at MD Aldergrove, Maria Slough, Mountain Slough, and
Morris Valley.
• Fraser River sub-basin: recently discovered (2012) in the Sumas River, a tributary to the Lower Chilliwack
River watershed;
• Nooksack River sub-basin: South Fork Nooksack River (recently discovered (2011 and 2012) in the Black
Slough);
• Straits of Georgia sub-basin: recently discovered (2011 and 2012) along the mainstem of the Samish River;
• Lower Skagit River sub-basin: Skagit River-Frontal Skagit Bay and Finney Creek-Skagit River;
• Skykomish River sub-basin: Woods Creek-Skykomish River at Monroe;
• Duwamish River sub-basin: Lower Green River at Kent;
• Lake Washington sub-basin: Lake Washington at Seattle;
• Puget Sound (no sub-basin): Chambers Creek-Frontal Puget Sound (Spanaway Lake) and McLane CreekFrontal Puget Sound (Patterson/Pattison Lake);
• Nisqually River sub-basin: Lower Nisqually River-Frontal Puget Sound (Kapowsin);
• Upper Chehalis River sub-basin: Black River (Demspey Creek, Beaver Creek, Blooms Ditch, and recently
discovered in Salmon and Fish Pond Creeks);
• Lower Willamette River sub-basin: Salmon Creek-Frontal Columbia River at Brush Prairie, Vancouver, and possibly Burnt Bridge Creek at Orchards;
• Middle Columbia-Hood River sub-basin: White Salmon River (Trout Lake Creek at Gular and Trout Lake);
• Klickitat River sub-basin: Middle Klickitat River (Conboy Lake on Outlet, Fraiser, and Chapman Creeks).
• Lower Willamette River sub-basin: Johnson Creek;
• Lower Deschutes River sub-basin: Tygh Creek and White River;
• Clackamas River sub-basin: Oak Grove Fork Clackamas River;
• Middle Willamette River sub-basin: Mill Creek-Willamette River and Oak Creek;
• South Santiam River sub-basin: South Santiam River-Hamilton Creek;
• Upper Willamette River sub-basin: Muddy Creek;
• McKenzie River sub-basin: Upper McKenzie River and South Fork McKenzie River;
• Middle Fork Willamette River sub-basin: Salt Creek-Willamette River;
• Upper Deschutes River sub-basin: Deschutes River-McKenzie Canyon, Deschutes River-Pilot Butte,
Deschutes River-Fall River, and Deschutes River-Browns Creek;
• Little Deschutes River sub-basin: Upper Little Deschutes River, Middle Little Deschutes River, Lower Little
Deschutes River, Long Prairie, and Crescent Creek;
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Washington Counties: Clark,
King, Klickitat, Pierce,
Skagit, Snohomish, and
Thurston.
Oregon Counties: Multnomah, Clackamas, Marion, Linn, Benton, Jackson, Lane, Wasco,
Deschutes, and Klamath.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
53588
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—OREGON SPOTTED FROG HISTORICAL AND EXTANT DISTRIBUTION THROUGHOUT RANGE—Continued
Location
California Counties: Modoc,
Shasta, and Siskiyou.
Sub-basins *: Watersheds
• Williamson River sub-basin: Klamath Marsh-Jack Creek, West of Klamath Marsh, and Williamson River
above Klamath Marsh.
• Sprague River sub-basin: North Fork Sprague River and Sprague River above Williamson;
• Upper Klamath Lake sub-basin: Wood River and Klamath Lake watersheds;
• Upper Klamath sub-basin: Spencer Creek and Jenny Creek;
• Lost River sub-basin: Lake Ewauna-Upper Klamath River.
• Lost River sub-basin: Lower Klamath Lake.
• Upper Pit River sub-basin: Pine Creek-South Pit River (near Alturas).
• Lower Pit River sub-basin: Town of Pittville-Pit River (near Fall River Mills).
* Bolded sub-basins represent the sub-basins with extant locales. Oregon spotted frogs may not be extant in all of the historic watersheds within these sub-basins.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Current Range/Distribution
Currently, the Oregon spotted frog is
found from extreme southwestern
British Columbia south through the
Puget Trough, and in the Cascades
Range from south-central Washington at
least to the Klamath Basin in southern
Oregon. Oregon spotted frogs occur in
lower elevations in British Columbia
and Washington and are restricted to
high elevations in Oregon (Pearl et al.
2010 p. 7). In addition, Oregon spotted
frogs currently have a very limited
distribution west of the Cascade crest in
Oregon, are considered to be extirpated
from the Willamette Valley in Oregon
(Cushman et al. 2007, p. 14), and may
be extirpated in the Klamath and Pit
River basins of California (Hayes 1997,
p. 1).
In British Columbia, Oregon spotted
frogs no longer occupy the locations
documented historically, but they
currently are known to occupy four
disjunct locations in a single sub-basin,
the Lower Fraser River (Canadian
Oregon Spotted Frog Recovery Team
2012, p. 6).
In Washington, Oregon spotted frogs
are known to occur only within six subbasins/watersheds: the Sumas River, a
tributary to the Lower Fraser River; the
Black Slough in the lower South Fork
Nooksack River, a tributary of the
Nooksack River; Samish River; Black
River, a tributary of the Chehalis River;
Outlet Creek (Conboy Lake), a tributary
to the Middle Klickitat River; and Trout
Lake Creek, a tributary of the White
Salmon River. The Klickitat and White
Salmon Rivers are tributaries to the
Columbia River. The Oregon spotted
frogs in each of these sub-basins/
watersheds are isolated from frogs in
other sub-basins.
A reintroduction project was initiated
in 2008 at Dailman Lake in Pierce
County on Joint Base Lewis-McChord
Military Reservation. This sub-basin
(Nisqually River) was historically
occupied by Oregon spotted frogs with
documented occurrences at Spanaway
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
Lake, Spanaway Pond, Little Spanaway
Lake and Kapowsin (McAllister and
Leonard 1997, pp. 18–19). Eggs were
collected from the Black River and the
Conboy Lake Oregon spotted frog
breeding locations, captive reared until
metamorphosis, and released in the fall
or subsequent spring. Through 2011,
researchers collected 7,870 eggs and
released 3,355 frogs (Tirhi and Schmidt
2011, pp. 51–53). Surveys in April 2011
found 3 verified Oregon spotted frog egg
masses and 11 suspected egg masses.
However, breeding was not detected in
2012. This effort is ongoing and the
efficacy and viability of a breeding
Oregon spotted frog population being
established in this area is undetermined.
The reintroduction efforts at this
location are not likely to facilitate
Oregon spotted frog recovery in this
extirpated sub-basin because of the
extent of development at the historical
locales and lack of suitable habitat;
therefore, this location will not be
discussed further.
In Oregon, Oregon spotted frogs are
known to occur only within eight subbasins: Lower Deschutes River, Upper
Deschutes River, Little Deschutes River,
McKenzie River, Middle Fork
Willamette, Upper Klamath, Upper
Klamath Lake, and the Williamson
River. The Oregon spotted frogs in most
of these sub-basins are isolated from
frogs in other sub-basins, although
Oregon spotted frogs in the lower Little
Deschutes River are aquatically
connected with those below Wickiup
Reservoir in the Upper Deschutes River
sub-basin. Oregon spotted frog
distribution west of the Cascade
Mountains in Oregon is restricted to a
few lakes in the upper watersheds of the
McKenzie River and Middle Fork
Willamette River sub-basins, which
represent the remaining 2 out of 12
historically occupied sub-basins.
In California, this species has not
been detected since 1918 (California
Academy of Science Museum Record
44291) at historical sites and may be
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
extirpated (Hayes 1997 pp. 1, 35).
However, there has been little survey
effort of potential habitat since 1996, so
this species may still occur in
California.
Population Estimates and Status
Of the 61 historical localities where
the species’ previous existence can be
verified (e.g., museum specimens,
photographs, reliable published
records), only 13 were confirmed as
being occupied in studies conducted in
the 1990s (Hayes 1997, p. 1; McAllister
and Leonard 1997, p. 20). Hayes visited
historical localities one to four times,
with a minimum of 2 hours devoted to
site visits for localities that could be
identified precisely. For sites where the
location was imprecisely known, he
searched three to six points in the area
that possessed favorable habitat, for 20
minutes to 3 hours, depending on site
size. He also visited sites that were
judged to have a potentially high
likelihood of having Oregon spotted
frogs (i.e., within the historical range,
consistent with elevations documented
for verifiable specimens, and within
suitable habitat) (Hayes 1997, p. 6).
Based on those studies, Hayes (1997, p.
1) estimated the species may no longer
occur in 76 to 90 percent of its historical
range. Although this estimated loss of
historical localities does not take into
account the localities found since 2000,
the current range of the Oregon spotted
frog is significantly smaller than the
historical range, based on the best
available scientific and commercial
information.
Egg mass counts are believed to be a
good metric of adult population size and
are the most time-efficient way to
estimate population size (Phillipsen et
al. 2009, p. 7). Adult females lay one egg
mass per year, and the breeding period
occurs within a reliable and predictable
timeframe each year (McAllister 2006,
pers. comm.). Egg mass numbers are
collected in a single survey timed to
coincide with the end of the breeding
season, when egg laying should be
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
complete and the egg mass count
represents a reliable estimate of total egg
masses. Because one egg mass is
approximately equivalent to one
breeding female plus one to two adult
males, a rough estimate of adult
population size can be made if a
thorough egg mass census is completed
(Phillipsen et al. 2009, p. 7). Using egg
mass counts to estimate population size
has some weaknesses. For example,
researchers have uncertainties about
whether adult females breed every year
and find difficulty in distinguishing
individual egg masses in large
communal clusters. However, a
minimum population estimate can be
derived from the total egg mass count
multiplied by two (one egg mass equals
two adult frogs). While there are
weaknesses in these estimates, as
discussed above, they are the best
estimates available for Oregon spotted
frog numbers.
Egg mass counts, as currently
conducted at most sites, do not allow for
evaluation of trends within a site nor
between sites because surveys are not
standardized. Survey effort, area
coverage, and timing can differ between
years at individual sites. In addition,
method of survey can differ between
years at individual sites and differs
between sites. Because of the
weaknesses associated with the egg
mass counts, site estimates derived from
egg mass counts are considered to be a
minimum estimate and generally should
not be compared across years or with
other sites. However, some breeding
locations have been surveyed in a
consistent manner (in some cases by the
same researcher) and for enough years
that trend data are available and
considered to be reliable. Trend
information is provided in the following
sub-basin summaries for the locations
where the information is available.
For the purposes of this document,
the terms ‘location’ and ‘site’ simply
refer to the general locations where
breeding has been observed. In some
cases, a site may be equivalent to an
Oregon spotted frog population (for
example, Penn Lake). In other cases, a
site may include multiple breeding
locations within wetland complexes
where hydrological connections may
facilitate movement between breeding
areas, but where movement patterns and
genetic conditions are undetermined
within the complexes (for example,
Klamath Marsh NWR. Accordingly, a
site should not be interpreted to be a
population. Because of the lack of
complete information between breeding
locations, populations were not
specifically identified for this status
review, and the focus of our analysis
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
regarding the status of Oregon spotted
frogs was within the individual river
sub-basins.
The following summarizes the best
available scientific and commercial
information available regarding
populations within the currently
occupied river sub-basins in British
Columbia, Washington, and Oregon. We
used multiple data sources, including
various unpublished reports, databases,
and spreadsheets provided by our
partner agencies. These sources are
identified in the following sections as
‘‘multiple data sources’’ and are
included in our literature cited list,
which is included as supplementary
information on https://
www.regulations.gov for this proposed
rule. These sources are available upon
request from the Washington Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES). In most
sub-basins, trend information regarding
the collective status of the populations
within the sub-basin is limited or not
available, though it is presented below
where available. The status of a subbasin may be undetermined because the
Oregon spotted frog presence has only
recently been identified, the trend
information is uncertain, or sufficient
survey information is not available to
indicate a trend. However, when viewed
at the range-wide scale, the Oregon
spotted frog has been extirpated from
most of its historical range, and the
threat of current and future impacts to
the Oregon spotted frog occurs over the
entire range of the species. Ongoing
threats have significantly reduced the
overall extent and distribution of
suitable habitat for the Oregon spotted
frog, as discussed in ‘‘Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species’’ below.
British Columbia
Currently, Oregon spotted frogs are
known to occur only within four sites in
the Lower Fraser River Basin. Of the
four sites, Maintenance Detachment
Aldergrove (MD Aldergrove) is nearing,
or may have reached extirpation, as no
egg masses have been discovered at the
site since 2006; Mountain Slough
appears to be stable; Maria Slough may
be declining; and there is limited data
for the recently discovered Morris
Valley site (COSEWIC 2011, p. v).
Estimates from the three most wellstudied populations (MD Aldergrove,
Maria Slough, Mountain Slough)
indicate a population decline of 35
percent during the period 2000–2010
(COSEWIC 2011, p. 32), and the most
recent egg mass counts indicate the
minimum population size for all of
British Columbia is fewer than 350
adults (COSEWIC 2011, pp. 27–30). One
extant population is near extinction,
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
53589
and the remaining populations are small
and vulnerable to disturbance and
stochastic events. Extirpation of the MD
Aldergrove population would result in a
reduction of 76 percent of the extent of
Oregon spotted frog in the Lower Fraser
River (COSEWIC 2011, pp. vii–ix).
Therefore, populations of Oregon
spotted frogs in the Lower Fraser River
are declining.
Washington
In Washington, the Oregon spotted
frog was historically found in the Puget
Trough from the Canadian border to the
Columbia River, and east to the
Washington Cascades (McAllister et al.
1997, p. vii). Current distribution is
limited to four watersheds in the Puget
Trough, three that drain to Puget Sound
and one that drains to the Pacific Ocean,
and two watersheds in the southeast
Cascades that drain to the Columbia
River. In 1997, the locations for 11
historical populations in Washington
were verified using museum specimen
and published records, and only 1
historically known population and 2
recently discovered populations were
known to remain in Washington in 1997
(McAllister et al. 1997, p. vii). The
authors also stated that past populations
of the Oregon spotted frog in
Washington are largely undocumented
(McAllister et al. 1997, p. 18). Current
population estimates are based on the
2012 census of egg masses at all known
extant breeding areas. Based on these
estimates, the minimum population in
Washington was at least 7,368 breeding
adults in 2012.
Trend data are limited; however, the
Oregon spotted frog population in the
Middle Klickitat River (Conboy Lake)
appears to be declining (see below for
further information). The population
trend within the rest of the occupied
sub-basins is unknown, although some
individual breeding areas may be stable
or extirpated (for example, 110th Ave in
the Black River). More detailed
discussions of Washington’s occupied
sub-basins/watersheds are provided
below.
Lower Chilliwack River (Sumas
River)—In 2012, one Oregon spotted
frog breeding area was found on a
privately owned dairy farm on a small
tributary to the Sumas River (Bohannon
et al. 2012). The Sumas River is a
tributary to the Lower Fraser River,
along which the British Columbia
breeding areas occur. However, the
breeding area on the Sumas River is
more than 20 mi (35 km) upstream of
the confluence with the Fraser River,
and separated by unsuitable aquatic
habitat. Therefore, an aquatic
connection to the British Columbia
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53590
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
breeding areas is not likely (COSEWIC
2011, p. 12). Fewer than 50 egg masses
(<100 adults) were found during the
2012 surveys, however, suitable habitat
within the Sumas River has not been
surveyed extensively (Bohannon et al.
2012) and the full extent of Oregon
spotted frog distribution and abundance
has not been determined.
South Fork Nooksack River—In 2011
and 2012, Oregon spotted frog breeding
areas were found on privately owned
parcels in the Black Slough, a tributary
of the South Fork Nooksack River. On
one parcel, the egg-laying habitat was in
off-channel wetlands dominated by reed
canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) and
recent shrub plantings. Egg-laying areas
on other parcels were located within
former pasture lands that had been
planted with trees and fenced within
the last 2 or 3 years under the
Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program (CREP) to eliminate grazing
and improve water quality (Bohannon et
al. 2012). At least 230 adults (based on
2012 surveys) are associated with the
known breeding areas along the Black
Slough; however, this area has not been
surveyed extensively (Bohannon et al.
2012), and the full extent of Oregon
spotted frog distribution and abundance
has not been determined.
Samish River—In 2011 and 2012,
Oregon spotted frog breeding areas were
found on privately owned parcels along
the upper reaches of the Samish River.
All of the breeding areas are seasonally
flooded grazed or formerly grazed
pasture lands that are predominantly
reed canarygrass (Bohannon et al. 2012).
At least 1,220 adults (based on 2012
surveys) are associated with the known
breeding areas along the Samish River;
however, this area has not been
surveyed extensively, and the full extent
of Oregon spotted frog distribution and
abundance has not been determined.
Black River—Oregon spotted frogs
occupy wetlands in the floodplain and
tributaries of the upper Black River
drainage between Black Lake and the
town of Littlerock. They are currently
known to occur at two locations within
the Black River floodplain (Blooms
Ditch near 110th Avenue Bridge and
near 123rd Avenue) and in four
tributaries: Dempsey Creek, Salmon
Creek, Allen Creek, and Beaver Creek
(Hallock 2013; WDFW and USFWS
multiple data sources). In 2012, a new
breeding location was detected along
Fish Pond Creek, which flows directly
into Black Lake, not Black River. Oregon
spotted frog egg-laying areas in the
Black River may be isolated from each
other and the frogs associated with the
Fish Pond Creek may not be
hydrologically connected to frogs in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
Black River due to the human alteration
of the Black Lake drainage pattern.
Further investigation of this new
location is needed.
The full extent of the population’s
distribution, abundance, and status in
the Black River has not been
determined. As of 2012, the Black River
adult breeding population comprised at
least 1,748 breeding adults (Hallock
2013, p. 27). Oregon spotted frogs in
Dempsey Creek have been monitored
relatively consistently since the late
1990s. Other breeding areas in the Black
River have been monitored
inconsistently or are newly found, and
surveys to identify additional breeding
locations continue. The Dempsey Creek
breeding area may be declining, but the
trend for the remainder of the occupied
areas is undetermined.
White Salmon River (Trout Lake
Creek)—Oregon spotted frogs occupy
approximately 1,285 ac (520 ha) of the
lower Trout Lake Creek watershed,
ranging in elevation 1,960–2,080 ft
(597–633 m). In total, as of 2012, a
minimum population estimate of 2,124
breeding adults (Hallock 2012)
associated with 12 breeding areas have
been identified. Two of the breeding
areas have been monitored since they
were found by Leonard (1997). The
other locations have been monitored
sporadically since they were discovered.
Monitoring of egg mass numbers at two
breeding areas within the Trout Lake
NAP revealed considerable population
volatility and a general pattern of
decline from 2001 through 2007
(Hallock 2011, p. 8). During the period
of egg mass declines, three events of
note occurred that could have
influenced frogs at the NAP: Annual
precipitation was unusually low, cattle
grazing was reduced and then
eliminated, and frogs infected with
chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium
dendrobatids (Bd)) were present (Pearl
et al. 2009b, Hayes et al. 2009). While
the 2009 and 2010 egg mass counts
indicate that Oregon spotted frog
numbers may be rebounding within the
eastern portions of the NAP, the
numbers in the western portion
continue to be less than half of the
estimates from the 1990s.
Middle Klickitat River (Conboy
Lake)—The extent of Conboy Lake
wetland complex habitat occupied by
Oregon spotted frogs at high water is
approximately 7,462 ac (3,020 ha),
ranging in elevation 1,804–1,896 ft
(550–576 m). This wetland complex
comprises two lakebeds that are entirely
seasonal (except in wet years) and are
joined by Camas Ditch, which flows into
Outlet Creek, the main drainage for the
system that flows northeast into the
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Klickitat River. As of 2012, there were
a minimum of 1,954 breeding adults in
the Conboy Lake wetland complex
(Hallock 2013, p. 27). This used to be
the largest Oregon spotted frog
population throughout the entire range
(highest egg mass count 7,018 in year
1998). However, Oregon spotted frog egg
mass surveys suggest a continued longterm decline (approximately 86 percent)
since 1998 (Hayes and Hicks 2011;
Hallock 2013, p. 36). At present, the
population trend of Oregon spotted
frogs in the Middle Klickitat River is
considered to be declining.
Oregon
Population estimates of Oregon
spotted frogs in Oregon are primarily
based on egg mass surveys conducted in
2011 and 2012 at all known extant sites,
and newly discovered occupied areas
that had been unsurveyed prior to 2012.
Population estimates for the Middle
Fork Willamette River sub-basin are
based on mark-recapture studies
conducted by USGS in 2011, rather than
egg mass surveys. Based on these survey
data, the minimum population estimate
in Oregon consists of approximately
12,847 breeding adults. More detailed
discussions of Oregon’s occupied subbasins are provided below and are
available in our files.
Lower Deschutes River—Within the
Lower Deschutes River sub-basin, a
single extant population of Oregon
spotted frog occurs at Camas Prairie, an
82-ac (33-ha) marsh located along
Camas Creek in the White River
watershed. The Camas Prairie Oregon
spotted frogs are the most
geographically isolated, carry several
alleles that are absent or rare in other
sites, and have the lowest genetic
diversity of Oregon spotted frogs
rangewide (Blouin et al. 2010, p. 2185).
The frogs at this location appear to be
the only remaining representatives of a
major genetic group that is now almost
extinct (Blouin et al. 2010, p. 2190).
Since 2004, egg mass surveys have been
conducted annually, and the population
trend has been positive. Based on the
2012 egg mass count, the minimum
population size of breeding adults is 152
(Corkran 2012, pers. comm.). Although
the population trend has been positive
at the single known location, the
number of individuals in the population
remains low.
Upper Deschutes River—Oregon
spotted frogs in the Upper Deschutes
River sub-basin occur in high-elevation
lakes up to 5,000 ft (1,524 m), wetland
ponds, and riverine wetlands and
oxbows along the Deschutes River.
Approximately 13 known breeding
locations are within four watersheds in
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
the sub-basin: Charleton Creek, Browns
Creek, Fall River, and North Unit
Diversion Dam. Eight of these breeding
locations occur in lakes on the
Deschutes National Forest that drain to
the Crane Prairie and Wickiup Reservoir
complex. Three of the known breeding
sites occur downstream of Wickiup
Reservoir in riverine wetlands along the
Deschutes River, extending to Bend,
Oregon.
The consistency of population
surveys varies by breeding site, and
population trend information is limited.
Only two sites within the sub-basin
have been monitored consistently since
the early 2000s and show an increasing
population trend: Dilman Meadow and
Sunriver (USGS and J. Bowerman 2000
through 2012 datasets). Trend data are
not available for the remainder of
populations within the Upper Deschutes
River sub-basin. Sunriver, located
downstream of Wickiup Reservoir, is
the largest population of Oregon spotted
frogs within the Deschutes River subbasin with a population of at least 1,454
breeding adults based on 2012 egg mass
surveys (J. Bowerman dataset 2012). A
minimum population estimate for the
Upper Deschutes River sub-basin
(including Sunriver) is approximately
3,530 breeding adults based on surveys
since 2006 (USGS 2006 to 2012 and J.
Bowerman 2012 datasets).
Little Deschutes River—Oregon
spotted frogs are distributed throughout
wetland, pond, and riverine habitats in
the Little Deschutes River sub-basin,
which drains an area of approximately
1,020 square miles (2,600 km2) and
flows north from its headwaters in
northern Klamath County to its
convergence with the Deschutes River 1
mi (1.2 km) south of Sunriver and
approximately 20 mi (32 km) south of
Bend, Oregon. The Little Deschutes
River is approximately 92 mi (148 km)
long. Approximately 23 known breeding
locations (as of 2012) are within five
watersheds in the sub-basin: Upper,
Middle, and Lower Little Deschutes
River; Crescent Creek; and Long Prairie.
Big Marsh, a 2,000-ac (809 ha) wetland
located within headwaters at 4,760 ft
(1,451 m) elevation on the Deschutes
National Forest, has the largest
monitored population of Oregon spotted
frogs in the Little Deschutes River subbasin and possibly rangewide. The
estimated population size of Big Marsh
based on a 2012 U.S. Forest Service
(USFS) egg mass survey is 5,324
breeding adults (male and female)
(USFS data 2012).
Because 70 percent of the sub-basin is
privately owned and mostly
unsurveyed, a population estimate for
the entire Little Deschutes River sub-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
basin is difficult to determine. A
minimum population estimate of
Oregon spotted frogs based on limited
survey data from public and private
lands in 2012 is approximately 6,628
breeding adults (including Big Marsh
above). However, the vast acreage of
wetland complexes and suitable habitat
for Oregon spotted frogs along the
mainstem Little Deschutes River and
Crescent Creek indicate that the frog
population within the unsurveyed areas
may be well above this estimate.
Although the trend of the frog
population at Big Marsh appears to be
increasing based on USFS surveys from
2002 to 2012 (USFS 2002–2012), the
population trend of the remainder of
frogs within the sub-basin is
undetermined.
McKenzie River—Oregon spotted frogs
in the McKenzie River sub-basin are
located within the South Fork McKenzie
River watershed in an area referred to as
the Mink Lake Basin in the wilderness
of the Willamette National Forest. There
are two known breeding populations:
one at Penn Lake and one at an
unnamed marsh 0.28 mi (0.45 km) north
of Mink Lake. The Penn Lake and
Unnamed Marsh populations are about
0.93 mi (1.5 km) apart and are not
hydrologically connected via surface
water. Mark-recapture monitoring of
these populations has been conducted
by USGS from 2007 through 2011
(Adams et al. 2007, 2008 p. 13, 2009 p.
14, 2010 p. 14 and 2011 p. 14). A
population estimate for breeding adults
in the McKenzie River sub-basin, based
on mark-recapture efforts by USGS in
2011 is 217 (i.e., 179 at Penn Lake and
38 at Unnamed Marsh) (Adams et al.
2011). However, trend has not been
estimated for these populations.
Middle Fork Willamette River—
Oregon spotted frogs in the Middle Fork
Willamette River sub-basin are limited
to a single population at Gold Lake and
bog, located in the 465-ac (188-ha) Gold
Lake Bog Research Natural Area on the
Willamette National Forest within the
Salt Creek watershed. This population is
one of three remaining populations of
Oregon spotted frogs west of the
Cascade mountain crest in Oregon. The
Gold Lake Bog site consists of three
small ponds over an area of
approximately 3.7 ac (1.5 ha) within a
larger bog where three major streams
converge. Breeding surveys are
periodically conducted by USGS and
the Willamette National Forest.
However, long-term trend data are
lacking for this site. Based on USGS egg
mass surveys in 2007, the estimated
population size is approximately 1,458
breeding adults (USGS datasets).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
53591
Williamson River—Oregon spotted
frogs in the Williamson River sub-basin
occur in two watersheds: Klamath
Marsh/Jack Creek and Williamson River
above Klamath Marsh and consist of
three populations: Jack Creek, Klamath
Marsh NWR, and the Upper Williamson
River. Data from 1996 through the
present suggests the Jack Creek
population is declining, and the survey
data from 2000 through the present
suggests that the Klamath Marsh
population is stable. These watersheds
are a mixture of both private and public
(BLM, USFS, and NWR) lands and
consist of both wetland and riverine
potential habitats from 4,500 to 5,200 ft
(1,371–1,585 m) in elevation. As of
2011, the minimum population estimate
for the sub-basin is approximately 376
breeding individuals (male and female)
(KMNWR 2011, USFS 2012, USGS
multiple datasets). Permission to survey
adjacent private lands has not been
obtained, however, the private lands
surrounding the public lands appear to
have suitable habitat and likely contain
additional breeding complexes and
individuals.
Upper Klamath Lake—Oregon spotted
frogs in the Upper Klamath Lake subbasin occupy two watersheds that flow
into Upper Klamath Lake: Klamath Lake
and Wood River. There are four
populations in this sub-basin: Crane
Creek, Fourmile Creek, Sevenmile
Creek, the Wood River channel and the
adjacent but separate BLM Wood River
canal. These populations occur in both
riverine and wetland habitats.
Historically, these two watersheds were
hydrologically connected. Survey efforts
on Fourmile Creek, Sevenmile Creek,
and the Wood River channel have been
sporadic while Crane Creek and the
BLM Wood River canal have been
surveyed annually. These data suggest
that there is still insufficient
information to obtain population trends
for all but the BLM Wood River canal
population, which is declining. As of
2011, the minimum population estimate
for the sub-basin is approximately 374
breeding individuals (male and female)
(USGS multiple datasets, BLM multiple
datasets). Permission to survey adjacent
private lands has not been obtained,
however, the private lands surrounding
the known populations appear to have
suitable habitat and likely contain
additional breeding complexes and
individuals. Trend data are lacking for
three out of four populations in the
Upper Klamath Lake.
Upper Klamath—Oregon spotted frogs
in the Upper Klamath sub-basin occupy
two lacustrine habitats: Parsnip Lakes in
Jackson County and Buck Lake in
Klamath County. Both of these sites are
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
53592
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
isolated hydrologically by great
distances (>20 mi (32 km)) and
hydrological barriers (inhospitable
habitat and dams) to other sites in the
Klamath Basin. Historical surveys in
this sub-basin resulted in a population
estimate of about 1,170 adults (range of
<0 to 2,379, 95 percent CI) (Hayes
1998a, p. 10 and Parker 2009, p. 4).
Trend data is lacking for Parsnip Lakes
population in the Upper Klamath subbasin, but recent surveys conducted at
Buck Lake have documented small
numbers of egg masses (38 egg masses
in 2010, or the equivalent of 76 breeding
individuals (male and female) and 18
egg masses at Parsnip Lakes, or 36
breeding individuals (male and female)
(BLM 2012). Survey data for the Upper
Klamath sub-basin suggests that the
Buck Lake population is in decline.
However, there is insufficient survey
data information to determine the
population trend of the Parsnip Lakes
population. The minimum population
estimate for this sub-basin is currently
(2011) estimated to be 112 breeding
individuals suggesting drastic
population declines since 1998.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Summary of Current Population Range
and Trend
Oregon spotted frogs may no longer
occur in as much as 90 percent of their
historically documented range,
including all of the historical localities
in California (i.e., 90 percent of the
historical areas are no longer occupied).
Currently, the Oregon spotted frog is
found in 15 sub-basins ranging from
extreme southwestern British Columbia
south through the Puget Trough, and in
the Cascades Range from south-central
Washington at least to the Klamath
Basin in Oregon. Oregon spotted frogs
occur in lower elevations in British
Columbia and Washington and are
restricted to higher elevations (i.e.,
4,000 to 5,200 ft (1,219 to 1,585 m) in
Oregon. In addition, Oregon spotted
frogs currently have a very limited
distribution west of the Cascade crest in
Oregon and are considered to be
extirpated from the Willamette Valley.
In most sub-basins, trend information
regarding the collective status of the
populations within the sub-basin is
limited or not available. The best
available scientific and commercial
information available indicates the
trend is undetermined for Oregon
spotted frog populations in 13 of the
sub-basins and is declining in the Lower
Fraser River and Middle Klickitat subbasins. Threats to the remaining
populations are ongoing or increasing,
however, as described below.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533),
and its implementing regulations at 50
CFR part 424, set forth the procedures
for adding species to the Federal Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the
Act, we may list a species based on any
of the following five factors: (A) The
present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E)
other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. Listing
actions may be warranted based on any
of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination. Each of these threats/
factors is discussed below.
Threats for the Oregon spotted frog
were assessed by breeding locations and
occupied watersheds, then summarized
by occupied sub-basin. Each of the five
threat categories were summarized by
sub-basin using the unified threats
classification system (loosely based on
the IUCN–CMP (World Conservation
Union–Conservation Measures
Partnership)), best available data, and
best professional judgment. We
summarized each occupied sub-basin
for scope, severity, impact, timing, and
stress, to ensure our determination
would be based on the best scientific
and commercial data available, as
required under section 4(b)(1)(A). Scope
is the proportion of the occupied area
within the sub-basin that can reasonably
be expected to be affected. Severity is
the level of damage to the species from
the threat that can reasonably be
expected. Impact summarizes the degree
to which a species is observed, inferred,
or suspected to be directly or indirectly
affected and is based on the
combination of the severity and scope
rating (for example, if the severity and
scope ratings were both high, then the
impact rating was high). Timing is the
immediacy of the threat (i.e., is the
threat ongoing, could happen in the
short term, or is only in the past). Stress
is the key ecological, demographic, or
individual attribute that may be
impaired or reduced by a threat. The
completed analysis (Threats Synthesis
Rangewide Analysis) is available at
https://www.regulations.gov and https://
www.fws.gov/wafwo. The syntheses by
threat categories are included in the
following threat factor discussions.
Large historical losses of wetland
habitat have occurred across the range
of the Oregon spotted frog. Wetland
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
losses are estimated from between 30 to
85 percent across the species range with
the greatest percentage lost having
occurred in British Columbia. These
wetland losses have directly influenced
the current fragmentation and isolation
of remaining Oregon spotted frog
populations.
Loss of natural wetland and riverine
disturbance processes as a result of
human activities has and continues to
result in degradation of Oregon spotted
frog habitat. Historically, a number of
disturbance processes created early
successional wetlands favorable to
Oregon spotted frogs throughout the
Pacific Northwest: (1) Rivers freely
meandered over their floodplains,
removing trees and shrubs and baring
patches of mineral soil; (2) beavers
created a complex mosaic of aquatic
habitat types for year-round use; and (3)
summer fires burned areas that would
be shallow water wetlands during the
Oregon spotted frog breeding season the
following spring. Today, all of these
natural processes are greatly reduced,
impaired, or have been permanently
altered as a result of human activities,
including stream bank, channel, and
wetland modifications; operation of
water control structures (e.g., dams and
diversions); beaver removal; and fire
suppression.
The historical loss of Oregon spotted
frog habitats and lasting anthropogenic
changes in natural disturbance
processes are exacerbated by the
introduction of reed canarygrass,
nonnative predators, and potentially
climate change. In addition, current
regulatory mechanisms and voluntary
incentive programs designed to benefit
fish species have inadvertently led to
the continuing decline in quality of
Oregon spotted frog habitats in some
locations. The current wetland and
stream vegetation management
paradigm is generally a no-management
or restoration approach that often
results in succession to a tree- and
shrub-dominated community that
unintentionally degrades or eliminates
remaining or potential suitable habitat
for Oregon spotted frog breeding.
Furthermore, incremental wetland loss
or degradation continues under the
current regulatory mechanisms. If left
unmanaged, these factors are
anticipated to result in the eventual
elimination of remaining suitable
Oregon spotted frog habitats or
populations. The persistence of habitats
required by the species is now largely
management dependent.
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Factor A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Threats to the species’ habitat include
changes in hydrology due to
construction of dams and human-related
alterations to seasonal flooding,
introduction of nonnative plant and
animal species, vegetation succession
and encroachment, poor water quality,
livestock grazing (in some
circumstances), and residential and
commercial development.
Habitat losses and alterations affect
amphibian species in a variety of ways,
including reducing or eliminating
immigration through losses of adjacent
populations (see ‘‘Factor E’’) and effects
on critical aspects of the habitat (Hayes
and Jennings 1986, pp. 492–494). These
critical aspects include suitable egglaying and nursery sites, refuges from
predation or unfavorable environmental
conditions, and suitable temperatures
necessary for egg laying, growth, and
development (Hayes and Jennings 1986,
pp. 492–494).
Because Oregon spotted frogs have
specific habitat requirements, they are
particularly vulnerable to habitat
alterations: (1) A restricted number of
communal egg-laying locations are used
year after year; (2) the species’ warm
water microhabitat requirement results
in habitat overlap with introduced
warm water fish species and other warm
water fauna that prey on Oregon spotted
frogs (for example, bullfrogs); (3) the
availability of suitable warm water
habitat, a requirement in the active
season, is generally limited in the cool
climate of the Pacific Northwest; (4) the
species is vulnerable to the loss or
alteration of springs used for
overwintering; and (5) their habitat
requirements (for example, spatial
structure) for overwintering, active
season, and breeding habitats are more
complex than for other frog species
(Hayes et al. 1997, p. 4). In addition,
breeding habitat is arguably the single
most important habitat component for
many aquatic-breeding amphibians
because amphibian embryos and larvae
depend on aquatic habitats for survival
(Leonard 1997, p. 1).
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Loss of Wetlands
British Columbia—Extensive diking of
river ways and draining of Sumas Lake
for conversion to agriculture
significantly modified drainage patterns
and resulted in loss of associated
wetlands in the Fraser River lowlands of
British Columbia (COSEWIC 2011, p.
20). Boyle et al. (1997, p. 190) estimated
an 85 percent loss of habitat types
preferred by Oregon spotted frogs (fen,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
swamp/bog/marsh) between 1820 and
1990. Moore et al. (2003 cited in
COSEWIC 2011) found wetland loss
continued between 1989 and 1999 as a
result of urban and agricultural
encroachment. Agricultural land use
changes, such as the conversion of field
habitat to blueberry and cranberry
production, has led to impacts through
drain tile installation and riparian area
encroachment/erosion. Sediment
deposition into streams and wetlands by
runoff from adjacent agricultural fields
can impact Oregon spotted frog breeding
habitat by changing the channel/
wetland shape and depth (Lynch and
Corbett 1990). Land conversion for
agriculture is ongoing at Mountain
Slough and to some extent at Maria
Slough and Morris Valley (COSFRT
2012, p. 24), within Oregon spotted frog
habitat.
Washington—Estimates for
Washington indicate that over 33
percent of wetlands were drained,
diked, and filled between pre-settlement
times and the 1980s (Canning and
Stevens 1990, p. 23); losses in the
historical range of the Oregon spotted
frog are even higher because of the high
degree of development in the low
elevations of the Puget Trough
(McAllister and Leonard 1997, p. 22).
Major alterations to Conboy Lake
wetland complex in Washington began
when settlers started moving to
Glenwood Valley in the late 1800s. Wet
meadows were drained through a series
of canals, ditches, and dikes largely
developed between 1911 and 1914, and
remain today. The five creeks that flow
into this wetland complex and the Cold
Springs ditch are entirely channelized
within the wetland complex. Ditching,
filling, and other habitat alterations
have resulted in little or no retention of
surface water in the late-season lakebeds
(Conboy Lake and Camas Prairie),
reducing the amount of aquatic habitat
available for the Oregon spotted frog.
The historical Conboy lakebed is
believed to have retained water for 10 to
12 months in most years. Currently, it
retains water only during wet years and
is purposefully drained annually to
control bullfrogs (Ludwig 2012, pers.
comm.). The Camas Prairie portion of
Glenwood Valley retains water yearround over a small area and only in wet
years. Typically, aquatic habitat is
reduced to about 1,000 ac (400 ha)
during the late summer and early fall
(Hayes et al. 2000), and once the
seasonal lakebeds dry, the network of
ditches and channels provide the only
aquatic habitat for Oregon spotted frogs.
In order to maintain sufficient flow
through the system, a small area of Bird
Creek must be excavated every 2 to 3
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
53593
years to remove the high level of sand
and gravel that is deposited annually
from upstream. Most of the other
ditches have been cleaned on a much
less frequent basis (intervals of up to 20
years), although in the future, the
Conboy Lake NWR plans to clean select
reaches on a 5–10 year cycle (Ludwig
2012, pers. comm.).
Oregon—Historical losses of wetland
in Oregon are estimated at 38 percent
between pre-settlement times and the
1980s with 57 and 91 percent of these
losses concentrated in the Willamette
Valley and Klamath Basin, respectively
(Dahl 1990). Wetland loss continues in
the Willamette Valley (Daggett et al.
1998; Morlan et al. 2005). Between 1982
and 1994, a net loss of 6,877 ac (2783
ha) of wetlands (2.5 percent of the 1982
wetland area) occurred, primarily due to
conversion to agriculture (Daggett et al.
1998 p. 23), and between 1994 and
2005, an estimated additional net loss of
3,932 ac (1591 ha) (1.25 percent of the
1994 wetland area) took place, primarily
due to development (Morlan et. al. 2010.
pp. 26–27). Oregon spotted frogs are
believed to be extirpated from the
Willamette Valley.
Human alteration of wetlands in the
central Oregon Cascades has been a less
severe threat since many of the sites
inhabited by the Oregon spotted frog are
located at high elevation and within
lakes and wetlands located on Federal
lands managed by the USFS. However,
damming and diverting water for
irrigation needs has resulted in the loss
of wetlands within the Upper Deschutes
sub-basin beginning in the early 1900s
(see hydrology section below). Wetland
loss is also an ongoing threat to Oregon
spotted frogs within the Little Deschutes
River sub-basin in south Deschutes
County, where land development has
increased since the 1960s.
A substantial amount of wetland
habitat in the Klamath Basin has been
drained and converted to other uses,
primarily for grazing and row-crop
production, although the extent of this
loss is difficult to estimate due to a lack
of accurate historical data (Larson and
Brush 2010). The majority of wetland
degradation and alteration took place in
the southern part of the upper basin,
where extensive drainage occurred at
Tule and Lower Klamath Lakes in the
early 20th Century (Larson and Brush
2010, p. 4). Wetlands at the north end
of the basin, including Sycan Marsh,
Klamath Marsh, Upper Klamath Lake,
and in the Wood River Valley, have also
suffered extensive hydrologic alteration.
Ongoing losses are currently minimized
due to strict regulations governing
wetlands, and there are no known
ongoing losses of wetlands in the
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
53594
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Klamath Basin. In addition, restoration
efforts are under way in the Klamath
Basin (see Conservation Efforts to
Reduce Habitat Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its
Range), reversing wetland losses to
some degree. However, because of
subsidence, reconnection of former
wetlands to Upper Klamath Lake
resulted in these areas being too deep to
support marsh vegetation and many of
these areas do not support the variety of
wildlife that they did formerly when
they were marshes. Therefore, these
wetlands are unlikely to provide all of
their former functions.
Loss of Wetlands Conclusion—
Historical loss of wetlands has been
extensive throughout the range of the
species, and is the primary reason for
the absence of the species from as much
as, or more than, 90 percent of its former
range (also see Historical Distribution).
Land conversions that result in loss of
wetlands are continuing throughout the
range. Wetlands continue to be lost or
degraded in at least 10 of the 15
occupied sub-basins. Even though these
losses are occurring at much lower rates
than in the past because of Federal and
State regulations that pertain to
wetlands (see Factor D), the ongoing
loss of wetlands continues to pose a
threat to the Oregon spotted frog.
Hydrological Changes
Changing water levels at critical
periods in the Oregon spotted frog’s life
cycle, whether natural or humaninduced, has negatively affected the
species. Lowered water levels have
exposed individuals to predation by
reducing cover and confining them to
smaller areas where they are more
vulnerable to predators (see also Factor
C). Water level reduction during the
breeding season, due to both natural and
anthropogenic causes, has resulted in
the loss of the entire reproductive effort
for the year due to stranding and
desiccation of the egg masses in British
Columbia (Licht 1971, p. 122; COSFRT
2012, p. 18), Washington (Lewis et al.
2001, p. 8; Hayes et al. 2000, pp. 6–7),
and Oregon (Pearl and Hayes 2004, p.
24). Excessive seasonal flooding at
critical periods has also resulted in the
loss of shallow wetlands needed for egglaying and development.
Most of the currently occupied
Oregon spotted frog sites are threatened
by changes in hydrology. Twenty-one of
twenty-eight (75 percent) sites surveyed
in Washington and Oregon have had
some human-related hydrological
alterations, ranging from minor changes
(for example, local ditching around
springs) to substantial changes,
including major modifications of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
historical flow patterns (Hayes 1997, p.
43; Hayes et al. 1997, p. 6). Oregon
spotted frogs in four of the occupied
sub-basins (Lower Fraser River, Middle
Klickitat River, Little Deschutes River,
and Upper Klamath) are experiencing
high to very high impacts due to
ongoing hydrological changes based on
the unified threats classification system
ranking, described above. The altered
hydrology has affected both breeding
and wintering habitat, as discussed
below.
Water Diversions/Manipulations—
Dams in the upper watersheds of the
Puget Trough, Willamette Valley, and
the Deschutes River have significantly
reduced the amount of shallow overflow
wetland habitat that was historically
created by natural flooding (Cushman
and Pearl 2007, pp. 16–17). The
inundation of large marsh complexes,
and habitat fragmentation by the
construction of reservoirs in the
Cascades, has also eliminated and
degraded Oregon spotted frog habitat.
We are not aware of proposals for
construction of new dams or reservoirs
that would pose a threat to the existing
Oregon spotted frog populations in
British Columbia, Washington, or
Oregon. However, the operation of
existing dams/diversions/water control
structures in Washington and Oregon
continues to affect populations of
Oregon spotted frogs due to extreme
water fluctuations between and within
years. These operations inundate and
desiccate Oregon spotted frog habitat,
while creating and maintaining habitat
suitable for nonnative predaceous
species.
Water management in the Glenwood
Valley, Washington (Middle Klickitat
River sub-basin), appears to be playing
a significant role in the decline of the
Oregon spotted frog in this sub-basin.
Water management in this area is
complex due to the juxtaposition of
landowners and water diversion
structures. The need to retain water on
the Conboy Lake NWR for resources,
including the Oregon spotted frog,
conflicts with needs of the intermingled
and adjacent private landowners who
want water drawn down in order to
grow reed canarygrass for haying or to
graze cattle. In addition, water
management on the NWR is constrained
by failing dikes, plugged ditches,
undersized culverts, and lack of water
control structures (USFWS 2012, p. 27).
Dewatering by Conboy Lake NWR
generally begins June 1, but begins as
early as April on privately held lands,
which also results in the dewatering of
some refuge lands (USFWS 2012, p. 28).
The Camas Prairie area of the valley is
drained annually to facilitate
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
production of hay and grazing
opportunities (USFWS 2012, p. 28).
Dewatering breeding areas during the
egg stage results in desiccation of
Oregon spotted frog egg masses.
Dewatering during the rearing stage
results in tadpole mortality if water is
not retained through metamorphosis.
Physical barriers created by the dike
system hinders young frogs (recently
metamorphed) from moving into
permanent waters, especially when
water is drawn down too quickly or a
surface water connection to permanent
water is not retained. Disconnection
from permanent water occurs in some
places in the valley, which results in
young frogs becoming stranded and
dying. In the areas where a connection
to permanent water is retained and frogs
are able to move with the water, the
frogs become concentrated in smaller
areas with predators such as fish and
bullfrogs or become easy targets for
terrestrial predators (Engler 2003; 2006,
pers. comm.). This issue is complex,
because the nonnative bullfrog is fairly
common on the refuge, and studies
indicate they can prey heavily on native
frog species, including Oregon spotted
frog.
Water management can be used as a
method to reduce bullfrog tadpole
survival by drying up seasonal wetlands
completely by early fall. However,
widespread drawdowns for bullfrog
tadpole control can conflict with the
need to provide rearing, movement, and
summertime water for Oregon spotted
frogs (USFWS 2010b, pp. 36, 63, 67).
Surveys since 1998 have documented
extensive annual declines in Oregon
spotted frog egg mass numbers due to
early water drawdowns and perennially
low water; therefore, inadequate water
or poorly timed water management
activities continue to be a threat to
Oregon spotted frog that has a
significant negative impact on
recruitment (the addition of young
individuals to the adult population) and
survival in the Middle Klickitat River
sub-basin.
In the Upper Deschutes River subbasin in Oregon, regulated water
releases from Crane Prairie and Wickiup
Reservoirs result in extreme seasonal
fluctuations in stream flows that have
affected the amount of overwintering
and breeding habitat available for
Oregon spotted frogs. Prior to the
construction of Wickiup Dam in 1947,
the Deschutes River below the current
dam site exhibited stable flows
averaging approximately 730 cubic feet
per second (cfs) (20.7 cubic meters per
second (cms)) and 660 cfs (18.7 cms)
during summer and winter, respectively
(Hardin-Davis 1991). Water storage in
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
the reservoirs during winter, water
releases in the spring, and water
diversions for irrigation result in
extremely low winter flows (October
through March) in the Deschutes River
below Wickiup Dam of approximately
20–30 cfs, 0.6–0.8 cms, and high
summer flows (July and August) of
approximately 1,400 cfs (39.6 cms).
Because water releases from Wickiup
Reservoir typically occur in early to
mid-April, potential breeding habitats
downstream of Wickiup Dam on the
mainstem Deschutes River may not have
sufficient water during the breeding
season to facilitate frog movement and
breeding.
Currently, Oregon spotted frog
breeding is known to occur in only three
areas downstream of Wickiup Reservoir:
Sunriver, Slough Camp, and Old Mill
Pond (including adjacent Les Schwab
Amphitheater marsh on the Deschutes
River). Oregon spotted frog habitat at
Sunriver Resort has been managed and
maintained by Sunriver Nature Center
by using weirs to stabilize the water
levels from the beginning of the
breeding season through
metamorphosis, which has resulted in a
large and fairly stable population of
Oregon spotted frogs, despite the low
river flows during the breeding season.
Breeding and dispersal of
metamorphosing frogs at the Slough
Camp site is likely affected by the
seasonal timing of storage and release of
water from the reservoir each year.
Adults have been observed at the inlet
to Slough Camp (east side) prior to the
flow releases from the reservoir in early
April, indicating that frogs may be
staging to access breeding habitat that
becomes accessible when flows are
released for the irrigation season
(Higgins 2012, pers. comm.). At the
onset of the storage season in October,
the east side of Slough Camp drains
rapidly of water, which could result in
stranding of frogs that have bred and
reared in this location. In August 2012,
Oregon spotted frogs were discovered in
a water retention pond at The Old Mill
District shops in downtown Bend,
Oregon. The shallow pond holds water
year round and is approximately 20 ft (6
m) from the Deschutes River channel.
The hydrological relationship between
the pond and flow manipulation within
the river has not been determined.
However, there is an outflow from the
pond, and the detection of numerous
juvenile Oregon spotted frogs in a large
marsh on the Deschutes River across
from the pond at The Old Mill
(Bowerman 2012, pers. comm.)
indicates there is a connection to the
river. The impacts of regulated river
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
flows to Oregon spotted frogs within the
large marsh area remain to be evaluated.
Oregon spotted frog habitat in the
Little Deschutes River sub-basin in
Oregon may also be affected by
regulated water management
downstream of Crescent Lake Dam in
Crescent Creek and the Little Deschutes
River below the confluence with
Crescent Creek. Regulated water releases
from Crescent Lake typically occur in
June, just after the breeding season. Egg
mass stranding has been observed on
three separate occasions along the Little
Deschutes River, downstream of the
confluence with Crescent Creek, prior to
the release of irrigation water (Demmer
2012, pers. comm.). Overwintering
habitats may be limited when flows
from Crescent Lake typically cease in
October at the onset of the storage
season. Groundwater may be
ameliorating the impacts from the
regulated water management in Crescent
Creek in locations where groundwater
discharges to the stream (Gannett et al.
2001), but a full analysis has not yet
been conducted.
In the Klamath Basin, the Upper
Klamath sub-basin populations are
particularly vulnerable to water
diversion and manipulation. Water from
Hyatt (30 cfs; 0.8 cms) and Howard
Prairie Reservoirs (50 cfs; 1.4 cms) are
diverted to Keene Creek Reservoir
(Ferrari 2000, p. 1; Bear Creek
Watershed Council 2001, p. 139)
upstream of Parsnip Lakes (Jackson
County), known occupied habitat for the
Oregon spotted frog. Approximately 190
cfs (5.4 cms) of water is diverted from
Keene Creek Reservoir and used for
municipal consumptive and
hydroelectric energy purposes (BOR
2009 Web site; BOR 2011 Web site). In
addition, water from Buck Lake
(Klamath County) can be manipulated,
depending on water needs, in such a
way that water is moved quickly across
the landscape. Water flow in the Upper
Klamath Lake and Williamson River
sub-basins is highly manipulated
(modified) to improve forage production
for cattle grazing (see Livestock Grazing
Klamath Basin discussion) (NRCS 2010,
p. 60). The water is diverted (removed)
after egg masses have been laid, but
prior to their hatching, thus resulting in
both stranding and desiccation of
upstream egg masses while, at the same
time, inundating downstream egg
masses.
Development—Other hydrological
changes result from the development of
homes and roads adjacent to wetlands
with Oregon spotted frogs. Development
introduces new impervious surfaces
which increase the amplitude and
frequencies of peak highs and lows in
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
53595
water levels, a hydrologic characteristic
that has been implicated in reduced
amphibian species diversity in wetlands
in King County, Washington (Richter
and Azous 1995, p. 308). (See
Development section below for further
discussion).
Drought—Changes in water levels due
to drought, and exacerbated by human
modification, has caused seasonal loss
of habitat and degradation of essential
shoreline vegetation that has resulted in
reduced recruitment regionally (Licht
1971, p. 122; Licht 1974, p. 623). In
1997, Hayes identified 14 of 24 (58
percent) Oregon spotted frog breeding
locations across the extant range as
having a moderate to high risk from
drought (1997, pp. 43–45). Drought risk
was based on the potential for a drop in
water level that could reduce or
eliminate the species’ habitat. Sites with
the greatest risk included those sites
with low precipitation levels and sites
dependent upon surface flow rather
than flow from springs. Sites with the
greatest risk from drought are in the
Klamath and Deschutes River basins of
Oregon (Hayes 1997, p. 44; Hayes et al.
1997, p. 6). The impact of a drought on
an Oregon spotted frog population
depends on the amount of complex
marsh habitat at a site, the availability
of alternative breeding and rearing
areas, and the abundance of aquatic
predators (Pearl 1999, p. 15).
Both Hayes (1997, p. 43) and Pearl
(1999, pp. 17–18) hypothesized that low
water conditions will increase the
overlap between Oregon spotted frogs
and nonnative predators, such as brook
trout and bullfrogs, by concentrating
tadpoles and froglets in the only
available habitat. Such increased
overlap is expected to increase
predation losses of Oregon spotted frogs
(Pearl et al. 2004, pp. 17–18). Several
seasons of low water are expected to
cause local population extirpations of
Oregon spotted frogs, particularly where
a small isolated population occupies a
limited marsh habitat that has a high
abundance of aquatic predators (Pearl
1999, p. 15). Low water in breeding
habitat will also expose eggs to
increased ultraviolet radiation and
higher mortality associated with
pathogens (Kiesecker et al. 2001a, p.
682) (see Factor C Disease section).
Since 1960, the Klamath Basin has had
8 of the 10 lowest inflows for Upper
Klamath Lake between 1991 and 2009
(USFWS 2011a, p. 25). This has resulted
in poor water quality and reduced
Oregon spotted frog reproduction due to
desiccation of egg masses (BLM and
USFS multiple data sources). In
addition, 5 of the 10 sites in the
Klamath Basin are vulnerable to water
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53596
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
management practices that are timed
such that the seasonal life-history needs
of the Oregon spotted frog are not met.
Although the Chemult Ranger District,
Fremont-Winema National Forest, in
Klamath County, Oregon, documented
high numbers of egg masses at Jack
Creek in 1999 and 2000 (335 and 320
respectively) (Forbes and Peterson 1999,
p. 6), drought conditions impacted the
Oregon spotted frog populations in
subsequent years. The drought occurred
during the time period in which the
Oregon spotted frog population
dramatically declined at Jack Creek
(Gervais 2011, p. 15). In 2001, those
conditions restricted Oregon spotted
frog breeding to three small, disjunct
areas representing less than 25 percent
of their typical habitat. Although there
were sufficient water depths in the
breeding pools in 2002, only 17 percent
of historical egg mass numbers were
detected, and 50 percent of the eggs did
not hatch compared to the 68 to 74
percent hatch rates documented by
Licht (1974, p 618). The impacts of the
drought were further complicated when
Oregon spotted frog habitat was
impacted by algal blooms, poor water
quality, loss of protective habitat, and
alteration of the bank condition (USDA
2009a, pp. 31, 33–34). By 2011, only 1
percent of historical egg mass numbers
were documented at this site.
Loss of Beaver—American beaver
(Castor canadensis) create a complex
mosaic of aquatic habitat types that
provides the seasonal habitat needs of
the Oregon spotted frog. Water
impoundments created and engineered
by beavers result in a water storage
reservoir that raises the water table,
reduces downstream erosion, lessens
flood events (unless the dam is
breached), holds water year round and
maintains stream flow during dry
periods. Specifically, silt-filled
abandoned ponds become shallow
wetlands and beaver meadows, which
have characteristics ideal for egg-laying.
Beaver-maintained ponds retain deeper
waters important for summer foraging
and growth of metamorphosed frogs,
and these ponds also provide
overwintering habitat. When hypoxic
conditions occur in the wetlands and
ponds, the frogs can move to the more
oxygenated waters of the associated
creek, where they use microhabitat
features created by beavers such as large
woody debris and bank tunnels (Hallock
and Pearson 2001, pp. 9–12; Shovlain
2005, p. 10).
Comparisons of beaver-occupied and
not occupied watersheds in Montana in
relation to Columbia spotted frog
populations found: (a) Beaver
watersheds had four times as many
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
lentic and breeding sites than nonbeaver watersheds; (b) frog breeding
sites were dispersed within beaver
drainages, while non-beaver watersheds
often had only one frog breeding site; (c)
frog breeding sites were evenly
distributed across the elevational
gradient in beaver watersheds, while
they were centered above the watershed
midpoint in non-beaver watersheds; (d)
frog breeding sites were more dispersed
within drainages with evidence of
beaver presence than would be expected
given the configuration of the
underlying lentic habitat and have
persisted despite being separated by
distances larger than the frog’s dispersal
ability; (e) beaver watersheds with an
average distance of less than 5 km
between breeding sites showed higher
levels of connectivity than did nonbeaver watersheds with an average
distance of more than 5 km between
breeding sites; and (f) short beaver
watersheds had lower levels of genetic
divergence between breeding sites than
those in long non-beaver watersheds
separated by the same distance, even
when distances were within the
commonly observed dispersal ability of
the frogs (Amish 2006, entire). Columbia
and Oregon spotted frogs were separated
into two separate species (Rana pretiosa
(Oregon spotted frog) and Rana
luteiventris (Columbia spotted frog)),
based on genetic analysis (Green et al.
1996, 1997). They are closely related
species and likely evolved in a similar
way, with beavers playing a vital role in
how frogs are distributed within a
watershed.
By 1900, beaver had been nearly
extirpated in the continental United
States (Baker and Hill 2003, p. 288).
Beavers have made a remarkable
comeback in many areas through natural
recolonization and relocation efforts
(ODFW 2012, p. 1); however, their role
as ecological engineers is still severely
curtailed region-wide, particularly
within human-populated areas, because
they are often considered a pest species
because they can flood roads and
property and destroy trees that are
valued by landowners (Baker and Hill
2003, p. 301). In at least one site, a
significant Oregon spotted frog decline
was attributed to the removal of a series
of beaver dams that resulted in water
loss within some of the breeding areas
leading to high embryo mortality
attributed to stranding (Hayes et al.
2000, p. 2). In Trout Lake Creek in
Washington, the loss of a beaver dam to
a natural flood event resulted in a
significant decline (117 egg masses in
2001 to 0 in 2012) in Oregon spotted
frog reproduction (Hallock 2012, p. 33).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Lack of beavers within a watershed has
been determined by USFS and BLM to
be a threat to maintenance of Oregon
spotted frog habitat, and these agencies
have identified the Williamson, Upper
Klamath Lake, and Upper Klamath subbasins for reintroduction of beaver.
The States of Washington and Oregon
allow lethal removal of beavers and
their dams. Under Washington State
law, the beaver is classified as a
furbearer (WAC 232–12–007). The
owner, the owner’s immediate family,
an employee, or a tenant of property
may shoot or trap a beaver on that
property if a threat to crops exists (RCW
77.36.030). In such cases, no special
trapping permit is necessary for the use
of live traps. However, a special
trapping permit is required for the use
of all traps other than live traps (RCW
77.15.192, 77.15.194; WAC 232–12–
142). It is unlawful to release a beaver
anywhere within Washington, other
than on the property where it was
legally trapped, without a permit to do
so (RCW 77.15.250; WAC 232–12–271).
To remove or modify a beaver dam, one
must have a Hydraulic Project Approval
(HPA)—a permit issued by WDFW for
work that will use, obstruct, change, or
divert the bed or flow of State waters
(RCW 77.55). Beavers are present to a
varying degree within all Oregon
spotted frog occupied sub-basins in
Washington and are maintaining
breeding habitats in some areas within
the S.F. Nooksack River, Black River,
White Salmon River, and Middle
Klickitat River sub-basins. Active
removal of beavers or their dams is
occurring in at least the S.F. Nooksack
River, Black River, and Middle Klickitat
River sub-basins and may be occurring
in the other occupied sub-basins in
Washington.
Beavers on public lands in Oregon are
classified as Protected Furbearers by
Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 496.004
and Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR)
635–050–0050. A trapping license and
open season are required to trap beavers
on public lands. Beavers on private
lands are defined as a Predatory Animal
(ORS 610.002) and private landowners
or their agents may lethally remove
beavers without a permit from ODFW.
Currently, the presence of beavers
results in active maintenance of Oregon
spotted frog habitat in the Little
Deschutes River, Upper Deschutes
River, Middle Fork Willamette River,
Williamson River, and Upper Klamath
Lake sub-basins. Active removal of
beavers and their dams can occur in the
Oregon spotted frog habitat in all of
these occupied sub-basins in Oregon.
Under State laws in both Washington
and Oregon, it is lawful to kill beavers
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
or to remove or modify beaver dams,
and those lawful actions reduce or
degrade wetland habitats used by all life
stages of Oregon spotted frogs.
Hydrologic Changes Conclusion—A
variety of factors affecting the hydrology
of wetlands and riverine systems cause
the loss or detrimental modification of
habitats necessary for the survival and
reproduction of Oregon spotted frogs.
Within 11 of the 15 sub-basins occupied
by the species, water diversions/
manipulations, development, drought,
and loss of beavers are resulting in
hydrological changes that pose a threat
to all life stages of the Oregon spotted
frog, including loss of or disconnections
between breeding, rearing, and
overwintering habitat, as well as
desiccation or flooding of egg masses.
The impact to Oregon spotted frogs of
these hydrological changes has been
determined—based on our unified
threats classification system (Rangewide
Threats Synthesis)—to be moderate to
very high in five of the occupied subbasins: Middle Klickitat River, Upper
Deschutes River, Little Deschutes River,
Williamson River, and Upper Klamath.
Changes in Vegetation
Oregon spotted frog egg-laying sites
are generally characterized by low
vegetation canopy coverage and a
substrate at least partially covered with
the previous year’s emergent herbaceous
vegetation (Leonard 1997, p. 3; Hayes et
al. 2000, p. 8; Pearl and Bury 2000, p.
6; Pearl 1999, p. 15). Egg masses are
generally found in shallow water over
vegetation and are rarely found above
open soil or rocky substrates (Hayes et
al. 2000, p. 8, Pearl and Bury 2000, p.
8). Watson et al. (2003, p. 296) found
that habitat selection by Oregon spotted
frogs during the breeding season was
strongly correlated with sedge habitat in
Washington. In Oregon, Pearl et al.
(2009a, p.141) found the dominant
vegetation at egg-laying areas to be
sedge-rush habitat.
Loss of natural wetland and riverine
disturbance processes as a result of
human activities has and continues to
result in degradation of Oregon spotted
frog habitat. Historically, a number of
natural forces created early successional
wetlands favorable to Oregon spotted
frogs. These forces included rivers
meandering over their floodplains,
removing trees and shrubs and baring
patches of mineral soil; beavers felling
trees and woody shrubs, trampling
vegetation, and dragging limbs and logs
through shallows; and summer fires
burning areas that would be shallow
water wetlands during the Oregon
spotted frog breeding season the
following spring. Today, all of these
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
forces are greatly reduced, impaired, or
have been permanently altered as a
result of human activities. In addition,
the current wetland management
paradigm is generally a no-management
approach that often results in continued
invasion by invasive plants or
succession to a tree- and shrubdominated community, both of which
are unsuitable for Oregon spotted frog
breeding.
Invasive plants such as reed
canarygrass may completely change the
structure of wetland environments, and
can create dense areas of vegetation
unsuitable as Oregon spotted frog
habitat (McAllister and Leonard 1997, p.
23). Reed canarygrass competitively
excludes other native plant species and
limits the biological and habitat
diversity of host wetland and riparian
habitats (Antieau 1998, p. 2). Reed
canarygrass also removes large
quantities of water through
evapotranspiration, potentially affecting
shallow groundwater hydrologic
characteristics (Antieau 1998, p. 2).
Reed canarygrass dominates large areas
of Oregon spotted frog habitat at lower
elevations (Hayes 1997, p. 44; Hayes et
al. 1997, p. 6) and is broadening its
range to high-elevation (i.e., above 4,500
feet (>1,371 m)) Oregon spotted frog
habitat in the Little Deschutes and
Upper Deschutes River sub-basins in
Oregon (USDA 2008, USDA 2009b;
USDA 2009c; and USDA 2011b).
Watson et al. (2003, p. 296) compared
the types and amount of habitat used by
Oregon spotted frogs and found the
frogs used areas of reed canarygrass less
frequently than other habitats based on
availability. Given this apparent
avoidance of reed canarygrass,
vegetation shifts to reed canarygrass
dominance in wetlands occupied by
Oregon spotted frogs are likely affecting
Oregon spotted frog breeding behavior.
Studies conducted in Washington
(White 2002, pp. 45–46; Pearl and Hayes
2004, pp. 22–23) demonstrated that the
quality of breeding habitats for Oregon
spotted frogs is improved by reducing
the height of the previous years’
emergent vegetation (i.e., reed
canarygrass in these cases). However,
improvement in breeding habitat for
Oregon spotted frogs was retained only
if vegetation management was
maintained. For example, in all
occupied sub-basins in Washington and
in the Klamath subbasin in Oregon, an
indirect effect of the removal of cattle
grazing has been the reduction in the
amount and quality of breeding and
rearing habitat due to encroachment by
vegetation, such as reed canarygrass and
shrubs. The effects of grazing vary
among sites and likely depend on a
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
53597
suite of factors including, but not
limited to, timing, intensity, duration,
and how these factors interact with
seasonal habitat use patterns of Oregon
spotted frog.
Reed canarygrass is present at three of
the British Columbia breeding areas and
is the dominant vegetation at most of
the breeding areas in Washington. In
Oregon, reed canarygrass is colonizing
portions of Big Marsh and Little Lava
Lake, both of which are headwaters to
the Little Deschutes and Upper
Deschutes River sub-basins,
respectively. Reed canarygrass also is
present in Oregon spotted frog habitat at
Lava Lake, Davis Lake, Wickiup
Reservoir, multiple sites along the Little
Deschutes River (i.e., 7 out of 13
surveyed sites), Slough Camp, Wood
River Wetland, the Klamath Marsh
NWR, Fourmile Creek, and the
Williamson River. The impact to Oregon
spotted frogs due to habitat loss from
reed canarygrass invasion has been
determined through our threat analyses
to be high to very high in seven subbasins: Lower Fraser River in British
Columbia and all sub-basins in
Washington. The threat to Oregon
spotted frog habitat from reed
canarygrass is considered to be
moderate in two sub-basins in Oregon:
Little Deschutes River and Upper
Deschutes River.
Vegetation succession was indicated
as a negative factor at almost all
remaining Oregon spotted frog sites
analyzed by Hayes, who noted that
some sites were particularly vulnerable
to habitat loss where marsh-to-meadow
changes were occurring (Hayes 1997, p.
45). Pearl (1999, p. 15) suggested that
the aquatic habitat types necessary for
Oregon spotted frog reproductive sites
in lake basins exist only within a
narrow successional window. As marsh
size decreases due to plant succession,
shallow warm water sites required by
Oregon spotted frogs are lost to
increased shading by woody vegetation
(Pearl 1999, pp. 15–16). Investigations
by Hayes (1997, p. 45) and Pearl (1999,
p. 16) ranked 22 of 28 Oregon spotted
frog sites as having a moderate or high
threat from vegetation succession.
Encroachment around and into marshes
by lodgepole pine and other woody
vegetation is occurring at Conboy Lake
in Washington (Ludwig 2011, p. 3) and
at multiple breeding locations in
Oregon, and is likely facilitated by
ditching and draining of wetter sites to
improve grazing (Cushman and Pearl
2007, p. 17). The highest impact to
Oregon spotted frogs resulting from
lodgepole pine encroachment is taking
place in the Upper Deschutes River subbasin and in the upper elevations of the
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53598
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Little Deschutes River sub-basin in
Oregon, where these breeding habitats
(i.e., those within the riparian lodgepole
plant association group), evolved with
fire as a natural disturbance process.
The loss of natural fire cycles in forests
of the eastern Cascade Mountains due to
suppression on National Forest land
since 1910 (Agee 1993, p. 58) has
allowed succession to continue without
disturbance. Plot data suggest that
historical fire return intervals for
riparian lodgepole pine vegetation types
in central Oregon ranged 12–36 years
and averaged 24 years (Simpson 2007,
p. 9–6), indicating that this disturbance
process was more frequent historically
in this forest type.
The United States Department of
Agriculture’s National Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) and Farm
Service Agency have several voluntary
programs, including the Wetland
Reserve Program (WRP), CREP, and
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program
(WHIP). The WRP and CREP are
voluntary programs designed to help
landowners address concerns regarding
the use of natural resources and
promote landowner conservation. Under
the WRP, landowners enter into a
voluntary agreement with NRCS to
protect, restore, and enhance wetlands
on their property. Various enrollment
options are available to landowners,
including Permanent Easements, 30Year Easements, Restoration Cost-Share
Agreements, or 30-Year Contracts
(USDA NRCS 2013). Under the CREP,
the Farm Service Agency provides
payments to landowners who sign a
contract committing to keeping lands
out of agricultural production for a
period of 10 to 15 years. NRCS produces
technical guidelines generally aimed at
improving soil conditions, agricultural
productivity, and water quality, which
generally do not result in specific
conservation measures for the
protection of the Oregon spotted frog.
Rather, restoration actions funded or
carried out by NRCS include planting
trees and shrubs in riparian areas.
These activities have had unforeseen
consequences to Oregon spotted frog
habitat by degrading breeding habitat
because, as discussed above, tree- and
shrub-dominated communities are
unsuitable for Oregon spotted frog
breeding. This is known to have
occurred within the last 10 years at
breeding locations in Black, Samish,
and South Fork Nooksack Rivers in
Washington (USFWS Nisqually NWR;
Bohannon et al. 2012) and may be
happening elsewhere. Currently, one
known occupied private land parcel has
entered into a WRP agreement in the
Klamath Basin in Oregon. The WRP
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
agreement for this particular parcel
allows no grazing in perpetuity, which
in the long term, may result in reduced
quality of Oregon spotted frog habitat.
We are aware of at least one CREP
contract in the South Fork Nooksack
River sub-basin that resulted in conifer
tree plantings in Oregon spotted frog
breeding locations which resulted in the
wetted areas becoming drier and mostly
shaded. The Service has had
preliminary discussions with NRCS and
is working with the agency to address
this management issue.
Changes in vegetation conclusion—
Expansion of reed canarygrass into
Oregon spotted frog habitat poses a
threat to the continued existence of
these habitats given the invasive nature
of the plant and its ability to
outcompete native vegetation in
wetland habitats. Shallow water
wetlands inhabited by Oregon spotted
frog are threatened through rapid
encroachment of the grass and increased
evapotranspiration of water. Loss of
habitat at breeding sites due to reed
canarygrass is high to very high in seven
occupied sub-basins in British Columbia
and Washington. Reed canarygrass
poses a threat in the Little Deschutes
and Upper Deschutes River sub-basins
in Oregon, and is present at varying
abundances in many locations occupied
by Oregon spotted frog.
Vegetation succession, particularly
where natural disturbance processes are
lacking, is a negative factor at almost all
Oregon spotted frog sites. Structural
changes to vegetation that occur through
succession, whether from native or
nonnative grasses, shrubs, or trees,
results in decreased wetland size and
amount of open water area available to
frogs. Furthermore, shrub and tree
encroachment increases shading of
shallow warm water sites required by
Oregon spotted frogs for breeding and
rearing. Encroachment by lodgepole
pine and other woody vegetation is
occurring at multiple breeding locations
in Washington and Oregon and is
considered a threat in at least seven subbasins: Lower Deschutes River, Upper
Deschutes River, McKenzie River,
Middle Fork Willamette River,
Williamson River, Upper Klamath Lake,
and Upper Klamath. Unintended loss of
habitat is taking place as a result of
riparian restoration activities that
remove grazing and plant shrubs and
trees within sub-basins occupied by
Oregon spotted frogs in Washington and
Oregon. Therefore, based on the best
scientific information available, changes
in vegetation pose a threat to Oregon
spotted frogs throughout the range of the
species.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Development
Removal or alteration of natural
riparian vegetation around watercourses
or wetlands for urban or agricultural
development compromises aquatic
ecosystem function via reductions in
biodiversity and water quality and
quantity. Residential and commercial
encroachment often destroy or disturb
natural vegetation, alter water flows and
seasonal flooding, or result in the loss
of entire wetland complexes.
Agricultural practices, including
grazing, can result in the rapid removal
of water across the landscape for
stimulation of early grass production.
All of these factors have been shown to
reduce the survival and reproductive
capacity of Oregon spotted frogs, as
discussed previously.
Although the historical impact of
development has significantly reduced
the abundance and geographic
distributions of Oregon spotted frogs
(for example, the Fraser River Valley in
British Columbia, Puget Trough in
Washington, and Willamette Valley in
Oregon), development is currently an
ongoing threat at only a few specific
locations. In British Columbia, housing
and residential developments continue
to remove or alter habitat at Mountain
and Maria Sloughs, and there are new
commercial developments at Mountain
Slough (COSFRT 2012, p. 26).
In Washington, some counties
prohibit draining of wetlands and some
counties require setbacks from wetlands
(see Factor D for further information),
but this is not consistent, nor
consistently implemented. In addition, a
large proportion of the breeding areas
for Oregon spotted frogs in Washington
are not technically classified as a
wetland under the county definitions
because these areas are seasonally
flooded pastures. The private lands
surrounding breeding areas for Oregon
spotted frog in most of the occupied
sub-basins are presently zoned as rural
or rural residential, which is designed
only to allow low-density housing and
maintain the rural and agricultural uses.
However, the human populations of all
counties in the Puget Sound area are
growing and Thurston, Whatcom, and
Skagit Counties have the 6th, 9th, and
10th largest populations, respectively,
among Washington State’s 39 counties
(U.S. Census Bureau data downloaded
August 29, 2012). Between 1990 and
2011, the populations in these three
counties have doubled. This population
increase is expected to continue,
resulting in new residential and
commercial developments that will alter
vegetation, water flow, and the seasonal
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
flooding that creates and maintains
habitat for Oregon spotted frogs.
Development of land along the Little
Deschutes River and its tributaries in
Oregon is a continued threat to Oregon
spotted frogs. The rural character of the
Little Deschutes River watershed, the
attractive location of private property on
the Little Deschutes River, and
relatively inexpensive land prices have
contributed to a rapidly growing
population (UDWC 2002, p. 12). In the
1960s and 1970s before Oregon
statewide planning regulated growth
and development, 15,000 one- and twoacre lots were created in subdivisions in
the vicinity of the Little Deschutes
River. Since 1989, Deschutes County
has been the fastest growing county in
Oregon on a percentage basis. The
unincorporated areas of Deschutes
County, including the lower portions of
the Little Deschutes River, are projected
to increase in population size by as
much as 56 percent above the 2000 level
over the next 20 years (UDWC 2002, p.
12). This rapid population growth rate
is expected to continue into the future
(UDWC 2002, p. 12), thereby increasing
risks to wetland habitats that support
Oregon spotted frogs in the vicinity of
the Little Deschutes River.
Development in the Klamath Basin is
also increasing in Oregon. The
population of Klamath County increased
10.5 percent from 1990 to 2000 (U.S.
Census Bureau 2008) and annual
housing starts have increased by 13
percent since 2000 (Portland State
University 2011 Web site). Much of the
growth is outside of city boundaries,
and several large residential
developments are within or adjacent to
wetlands that historically had the ability
to support Oregon spotted frog habitat.
In addition, agricultural practices,
including grazing, occur extensively
within all three occupied sub-basins.
This has the potential to result in the
desiccation or inundation of Oregon
spotted frog habitat (See Livestock
Grazing Klamath Basin discussion).
While it is unknown to what extent
urban development has impacted
Oregon spotted frog habitat, agricultural
development is ongoing and continues
to impact Oregon spotted frog habitat.
Development conclusion—
Development of residential, commercial,
and agricultural properties is continuing
in at least 10 of the sub-basins occupied
by the Oregon spotted frog. In some
areas, the human population is expected
to continue to grow. Development
activities directly and indirectly have
removed or altered habitat necessary to
support all life stages of Oregon spotted
frogs. Therefore, we consider
development—both at the present time
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
and in the future—to be a threat to
Oregon spotted frogs.
Livestock Grazing
In several riparian zones and wetland
complexes in British Columbia,
Washington, and Oregon, livestock
grazing occurs within Oregon spotted
frog habitat, although its effects vary
with the site conditions, livestock
numbers, timing, and intensity.
Livestock (primarily horses and cows)
can cause direct mortality by trampling
adult frogs (Ross et al. 1999, p. 163) and
egg masses when livestock are allowed
in shallow water habitat when frogs are
present. Livestock graze and trample
emergent and riparian vegetation,
compact soil in riparian and upland
areas, and reduce bank stability, which
results in increased sedimentation and
water pollution via urine and feces
(Hayes 1997, p. 44; Hayes 1998b, p. 8;
61 FR 25813). The resulting increases in
temperature and sediment production,
alterations to stream morphology, effects
on prey organisms, and changes in
water quality negatively affect Oregon
spotted frog habitat. Livestock also act
as vectors for the introduction of weed
seeds that alter riparian vegetation
characteristics (Belsky and Gelbard
2000, p. 9), and they are a source of
introduced parasites and pathogens (See
Factor C).
Fourteen of twenty-eight (50 percent)
sites surveyed in British Columbia,
Washington, and Oregon were directly
or indirectly influenced (negatively and
positively) by livestock grazing (Hayes
1997, p. 44; Hayes et al. 1997, p. 6; Pearl
1999, p. 16). Severe habitat modification
has been caused by cattle at several
Oregon spotted frog localities in Oregon.
Large numbers of cattle at a site
negatively affect habitat for Oregon
spotted frogs, particularly at springs
used by frogs as overwintering sites
(Hayes 1997, p. 44). The most recent
work monitoring the effects of livestock
grazing on Oregon spotted frogs
involved grazed and ungrazed
treatments at Jack Creek on the Fremont
Winema National Forests in Oregon
(Shovlain 2005 entire). Shovlain’s
(2005, p. 11) work suggested that
livestock grazing displaced Oregon
spotted frogs to ungrazed exclosures as
grazing pressure outside the enclosures
increased. Livestock trampling and
consumption likely affects the
microhabitat preferred by Oregon
spotted frogs by reducing emergent and
riparian vegetation, which could
explain Shovlain’s findings. However,
the frogs in Shovlain’s study did not
show a preference for exclosures or
controls under lower grazing pressure.
Therefore, a moderate degree of grazing
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
53599
does not appear to affect frog behavior,
suggesting an intermediate level of
disturbance may be conducive to
Oregon spotted frog habitat use (Hayes
et al. 1997, p. 6, Hayes 1998b, pp. 8–9,
McAllister and Leonard 1997, p. 25,
Watson et al. 2003, p. 299).
Moderate livestock grazing can, in
some instances (for example, Dempsey
Creek in Washington), benefit Oregon
spotted frogs by maintaining openings
in the vegetation in highly altered
wetland communities (Hayes 1997, p.
44; Hayes et al. 1997, p. 6; McAllister
and Leonard 1997, p. 25). Watson et al.
(2003, p. 299) found that habitat at 78
percent of the Oregon spotted frog
locations surveyed at the Dempsey
Creek site had signs of grazing, which
created penetrable, open habitat that
was otherwise too dense for frog use.
British Columbia—Only one known
breeding location (Morris Valley) in the
Lower Fraser River sub-basin is grazed
(by horses) (COSEWIC 2011, p. 33), and
grazing is identified as a specific
concern for Oregon spotted frogs at this
location because of the potential for
trampling of egg masses, bank erosion,
and input of feces (COSEWIC 2011, p.
33).
Washington—In the recent past, it
appears that grazing was beneficial to
Oregon spotted frogs at all remaining
breeding areas in Washington; however,
grazing no longer occurs in the breeding
areas in four of the six sub-basins due
to land manager preferences and/or
water quality regulations that prohibit
grazing within certain distances from
rivers and wetlands. Active
management is required to maintain the
Oregon spotted frog habitat at these
locations due to heavy reed canarygrass
infestations, but funding is limited and
grazing had been the least expensive/
easiest management option. In the Black
River, grazing ceased along Dempsey
Creek when the privately owned dairy
operation was sold. Cows were
reintroduced to the Port Blakely Tree
Farm and Musgrove (Nisqually NWR)
parcels in 2008 (USFWS 2011b) as part
of a reed canarygrass control
experiment; however, Oregon spotted
frog egg mass numbers have not
increased as was expected (WDFW 2011
database; USFWS 2011b). Grazing
occurs at the only known breeding
location in the Lower Chilliwack River
sub-basin. This site has likely persisted
as a result of dairy cows maintaining the
site in a state of early seral habitat
(Bohannon et al. 2012, p. 17).
Oregon—Overgrazing of the Camas
Prairie in Oregon was considered a
threat to Oregon spotted frog prior to
2008, after which grazing was restricted
(Corkran 2012). Overgrazing by cattle
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53600
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
reduced the vegetative hiding cover for
frogs, making them more susceptible to
predation. Livestock-induced
fertilization resulted in an increased
density of the aquatic vegetation, which
inhibited the ability of frogs to drop
below the water’s surface when
threatened by predation while basking
(C. Corkran pers. comm. 2012).
However, grazing may be considered as
a management tool to maintain early
seral habitat for Oregon spotted frogs in
the future if necessary (C. Corkran pers.
comm. 2012).
None of the central Oregon Cascade
breeding locations within the Deschutes
and Willamette National Forests are
within grazing allotments. Known
breeding locations occur within
allotments on the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) Prineville District
lands along Crescent Creek, Long Prairie
Creek, and the Little Deschutes River.
Currently, only the Crescent Creek area
is affected by active grazing on BLM
lands, although there is potential for
grazing to occur on BLM lands along the
Little Deschutes River. Grazing has been
cited as an impact to riparian and
wetland habitats on private lands along
the Little Deschutes River (The
Wetlands Conservancy, 2004, p. 22).
Wetland habitats in the Little Deschutes
River sub-basin have been negatively
impacted by grazing through removal of
riparian vegetation, which destabilizes
banks and increases channel incision,
resulting in less water retention in
riparian wetlands and conifer
encroachment (UDWC 2002, pp. 21 and
53).
Six sites in the Klamath Basin are
associated with grazing: Jack Creek,
Buck Lake, Parsnip Lakes, and on
private lands on the Wood River,
Williamson River, and adjacent to
Klamath Marsh NWR. These sites are
potentially vulnerable to both the direct
impacts of grazing sedimentation,
trampling, as well as the indirect effect
of egg mass desiccation resulting from
water management techniques that
drain water early in frog breeding
season to stimulate grass production.
Livestock grazing is cited as a specific
concern for Oregon spotted frogs at Jack
Creek, Fremont-Winema National
Forest, Chemult Ranger District, in
Oregon (USDA 2004, pp. 56–57). Since
1999, the population has reduced from
670 breeding adults (335 egg masses) to
34 breeding adults (17 egg masses) in
2011. The two primary breeding sites in
Jack Creek occur on private land that is
heavily grazed in combination with
USFS allotments. This intensity of
grazing is expected to have degraded the
quality of the Oregon spotted frog
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
breeding habitat and reduced
reproduction (Shovlain 2005).
Since 2008, current USFS
management at the Jack Creek site has
not permitted cattle grazing on lands
occupied by Oregon spotted frogs
(Markus 2012, pers. comm.). However,
419 cow/calf pairs specifically
permitted for grazing have access to 61
acres (25 ha) of potential, but not
currently supporting, Oregon spotted
frog habitat on this 68,349 ac (27,660 ha)
combination of USFS and private
pasture. Within this pasture, however,
there are several riparian areas
accessible to grazing cattle as well as
one offsite watering source installed on
adjacent private land. The permittee for
this pasture has grazed their private
lands where Oregon spotted frogs are
known to occur, although the number of
cattle and timing are not known.
However, the permittee has also
partnered with the USFWS to complete
multiple conservation actions to benefit
Oregon spotted frogs and their habitats
on their private lands including—but
not limited to—the installation of 2 to
3 offsite watering sources, protection of
frog ponds, thinning of encroaching
lodgepole pine trees, and installation of
a wattle for water retention (Markus
2012, pers. comm.).
Conflicts between cattle and frogs
increase when stream flows are limited,
especially when cattle are using the
creek for drinking (Gervais 2011, p. 15).
Between 2001 and 2005, and again in
2007, drought conditions affected
habitat for Oregon spotted frogs in the
Chemult Ranger District, FremontWinema National Forest in Oregon.
However, until 2008 when grazing was
restricted, 419 cow/calf pairs had access
to the habitat areas associated with
Oregon spotted frogs (Gervais 2011, p.
11). Cattle were observed congregating
in Oregon spotted frog habitat because
nearly every other water source in the
allotment went dry (Simpson 2002,
pers. comm.). Trampling of frogs by
cattle and alterations in water quality,
bank structure, and loss of protective
vegetation compounded the impacts of
the reduction of available habitat due to
drought conditions on Oregon spotted
frog reproduction (USDA 2009a, pp. 31,
33–34).
Livestock Grazing Conclusion—Where
livestock grazing coincides with Oregon
spotted frog habitat, impacts to the
species include trampling of frogs and
changes in habitat quality due to
increased sedimentation, increased
water temperatures, water management
techniques, and reduced water quality.
The effects of livestock grazing vary
with site conditions, livestock numbers,
and timing and intensity of grazing. In
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Washington, all of the known occupied
areas have been grazed in the recent
past, but where grazing has been
removed, heavy infestations by invasive
reed canarygrass have reduced or
eliminated habitat for Oregon spotted
frogs unless other management
techniques were applied. In controlled
circumstances, moderate grazing can be
beneficial if it is the only practical
method for controlling invasive,
nonnative vegetation and sustaining
early seral stage vegetation needed for
egg laying. Grazing is ongoing in 10 of
the occupied sub-basins and is
considered to be a threat to Oregon
spotted frogs at these locations.
Conservation Efforts to Reduce Habitat
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Range
British Columbia—Past and ongoing
habitat conservation activities in British
Columbia include habitat creation at
MD Aldergrove, Maria Slough, and
Mountain Slough; habitat rehabilitation
at Maria and Mountain Sloughs; and
invasive grass species management at
MD Aldergrove, Maria Slough, and
Mountain Slough. There is also a
landowner stewardship contact program
that encourages stewardship activities at
Mountain Slough. However, the Service
concluded that these measures are not
sufficient to ameliorate threats to
Oregon spotted frogs in the Lower
Fraser River.
Washington—In Washington, some
reed canarygrass management is taking
place at most of the breeding locations
in the Black River, on the Trout Lake
NAP, and at Conboy Lake NWR. These
management techniques include
mowing, burning, cattle grazing, and
shade cloth. However, these
management techniques are not
widespread at any one location or
adequate to prevent loss of egg-laying
habitat.
Conboy Lake NWR in Washington has
completed several wetland restoration
projects to restore natural hydrological
processes to portions of the refuge. This
enabled the NWR to maintain
independent water management of
several wetlands, regardless of the
water-related impacts of local
landowners. However, under current
management, water is not retained
throughout the year on most of the NWR
and adjacent private wetlands, and
many of these areas that had Oregon
spotted frogs in the late 1990s no longer
have Oregon spotted frogs.
Cattle grazing ceased at Trout Lake
NAP in Washington after a monitoring
study showed no apparent positive
effect on the Oregon spotted frog
population trends (Wilderman and
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Hallock 2004, p. 10), indicating that
either grazing was not an effective tool
for reed canarygrass management at this
location, or that perhaps reed
canarygrass was not as threatening to
breeding frogs at this location as
previously thought. This may be
because winter snow pack compresses
the reed canarygrass, leaving none of the
previous season’s vertical stems
available to Oregon spotted frogs during
the breeding season. The observed
negative consequences of grazing, while
perhaps acceptable if there was clear
benefit to the Oregon spotted frog
populations, were not compatible with
other site management goals and posed
a limitation to future restoration on the
site (Wilderman and Hallock 2004, p.
14). Instead, problematic areas of reed
canarygrass are being managed using
ground barriers and occasional fall
mowing (Hallock 2012, p. 31).
Under the Washington State Forest
Practices Act, WDNR must approve
certain activities related to growing,
harvesting, or processing timber on all
local government, State, and privately
owned forest lands. WDNR’s mission is
to protect public resources while
maintaining a viable timber industry.
The primary goal of the forest practices
rules is to achieve protection of water
quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and
capital improvements while ensuring
that harvested areas are reforested.
Presently, the Washington State Forest
Practices Rules do not specifically
protect Oregon spotted frogs; however,
they do include protection measures for
surface waters and wetlands. The intent
of the protection measures, such as
buffers on wetlands, is to limit excess
coarse and fine sediment delivery and to
maintain hydrologic regimes. Tree
harvest is limited in wetland buffers,
which may in turn facilitate vegetation
encroachment. Landowners have the
option to develop a management plan
for the species if it resides on their
property, or if landowners choose not to
develop a management plan for the
species with WDFW, their forest
practices application will be
conditioned to protect this public
resource. While the Washington State
Forest Practices Rules provide some
protections for the Oregon spotted frog
and its habitat, the direct and indirect
consequences of limiting tree harvest
within the wetland buffer is vegetation
encroachment that is resulting in loss of
wetlands (i.e., reduced size) and
shading.
USDA NRCS is overseeing the
restoration at two Samish River
locations and is incorporating Oregon
spotted frog breeding habitat
requirements into its planned
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
restoration (that originally included deleveling and tree and shrub plantings in
the breeding areas) (Bohannan et al.
2012, p. 17).
Oregon—In Oregon, several
conservation actions have been and
continue to be implemented for Oregon
spotted frogs in the Deschutes River
Basin. Sunriver Nature Center has been
monitoring the frog population at the
Sunriver Resort since 2000. Although
this area is affected by the fluctuating
flows out of Wickiup Reservoir,
Sunriver Nature Center has constructed
weirs that allow the water level to be
steady or rising from the time of egglaying through hatching, thus assisting
the persistence of this large and stable
population. The Deschutes National
Forest has closed perimeter ditches at
Big Marsh, where past drainage and
grazing had led to degradation of the
marsh. The Mt. Hood National Forest
has fenced sections of Camas Prairie and
restricted excessive grazing of the
meadow. Implementation of these
conservation actions is assumed to have
resulted in increased breeding success
of Oregon spotted frogs at these
locations. In addition, BLM’s Prineville
District Office recently completed
encroachment removal projects and
repairs to headcuts in systems that have
had historically or currently have
Oregon spotted frogs. Headcutting is a
process of active erosion in a channel
caused by an abrupt change in slope.
Turbulence in the water undercuts
substrate material resulting in collapse
of the upper level. This under-cutcollapse process advances up the stream
channel. The results of BLM’s efforts are
unknown at this time; however, they
were completed specifically to
ameliorate threats to Oregon spotted
frog habitat.
Since 1994, in the Oregon portion of
the Klamath Basin, the Service’s
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program,
in collaboration with private
landowners, has restored approximately
8,832 ac (3,568 ha) of wetlands adjacent
to Upper Klamath Lake. Several habitat
restoration projects are under way in
known occupied areas including Crane
Creek, Sevenmile Creek, Jack Creek, and
the Upper Williamson River.
Restoration projects include rechannelizing creeks and rivers to
provide breeding and rearing habitat,
construction of breeding ponds,
construction of riparian fences to
exclude cattle, and the installation of
alternate water sources. To date, Oregon
spotted frogs have been detected in only
one restored, previously unoccupied
wetland area, although survey efforts in
restored habitats have not yet been
completed.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
53601
The BLM’s Klamath Falls Field Office
has initiated several habitat restoration
projects within their Wood River
Wetland property, including installation
of water control structures, construction
of breeding ponds, and canal
restructuring for additional breeding
areas. To date, 3,000 ac (1,214 ha) of
wetland habitats associated with the
Wood River Canal have been restored.
However, for reasons unknown, Oregon
spotted frogs have not been detected in
the restored wetlands, but rather, have
only been associated with the canal
system (BLM multiple data sources).
BLM actively manages the water in the
canal during the breeding season to
prevent stranding and inundating
Oregon spotted frog egg masses.
The Fremont-Winema National
Forest, Chemult Ranger District, in the
Oregon portion of the Klamath Basin
has initiated a project to restore habitat
along Jack Creek, which as of 2008,
includes the removal of cattle from a
portion of the lands owned by the USFS
(Gervais 2011 p. 9). In addition,
encroaching lodgepole pine (Gervais
2011 pp. 11–12) has been thinned on
both USFS and private lands as a result
of this project. In cooperation with
adjacent private landowners, the USFS
recently released seven beavers into the
Jack Creek watershed (Simpson 2012,
pers. comm.), which is intended to
increase the open water and breeding
habitat for Oregon spotted frogs. One of
the private landowners has also
installed log fences to protect three
Oregon spotted frog pools, and two offstream water sources to exclude cattle
from riparian areas, and wattle
installment (a fabrication of poles
interwoven with slender branches) for
water retention (Markus 2012, pers.
comm.). In addition, in 2009, the USFS
installed fences at Buck Meadow to
control grazing on the USFS lands
(Lerum 2012, p. 18). The long-term
benefits of the USFS efforts are
unknown at this time; however, these
actions were completed to specifically
ameliorate threats to the Oregon spotted
frog’s habitat.
The USFS has completed and
continues to work on Oregon spotted
frog Site Management Plans that
identify threats and management actions
to reduce threats at each of the
following sites: Sevenmile, Jack Creek,
Buck Lake, Dilman Meadow, Hosmer
Lake, Lava and Little Lava Lake, Big
Marsh, Odell/Davis Lake, Little Cultus
Lake, Mink Lake Basin and Gold Lake.
Implementation of management actions
is voluntary and dependent upon
funding and will likely occur at the
District level.
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53602
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
The Comprehensive Conservation
Plan (CCP) for Klamath Marsh NWR
includes conservation actions for
maintaining or improving local habitat
conditions for the benefit of Oregon
spotted frogs on NWR property. These
include: restoring or maintaining
hydrologic regimes, protecting and
restoring ephemeral and permanent
wetlands, restoring or maintaining open
water and early seral vegetation
communities, reevaluating or
discontinuing fish stocking practices,
development of comprehensive grazing
strategies or adaptive management plans
where livestock occur in habitat, and
working locally and cooperatively to
maintain and restore habitat conditions
and to monitor the outcomes of
management actions for Oregon spotted
frog (USFWS 2010, p. 72). The CCPs
detail program planning levels that are
sometimes substantially above current
budget allocations and are primarily
used for strategic planning and priority
setting, thus inclusion of a project in a
CCP does not guarantee that the project
will be implemented. However,
implementation of the above
conservation actions within the CCP
could benefit a minimum of 338
breeding individuals. These actions are
expected to improve the status of the
Oregon spotted frog on the Klamath
Marsh NWR if adequate budget
allocations are provided and the
projects are implemented. Existing
wetland restoration activities at Klamath
Marsh NWR have been limited to
invasive weed management (Mauser
2012, pers. comm.).
Summary of habitat or range
destruction, modification, or
curtailment—Past human actions have
destroyed, modified, and curtailed the
range and habitat available for the
Oregon spotted frog, which is now
absent from an estimated 76 to 90
percent of its former range. The loss of
wetlands is continuing at certain
locations in at least 10 of the 15
remaining occupied sub-basins,
particularly on private lands. The
historical and ongoing alteration of
hydrological processes resulting from
the operation of existing water
diversions/manipulation structures,
existing and new roads, residential
development, agricultural areas, and the
removal of beavers continues to impact
Oregon spotted frogs and their habitat.
The changes in hydrology result in the
loss of breeding through inundation or
desiccation of egg masses, loss or
degradation of habitat necessary for all
Oregon spotted frog life stages, and the
creation of habitat conditions that
support nonnative predaceous species.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
Reed canarygrass invasions, plant
succession, and restoration plantings
continue to modify and reduce the
amount and quality of habitat necessary
for all Oregon spotted frog life stages.
The timing and intensity of livestock
grazing, or lack thereof, continues to
change the quality of Oregon spotted
frog habitat in British Columbia,
Washington, and Oregon due to
increased sedimentation, increased
water temperatures, and reduced water
quality. Oregon spotted frogs in all
currently occupied sub-basins are
subject to one or more of these threats
to their habitat. Eleven of the 15
occupied sub-basins are currently
experiencing a high to very high level of
impact, primarily due to hydrological
changes/manipulations, vegetation
encroachment, and reed canarygrass
invasions. These impacts are ongoing,
are expected to continue into the future,
and affect habitat that supports all life
stages of the Oregon spotted frog.
The benefits of the conservation
actions to Oregon spotted frogs are sitespecific, but are not sufficient to
ameliorate the habitat threats at a subbasin scale. Wetland restoration efforts
have been implemented, but rarely are
these specifically designed for Oregon
spotted frogs, and may inadvertently
reduce habitat quality for this early-seral
species. Further, post-restoration
monitoring has not been accomplished
to evaluate whether these efforts are
benefiting Oregon spotted frogs.
Therefore, based on the best information
available, the threats to Oregon spotted
frogs from habitat destruction,
modification, or curtailment are
occurring throughout the entire range of
the species, and are expected to
continue into the future.
Factor B. Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes has been documented for a
wide range of amphibians. During the
egg-laying period, Oregon spotted frogs
occur in relatively easy-to-access
locations that could make them easy to
collect. However, we are not aware of
collection of Oregon spotted frogs for
commercial, recreational, or educational
purposes.
Oregon spotted frog populations may
be negatively impacted by scientific
studies. In all Washington breeding
locations and some of the breeding
locations in British Columbia and
Oregon, surveys are conducted annually
during the egg-laying period. While
these surveys are conducted in a
manner to avoid trampling of frogs and
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
egg masses (protocol example Pearl et
al. 2010), such impacts may still occur.
The extent to which any population is
impacted by these surveys is unknown,
but expected to be low. Eggs were
collected each year beginning in 2002
from at least two of the extant locations
in British Columbia for a headstart
rearing program, which released
metamorphic Oregon spotted frogs back
into those sites (COSFRT 2012, pp. 30–
31). This effort has ceased because it
was deemed unsuccessful at bolstering
the extant populations; however,
captive husbandry for potential release
into new locations continues.
The Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife has collected 7,870 eggs
(through 2011) from various breeding
locations on the Black River and Conboy
NWRs for their captive-rearing program
(Tirhi and Schmidt 2011, pp. 51–55).
During this period, the population has
continued to decline at Conboy Lake,
but the source of the decline is unclear
and cannot specifically be attributed to
the egg collection. USGS and Colorado
State University have been collecting
eggs in the Deschutes and Klamath
Basins for genetic studies since 2007,
resulting in the collection of at least
3,000 eggs (Robertson and Funk 2012
pp. 8–11; C. Pearl 2012, pers. comm.).
However, we have no evidence to
indicate that Oregon spotted frogs are
being overutilized for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes such that this activity poses a
threat to the species.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
Disease
Amphibians are affected by a variety
of diseases, and some diseases are
known to negatively affect declining
amphibian species. Diseases that are
currently known to occur in Oregon
spotted frogs and have the potential to
affect populations are briefly discussed
below. The specific effects of disease
and parasitism on Oregon spotted frogs
are not well documented.
Red-Leg Syndrome—Red-leg
syndrome has been identified in several
declining amphibian species but is not
known to be a significant problem for
the Oregon spotted frog (Blaustein 1999,
pers. comm.). Red-leg syndrome refers
to a common condition in which there
is a reddening of the lower body,
usually the legs and sometimes the
abdomen, due to a dilation of capillaries
under the skin. This disease is
presumed to be widespread, having
been reported for > 100 years in many
different species of frogs and
salamanders in captivity and in the wild
(Densmore and Green 2007, p. 236).
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Chytrid Fungus—Chytrid fungus
(Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd))
has been implicated in the decline and
extinction of numerous amphibian
species in multiple locations around the
world (Speare and Berger 2004). In the
United States, 7 families including 18
amphibian species have been diagnosed
as infected with Bd (Speare and Berger
2004). Bd infection has been
documented in at least seven ranid frogs
from the Pacific Northwest, including
Oregon spotted frogs (Adams et al. 2010,
p. 295; Pearl et al. 2009b, p. 212; Hayes
et al. 2009, p. 149). Chytridiomycosis is
a cutaneous infection that ‘‘results in a
severe diffuse dermatitis characterized
by epidermal hyperplasia,
hyperkeratosis, and variable degrees of
cutaneous ulceration and hyperemia’’
(Bradley et al. 2002, p. 206). Clinical
signs can include lethargy, abnormal
posture, loss of the righting reflex
(ability to turn over), and death (Daszak
et al. 1999, p. 737). The fungal
organism, Bd, is likely transmitted by
release of zoospores into the water that
eventually contact a susceptible animal,
penetrating the skin, and establishing an
infection (Pessier et al. 1999, p. 198;
Bradley et al. 2002, p. 206). Dermal
infections by Bd are thought to cause
mortality by interfering with skin
functions, including maintaining fluid
and electrolyte homeostasis (balance),
respiration, and the skin’s role as a
barrier to toxic and infectious agents
(Pessier et al. 1999, p. 198; Bradley et
al. 2002, p. 206). Unlike most other
vertebrates, amphibians drink water and
absorb important salts (electrolytes)
through the skin rather than the mouth.
In diseased individuals, electrolyte
transport across the epidermis was
inhibited by >50 percent, resulting in
cardiac arrest and death (Voyles et al.
2009, pp. 582, 585).
In 2007 and 2008, USGS sampled
Oregon spotted frogs at sites across
Washington and Oregon; Bd was
confirmed at all locations sampled
(Pearl et al. 2009b, p. 212). Even though
Pearl et al. (2009b, p. 216) detected Bd
at 100 percent of the sites sampled, they
did not observe morbidity or mortality
that could be attributed to
chytridiomycosis. In addition to
confirmation at USGS-sampled sites, Bd
has been confirmed in Oregon spotted
frogs near Sunriver in central Oregon
(Bowerman 2005, pers. comm.) and
Conboy Lake NWR (Hayes et al. 2009, p.
149) in Washington. Pearl et al. (2007,
p. 147) detected Bd more frequently in
highly aquatic species, such as Oregon
spotted frogs, than in species with more
terrestrial adult stages and shorter larval
periods, suggesting that Oregon spotted
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
frogs may be experiencing elevated
exposure and infection due to their
highly aquatic life-history. In addition,
modeling done by Pearl et al. (2009b, p.
213) indicates that juvenile Oregon
spotted frogs that test positive for Bd
infection are more likely to have a
poorer body condition after
overwintering than individuals that test
negative for Bd infection.
Alone, Bd may not be a concern for
some healthy amphibian populations;
however, most of the Oregon spotted
frog populations in Oregon and
Washington are already exposed to
several stressors, such as predation,
competition from nonnative species,
and water quality degradation, and the
effects of Bd are likely to be exacerbated
and potentially compounded by these
interactions (for example, see Parris and
Baud 2004, pp. 346–347; Parris and
Cornelius 2004, pp. 3388–3390; Parris
and Beaudoin 2004, p. 628). In addition,
Bd has been found in nonnative species
that co-occur with Oregon spotted frogs
in central Oregon (Pearl et al. 2007, p.
147); in particular, bullfrogs may serve
as a Bd host while experiencing limited
negative effects from the pathogen.
Laboratory studies have shown that
infecting Oregon spotted frogs with Bd
inhibits growth without necessarily
showing any direct clinical signs
(Padgett-Flohr and Hayes 2011).
Recently metamorphosed frogs exposed
to one of two strains of Bd tested
positive for the pathogen within 11 days
after exposure; however, no frogs died
or displayed clinical signs of disease
and most (83 percent) tested negative for
the pathogen within 90 days of
exposure. However, infected frogs
gained significantly less weight than
control animals, suggesting the infection
carried an energetic cost. The detection
of Bd at all Oregon spotted frog sites
sampled, combined with the lack of
observed mortality (in the wild and
laboratory testing), indicates Oregon
spotted frogs may be able to persist with
Bd infections (Pearl et al. 2009b, p. 216)
but growth and presumed long-term
survival (e.g., avoidance of predators)
are inhibited. Consequently, in light of
the numerous amphibian extinctions
attributed to Bd, and in conjunction
with the other stressors that impact
Oregon spotted frogs, we conclude that
Bd poses a risk to individual Oregon
spotted frog populations, particularly
those most susceptible to climate
changes (see Factor E), but additional
studies are necessary to determine
whether Bd is a threat rangewide to the
Oregon spotted frog.
Other pathogens, such as iridoviruses
(specifically Ranavirus), have been
documented to cause mortality in North
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
53603
American amphibians (Dasak et al.
1999, pp. 741–743). While not yet
documented in wild Oregon spotted frog
populations, iridovirus outbreaks have
been identified as a major source of
mortality in British Columbia captiverearing programs for Oregon spotted
frogs (COSEWIC 2011, p. 35).
Saprolegnia—The oomycete water
mold Saprolegnia has been suggested as
one of the causes of amphibian declines
in the Pacific Northwest (Kiesecker and
Blaustein 1997, p. 218). Genetic analysis
confirmed oomycetes of multiple genera
on amphibian eggs in the Pacific
Northwest, including Oregon spotted
frogs (Petrisko et al. 2008, pp. 174–178).
McAllister and Leonard (1997, p. 25)
reported destruction of developing
Oregon spotted frog egg masses by this
fungus, but not to the extent observed in
other amphibian eggs. The threat of
Saprolegnia to Oregon spotted frog
populations is unclear, but this fungus
has been shown to destroy Oregon
spotted frog egg masses and could pose
a threat to individual Oregon spotted
frog breeding areas in the future.
Ultraviolet-B Radiation—Impacts
resulting from exposure to ultraviolet-B
radiation (UV–B) appear to vary greatly
between amphibian species. Ambient
levels of UV–B radiation in the
atmosphere have risen significantly over
the past few decades due to decreases in
stratospheric ozone, climate warming,
and lake acidification. Because
amphibian eggs lack shells and adults
and tadpoles have thin, delicate skin,
they are extremely vulnerable to
increased levels of UV–B radiation.
However, the harmful effects of UV–B
radiation on amphibians depend upon a
number of variables (Blaustein et al.
2003, pp. 123–128). Studies
summarized in Blaustein et al. (2003)
indicate UV–B exposure can result in
mortality, as well as a variety of
sublethal effects, including behavior
alteration, slow growth and
development, and developmental and
physiological malformations. The type
and severity of effect varies by life stage
exposed and dosage of UV–B.
Experimental tests conducted by
Blaustein et al. (1999, p. 1102) found the
hatching success of Oregon spotted frogs
was unaffected by UV–B, indicating
their eggs may be UV-resistant.
However, a meta-analysis of available
published literature conducted by
Bancroft et al. (2008) found that
exposure to UV–B resulted in a 1.9-fold
reduction in amphibian survival and
that larvae (tadpoles) were more
susceptible than embryos. In addition,
Bancroft et al. (2008) determined that
UV–B interacted synergistically with
other environmental stressors, such as
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53604
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
contaminants, resulting in greater than
additive effects on survival. For
example, Kiesecker and Blaustein (1997,
pp. 217–218) found increased mortality
associated with the fungus identified as
Saprolegnia ferax in amphibian
embryos exposed to UV–B; especially
susceptible were amphibians that lay
eggs in communal egg masses, like
Oregon spotted frogs. At present, the
extent of population-level impacts from
UV–B exposure is unknown.
Malformations—The North American
Reporting Center for Amphibian
Malformations (NBII 2005) documents
amphibian malformations throughout
the United States. Malformations of
several Rana species, including the
Cascades frog (Rana cascadae), redlegged frog (Rana aurora), foothill
yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii), and
bullfrog, have been reported within the
current and historical range of the
Oregon spotted frog in Washington,
Oregon, and California. We are aware of
one report from Thurston County,
Washington, of an Oregon spotted frog
with an extra forelimb (NBII 2005) and
reports of malformations from
Deschutes (Johnson et al. 2002a, p. 157;
Bowerman and Johnson 2003, pp. 142–
144), Douglas, and Lane (NBII 2005)
Counties in Oregon. Growing evidence
suggests that the high frequencies of
severe limb malformations may be
caused by a parasitic infection
(Ribeiroia ondatrae) in amphibian
larvae (Johnson et al. 2002a, p. 162).
Recent investigations also indicate small
fish and certain libellulid and corduliid
dragonfly larvae attack developing
tadpoles and can cause high incidences
of missing-limb deformities, including
complete amputation (Ballengee and
Sessions 2009; Bowerman et al. 2010).
At present, the extent of populationlevel impacts from malformations is
unknown.
Parasitic infection—Aquatic snails
(Planorbella spp.) are the exclusive
intermediate host for the trematode
Ribeiroia ondatrae (Johnson and Chase
2004, p. 523) and are found in a
diversity of habitats, including
ephemeral ponds, montane lakes, stock
ponds, oxbows, drainage canals, and
reservoirs (Johnson et al. 2002a, p. 164).
Trematodes are parasitic flatworms that
have a thick outer cuticle and one or
more suckers or hooks for attaching to
host tissue. Johnson et al. (2002, p. 165)
postulate that the dramatic and
widespread alterations of aquatic
ecosystems, particularly the
construction of small impoundments or
farm ponds, may have created
environments that facilitate high
densities of Planorbella snails and the
resulting infections from R. ondatrae.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
Many of the sites with high frequencies
of malformations were impacted heavily
by cattle and supported dense
Planorbella snail populations.
Malformations in multiple amphibian
species were found in Washington
ponds that had a history of grazing that
extended back at least 50 years (Johnson
et al. 2002a, p. 165).
Johnson et al. (2002, p. 166) found the
frequency of malformations in larval
amphibians was significantly higher
than in transformed amphibians from
the same system, suggesting that
malformed larvae experience greater
mortality prior to and during
metamorphosis. However, sensitivity to
and severity (mortality versus no
malformation) of infection varies by
amphibian species (Johnson and
Hartson 2009, p. 195) and tadpole stage
exposed (Schotthoefer et al. 2003, p.
1148).
High levels of R. ondatrae infection
and the resulting malformations may
increase mortality in wild amphibian
populations and may represent a threat
to amphibian populations already in
decline. Johnson et al. (2002a, p. 157)
and Bowerman and Johnson (2003, pp.
142–144) have found deformities in
Oregon spotted frogs caused by this
parasite at the Sunriver Nature Center
Pond, which had a high population of
large planorbid snails. Three additional
ponds within 6 mi (10 km) were also
investigated, each of which supported
planorbid snails, but at lower infestation
levels. None of these ponds yielded
malformed Oregon spotted frogs
(Bowerman et al. 2003, pp. 142–143).
Most of the malformations found in
anuran frogs were around the hind
limbs, where they are more likely to be
debilitating (hinder mobility) and
expose the frog to increased risk of
predation (reduced escape/evade
ability). (Johnson et al. 2002a, p. 162).
In a study on wood frogs (Rana
sylvatica), Michel and Burke (2011)
reported malformed tadpoles were twice
as vulnerable to predators because they
could not escape or evade.
Human manipulation of upland areas
adjacent to amphibian breeding areas
and direct manipulation of the breeding
areas can affect the prevalence of
Planorbella snails and the infection rate
of R. ondatrae. Complex habitats reduce
transmission rates of larval trematodes
because these habitats provide more
refugia for tadpoles. Alternatively,
simplified habitats, such as agricultural
landscapes, have been shown to reduce
parasite prevalence by limiting access of
vertebrate hosts, particularly in birds
(King et al. 2007, p. 2074). However,
when simplified habitats are subject to
water runoff associated with
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
agricultural, cattle, or urban sources and
eutrophication, the abundance of snails
can increase, thereby increasing the
prevalence of trematodes and parasitic
risks to frogs (Johnson and Chase 2004,
pp. 522–523; Johnson et al. 2007 p.
15782). While the effects of these
parasite-induced malformations are
clear at the individual scale, populationlevel effects remain largely
uninvestigated. However, Biek et al.
(2002, p. 731) found that the viabilities
of pond-breeding amphibians were most
vulnerable to reductions in juvenile or
adult survival relative to other portions
of the life cycles. Therefore, it is
reasonable to infer that where
Planorbella snails coincide with Oregon
spotted frogs, malformations will occur
resulting in mortality of juvenile frogs
and a population decline at that
location. At present, it is not known
where these co-occurrences take place,
nor how extensive infections levels may
be, but 11 of the occupied sub-basins
have agricultural, cattle, or urban
sources that produce runoff that can
increase the snail populations, and
negative effects have been demonstrated
at the Sunriver Nature Center Pond
population.
Predation
Predation is a process of major
importance in influencing the
distribution, abundance, and diversity
of species in ecological communities.
Generally, predation leads to changes in
both the population size of the predator
and that of the prey. In unfavorable
environments, prey species are stressed
or living at low population densities
such that predation is likely to have
negative effects on all prey species, thus
lowering species richness. In addition,
when a nonnative predator is
introduced to the ecosystem, negative
effects on the prey population may be
higher than those from co-evolved
native predators. The effects of
predation may be magnified when
populations are small, and the
disproportionate effect of predation on
declining populations has been shown
to drive rare species even further toward
extinction (Woodworth 1999, pp. 74–
75).
Introduced fish species within the
historical range of the Oregon spotted
frog may have contributed to losses of
populations. Oregon spotted frogs,
which are palatable to fish, did not
evolve with these introduced species
and may not have the mechanisms to
avoid the predatory fish that prey on the
tadpoles. The warm water microhabitat
requirement of the Oregon spotted frog,
unique among native ranids of the
Pacific Northwest, exposes it to a
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
number of introduced fish species
(Hayes 1994, p. 25), such as smallmouth
bass (Micropterus dolomieu),
largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides), pumpkinseed (Lepomis
gibbosus), yellow perch (Perca
flavescens), bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus), brown bullhead
(Ameriurus nebulosus), black crappie
(Pomoxis nigromaculatus), warmouth
(Lepomis gulosus), brook trout
(Salvelinus fontinalis), rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss), and fathead
minnow (Pimephales promelas) (Hayes
and Jennings 1986, pp. 494–496; Hayes
1997, pp. 42–43; Hayes et al. 1997;
McAllister and Leonard 1997, p. 14;
Engler 1999, pers. comm.).
Surveys from 1993 to 1997 in British
Columbia, Washington, and Oregon
documented at least one introduced
predator in 20 of 24 sites (Hayes et al.
1997, p. 5). Brook trout was the most
frequently recorded introduced
predator, which was recorded at 18 of
24 sites. Although differences in
temperature requirements between the
two species may limit their interactions,
brook trout apparently occur with the
Oregon spotted frog at coldwater
springs, where the latter species
probably overwinters and where cooler
water is favorable to brook trout (Hayes
et al. 1997, p. 5). During drought years,
dropping water levels result in overlap
in habitat use between these two
species. As wetland refuges are reduced,
Oregon spotted frogs become
concentrated and the larval stages are
exposed to brook trout predation (Hayes
et al. 1997, p. 5; Hayes 1998a, p. 15),
resulting in lower Oregon spotted frog
recruitment (Pearl 1999, p. 18). In
addition to effects in breeding habitat,
Pearl et al. (2009a, p. 143) found
substantial evidence for a negative effect
on overwintering Oregon spotted frogs
from nonnative fish with access to
spring and channel habitats. In these
latter situations, predation is believed to
be more pronounced in spatially
constrained overwintering habitats
where frogs and fish may both seek
flowing water with dissolved oxygen.
Their findings suggest that these
negative effects are mediated by habitat
complexity and the seasonal use of
microhabitats, and Oregon spotted frogs
can benefit from fish-free overwintering
sites, even if fish are present in other
local habitats.
Demographic data indicate that sites
with significant numbers of brook trout
and/or fathead minnow have a skewed
ratio of older spotted frogs to juvenile
frogs, suggesting poor reproductive
success or juvenile recruitment (Hayes
1997, pp. 42–43, 1998a). While
experimental data are sparse, field
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
surveys involving other western
amphibians (e.g., Adams 1999, p. 1168;
Monello and Wright 1999, pp. 299–300;
Bull and Marx 2002, pp. 245–247;
Vredenberg 2004; Knapp 2005, pp. 275–
276; Pearl et al. 2005b, pp. 82–83) and
other closely related frog species
strongly suggest that introduced fish
represent a threat to Oregon spotted
frogs that has significant impacts (Pearl
1999, pp. 17–18). A study of the impacts
of introduced trout on Columbia spotted
frog populations in Idaho revealed that,
although fish and adult frogs coexisted
at many of the stocked lakes, most
stocked lakes contained significantly
lower densities of all amphibian life
stages (Pilliod and Peterson 2001, p.
326). On the other hand, preliminary
results from the Willamette Valley in
Oregon suggest that nonnative, warm
water fishes actually benefit introduced
populations of bullfrogs because of fish
predation on macroinvertebrates that
would otherwise prey on bullfrog larvae
(Adams and Pearl 2003).
The presence of these nonnative
species has been shown to increase the
time for metamorphosis and decrease
the mass of native red-legged frogs
(Kiesecker and Blaustein 1997). A recent
study documented nonnative fish
negatively influencing the survival and
growth of Pacific treefrogs while
bullfrog larvae reduced the growth but
had no effect on survival (Preston et al.
2012, p. 1257). In addition, the
predation effects of nonnative fish and
bullfrogs on Pacific tree frogs were
additive, but those species had little
impact on each other (Preston et al.
2012, p. 1259). Many of the sub-basins
occupied by Oregon spotted frogs also
have introduced warm- and/or coldwater fish, and 5 of the 15 sub-basins
are subject to high to very high impacts
due to predation of larvae and reduced
winter survival.
The Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife (ODFW) stocks fish in most of
the Cascades Lakes and two reservoirs
in the Upper Deschutes River sub-basin
occupied by Oregon spotted frogs
(Hodgson 2012, pers. comm.). In
addition to stocking, there is natural
production of various fish species, both
native and introduced, in the lakes and
reservoirs in the Upper Deschutes River
sub-basin and in lakes in the McKenzie
River and Middle Fork Willamette subbasins where spotted frogs occur
(Hodgson 2012, pers. comm.; Ziller
2013, pers. comm.; USFS 2011). ODFW
no longer stocks fish in any of the
moving waters associated with Oregon
spotted frog locations within the
Klamath Basin (Tinniswood 2012, pers.
comm.).
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
53605
Bullfrogs introduced from eastern
North America into the historical range
of the Oregon spotted frog may have
contributed to losses of populations.
The introduction of bullfrogs may have
played a role in the disappearance of
Oregon spotted frogs from the
Willamette Valley in Oregon and the
Puget Sound area in Washington
(Nussbaum et al. 1983, p. 187). Bullfrogs
share similar habitat and temperature
requirements with the Oregon spotted
frog, and the overlap in time and space
between the two species is believed to
be extensive (Hayes 1994, p. 25; Hayes
et al. 1997, p. 5). Bullfrogs can reach
high densities due to the production of
large numbers of eggs per breeding
female and unpalatability (and high
survivorship) of tadpoles to predatory
fish (Kruse and Francis 1977, pp. 250–
251). Bullfrog tadpoles outcompete or
displace tadpoles of native frog species
from their habitat or optimal conditions
(Kupferberg 1997, pp. 1741–1746,
Kiesecker and Blaustein 1998, pp. 783–
784, Kiesecker et al. 2001b, pp. 1966–
1967).
Bullfrog adults achieve larger size
than native western ranids and even
juvenile bullfrogs can consume native
frogs (Hayes and Jennings 1986, p. 492;
Pearl et al. 2004, p. 16). The digestive
tracts of a sample of 25 adult bullfrogs
from Conboy Lake in Washington
contained nine Oregon spotted frogs,
including seven adults (McAllister and
Leonard 1997, p. 13). A later
examination of the stomachs of two
large bullfrogs revealed two adult or
subadult Oregon spotted frogs in one
stomach and four in the second (Hayes
1999, pers. comm.). Bullfrogs were
recorded consuming hatchling Oregon
spotted frogs at British Columbia’s
Maintenance Detachment Aldergrove
site (Haycock and Woods 2001, unpubl.
data cited in COSFRT 2012, p. 19). In
addition, USGS has observed Oregon
spotted frogs within dissected bullfrogs
at multiple sites throughout the
Deschutes and Klamath Basins (Pearl
2012, pers comm.).
Oregon spotted frogs are more
susceptible to predation by bullfrogs
than are northern red-legged frogs (Pearl
et al. 2004, p. 16). Oregon spotted frogs
and northern red-legged frogs
historically coexisted in areas of the
Pacific Northwest that are now invaded
by bullfrogs. However, the Oregon
spotted frog has declined more severely
than the northern red-legged frog. Pearl
et al. (2004, p. 16) demonstrated in
laboratory experiments that the more
aquatic Oregon spotted frog juveniles
are consumed by bullfrogs at a higher
rate than are northern red-legged frog
juveniles. Oregon spotted frogs and
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53606
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
northern red-legged frogs also differ in
their ability to escape bullfrogs, with
Oregon spotted frogs having shorter
mean and maximum jump distances
than northern red-legged frogs of equal
size. Bullfrogs, therefore, pose a greater
threat to Oregon spotted frogs than to
red-legged frogs. Oregon spotted frog’s
microhabitat use and escape abilities
may be limiting their distributions in
historical lowland habitats where
bullfrogs are present, whereas redlegged frog populations are more stable
(Pearl et al. 2004, pp. 17–18).
The ability of bullfrogs and Oregon
spotted frogs to coexist may be related
to differences in seasonal and
permanent wetland use. However, a
substantial bullfrog population has
likely coexisted with Oregon spotted
frogs for nearly 50 years in Conboy Lake
in Washington (Rombough et al. 2006,
p. 210). This long-term overlap has been
hypothesized to be the evolutionary
driver for larger body size of Oregon
spotted frogs at Conboy Lake
(Rombough et al. 2006, p. 210). On the
other hand, Oregon spotted frogs at
Trout Lake NAP in Washington also
exhibit body sizes that exceed the
general mean and range for the species
elsewhere but do not co-occur with
bullfrogs. Winterkill could be a factor in
controlling the bullfrog population at
Conboy Lake and, hence, facilitating coexistence with Oregon spotted frogs
(Engler and Hayes 1998, p. 2); however,
the Oregon spotted frog population at
Conboy Lake has declined over the last
decade, some of which is likely due to
bullfrog predation. Bullfrogs have been
actively controlled in the Sunriver area
in Oregon for more than 40 years, and
despite efforts to eradicate them, they
have been expanding in distribution
(Bowerman 2012, pers. comm.).
Bullfrogs have been documented up to
4,300 feet (1,311 m) elevation in the
Little Deschutes River sub-basin in
habitat occupied by Oregon spotted frog.
Bullfrogs have been found in 10 of the
15 sub-basins occupied by Oregon
spotted frogs, but are relatively rare at
most of the locations where they cooccur. However, based on our threats
analysis, the impacts due to predation
and/or competition with bullfrogs
within the Lower Fraser River, Middle
Klickitat sub-basins in Washington, and
the Upper Klamath Lake sub-basin in
Oregon are considered to be high to very
high because of the more extensive
overlap between these two species in
these areas.
Green frogs (Lithobates clamitans) are
native to the eastern United States but
have been introduced to the western
United States and Canada. This
introduced species occurs at a few lakes
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
in Whatcom County, Washington
(McAllister 1995; WDFW WSDM
database), but Oregon spotted frogs are
not known to occur in these lakes.
Green frogs do co-occur with Oregon
spotted frogs at Maria and Mountain
Sloughs in British Columbia (COSEWIC
2011, p. 36). Adult green frogs may eat
young Oregon spotted frogs, but adult
Oregon spotted frogs may reach a size
that is too large to be prey for the
species. Whether green frogs are
significant competitors of Oregon
spotted frogs is currently unknown.
High population densities of green frogs
possibly attract and maintain higher
than normal population densities of
native predators, which in turn
increases predation pressure on Oregon
spotted frogs (Canadian Recovery Team
2012, p. 19).
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Disease
or Predation
Despite considerable knowledge about
the habitat and management
requirements for Oregon spotted frog,
refuge management at the Conboy Lakes
National Wildlife Refuge remains
complex as habitat needs and the
abatement of other stressors often
conflict with the conventional intensive
wetland management that occurs on the
refuge (USFWS, 2010b, p. 64). The
historical Conboy Lake basin in
Washington likely retained water for 10
to 12 months in most years. Currently,
it retains water only during wet years
and is drained annually by the Conboy
Lake NWR to control bullfrogs for the
benefit of Oregon spotted frogs.
However, the draining of the lakebed
forces all surviving bullfrogs, fish, and
Oregon spotted frogs into the canal
system for the fall and winter,
increasing potential predation for
Oregon spotted frogs.
In the Upper and Little Deschutes
River sub-basins in Oregon, there has
been little effort to control invasive
predators. Bullfrog eradication has been
attempted at two sites within the Upper
and Little Deschutes sub-basins:
Sunriver and Crosswater, respectively.
However, it appears that bullfrogs may
be increasing in the Sunriver area
(Bowerman 2012, pers. comm.).
Current predator or disease
conservation efforts in the Klamath
Basin in Oregon are limited to bullfrog
control or eradication. U.S. Geological
Survey has conducted a bullfrog
eradication program on Crane Creek
since bullfrogs appeared in 2010. In
addition, the BLM has been controlling
and reducing bullfrogs and analyzing
the gut contents of bullfrogs at all life
stages on their Wood River property in
Oregon for 6 years. Bullfrog detections
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and collection have decreased in
different areas of the canal in recent
years (Roninger 2012, pers. comm.). The
number of bullfrogs removed and seen
at this site has decreased, and in the last
few years, the bulk of the bullfrog
removal has been from the north canal
and Seven-mile canal areas (outside the
Oregon spotted frog site), which is
considered to be the strongest source
areas for movement into the Oregon
spotted frog site (Roninger 2012, pers.
comm). However, despite these efforts,
bullfrogs continue to persist in these
Oregon spotted frog habitats.
Summary of disease and predation—
Saprolegnia, Bd, and Ribeiroia ondatrae
have been found in Oregon spotted frogs
and compounded with other stressors,
such as UV–B exposure, degradation of
habitat quality, or increased predation
pressure, may contribute to population
declines. Bd and R. ondatrae, in
particular, infect post-metamorphic
frogs and reductions in these life stages
are more likely to lead to population
declines in pond-breeding amphibians;
however, these are not currently known
to be causing population declines in
Oregon spotted frogs. Disease continues
to be a concern, but more information is
needed to determine the severity of
impact that diseases may have on
Oregon spotted frogs. Therefore, based
on the best available scientific evidence,
we have no information to indicate that
disease is a known threat to the Oregon
spotted frog.
Introduced fish species prey on
tadpoles, negatively affect overwintering
habitat, and can significantly threaten
Oregon spotted frog populations,
especially during droughts, as aquatic
habitat areas become smaller and escape
cover is reduced. Cushman et al. 2007
(p. 22) states that both Hayes (1997) and
Pearl (1999) hypothesized that low
water conditions have the potential to
increase overlap between Oregon
spotted frog and nonnative predators
such as brook trout and bullfrogs.
Increased overlap in habitat use
between Oregon spotted frog and
nonnative predators is likely to result in
greater loss to predation. Bullfrogs (and
likely green frogs) prey on juvenile and
adult Oregon spotted frogs and bullfrog
larvae can outcompete or displace
Oregon spotted frog larvae, effectively
reducing all Oregon spotted frog life
stages and posing a significant threat to
Oregon spotted frogs. At least one
nonnative predaceous species occurs
within each of the sub-basins currently
occupied by Oregon spotted frogs, and
most sub-basins have multiple
predators. Nine of the 15 occupied subbasins are currently experiencing
moderate to very high impacts due to
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
predation, and threats from predators
are more concentrated in summer/
rearing and overwintering habitat.
While some predator control occurs in
a few sub-basins, this work is not
sufficient to ameliorate the threat from
predators. Therefore, the threats to
Oregon spotted frogs from predation are
occurring throughout the entire range of
the species and are expected to continue
into the future.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
Under this factor, we examine
whether existing regulatory mechanisms
are inadequate to address the threats to
the species discussed under the other
factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act
requires the Service to take into account
‘‘those efforts, if any, being made by any
State or foreign nation, or any political
subdivision of a State or foreign nation,
to protect such species . . . .’’ In
relation to Factor D under the Act, we
interpret this language to require the
Service to consider relevant Federal,
State, and tribal laws, regulations, and
other such mechanisms that may
minimize any of the threats we describe
in threat analyses under the other four
factors, or otherwise enhance
conservation of the species. We give
strongest weight to statutes and their
implementing regulations and to
management direction that stems from
those laws and regulations. An example
would be State governmental actions
enforced under a State statute or
constitution, or Federal action under
statute.
Having evaluated the significance of
the threat as mitigated by any such
conservation efforts, we analyze under
Factor D the extent to which existing
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate
to address the specific threats to the
species. Regulatory mechanisms, if they
exist, may reduce or eliminate the
impacts from one or more identified
threats. In this section, we review
existing State and Federal regulatory
mechanisms to determine whether they
effectively reduce or remove threats to
the Oregon spotted frog.
Canadian Laws and Regulations
In Canada, few regulatory
mechanisms protect or conserve Oregon
spotted frogs. In British Columbia,
Oregon spotted frogs are on the
Conservation Data Centre’s Red List.
The Red List includes ecological
communities, indigenous species and
subspecies that are extirpated,
endangered, or threatened in British
Columbia; placing taxa on the Red List
flags them as being at risk and requiring
investigation, but does not confer any
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
protection (British Columbia Ministry of
Environment 2012, p. 1).
The Oregon spotted frog was
determined to be endangered by the
Committee on the Status of Endangered
Wildlife in Canada in 1999, with status
reexamined and confirmed in 2000 and
2011, and it received an endangered
determination under the Canadian
Species at Risk Act (SARA) in 2003
(COSFRT 2012, p. 1). SARA makes it an
offense to kill, harm, harass, capture or
take an individual of a listed species
that is extirpated, endangered or
threatened; or to possess, collect, buy,
sell or trade an individual of a listed
species that is extirpated, endangered or
threatened, or any part or derivative of
such an individual (S.C. ch 29 section
32); or damage or destroy the residence
of one or more individuals of a listed
endangered or threatened species or of
a listed extirpated species if a recovery
strategy has recommended its
reintroduction (S.C. ch 29 sections 33,
58). The prohibitions on harm to
individuals and destruction of
residences are limited to Federal lands.
Three of the four breeding locations in
Canada occur wholly or partially on
private lands, which are not subject to
SARA prohibitions (COSEWIC 2011, p.
38).
Habitat protection in British Columbia
is limited to the Federal Fisheries Act,
British Columbia Water Act, and the
provincial Riparian Areas Regulation
(COSEWIC 2011, p. 38). The Fisheries
Act limits activities that can cause
harmful alteration, disruption, or
destruction of fish habitat, with the
primary goal being no net loss of fish
habitat. The Water Act is the principal
law for managing the diversion and use
of provincial water resources. License
holders are entitled to divert and use
water; store water; construct, maintain,
and operate anything capable of or used
for the proper diversion, storage,
carriage, distribution, and use of the
water or the power produced from it;
alter or improve a stream or channel for
any purpose; and construct fences,
screens, and fish or game guards across
streams for the purpose of conserving
fish and wildlife (Water Act Part 2,
section 5). The Riparian Areas
Regulation was enacted under Section
12 of the Fish Protection Act and calls
on local governments to protect riparian
fish habitat during residential,
commercial, and industrial
development. The habitat protections
under these Acts are designed to benefit
fish species. As discussed under Factor
A, riparian protection and restoration
actions designed specifically to benefit
fish can be detrimental to Oregon
spotted frogs and their habitat.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
53607
United States Federal Laws and
Regulations
No Federal laws specifically protect
the Oregon spotted frog. Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act is the primary
Federal law that is relevant to the
Oregon spotted frog’s aquatic habitat.
Through a permit process under section
404, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) regulates the discharge of
dredged or fill material into waters of
the United States, including navigable
waters and wetlands that may contain
Oregon spotted frogs. However, many
actions highly detrimental to Oregon
spotted frogs and their habitats, such as
irrigation diversion structure
construction and maintenance and other
activities associated with ongoing
farming operations in existing cropped
wetlands, are exempt from Clean Water
Act requirements.
In Washington and Oregon, current
section 404 regulations provide for the
issuance of nationwide permits for at
least 15 of the 52 categories of activities
identified under the nationwide permit
program (USACOE 2012a, pp. 1–46),
which, for example, could result in the
permanent loss of up to 500 ft (150 m)
of streambank and 1 ac (0.4 ha) of
wetlands (USACOE 2012a, 2012b,
2012c). Projects authorized under a
nationwide permit receive minimal
public and agency review, and in many
cases, agency notification is not
required. Individual permits are subject
to a more rigorous review, and may be
required for nationwide permit
activities with more than minimal
impacts. Under both the individual and
nationwide permit programs, no
activities can be authorized if they are
likely to directly or indirectly (1)
jeopardize the continued existence of a
threatened or endangered species, or a
species proposed for designation, or (2)
destroy or adversely modify the critical
habitat of such species, unless section 7
consultation addressing the effects of
the proposed activity has been
completed. During section 7
consultation, effects to the species itself
and aquatic habitat/wetlands would be
considered.
For nationwide permits, Corps
notification may not be required
depending upon the project type and
the amount of wetland to be impacted.
Impacts to wetlands may be authorized
with no compensatory mitigation in
some cases. In other cases, wetland
impacts may be authorized if the
permittee demonstrates the project
footprint has been designed to avoid
most wetland impacts and unavoidable
impacts can be adequately mitigated
through wetland creation, restoration, or
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
53608
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
enhancement. For example, nationwide
permits authorize the discharge of fill
material into 0.25 ac (0.1 ha) of
wetlands with no requirement for
compensatory mitigation. In situations
where compensatory wetland mitigation
is required, in kind mitigation is
preferred but not required.
A Washington State wetland
mitigation evaluation study (Johnson et
al. (2002b, entire) found a resulting net
loss of wetlands with or without
compensatory mitigation, because
wetland creation and enhancement
projects were minimally successful or
not successful in implementation nor in
achieving their ecologically relevant
measures. In Washington, mitigation
sites within the South Fork Nooksack,
Samish, and Black River sub-basins
have been designed to improve water
quality by planting trees and shrubs.
Some of these activities have been
conducted in Oregon spotted frog
breeding habitat. Therefore, an activity
that fills Oregon spotted frog habitat
could be mitigated by restoring and or
creating riparian habitat suitable for
fish, but which is not suitable for frogs.
In general, most riparian habitat
restoration in Washington is targeted
toward salmon species and does not
include floodplain depression wetlands.
State Laws and Regulations
Washington—Although there is no
State Endangered Species Act in
Washington, the Washington Fish and
Wildlife Commission has the authority
to list species (RCW 77.12.020). Statelisted species are protected from direct
take, but their habitat is not protected
(RCW 77.15.120). The Oregon spotted
frog was listed as a State endangered
species in Washington in August 1997
(Watson et al. 1998, p. 1; 2003, p. 292;
WAC 232–12–014). State listings
generally consider only the status of the
species within the State’s borders, and
do not depend upon the same
considerations as a potential Federal
listing. Unoccupied or unsurveyed
habitat is not protected unless by
County ordinances or other similar rules
or laws.
Oregon spotted frogs are a Priority
Species under Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife’s (WDFW) Priority
Habitats and Species Program (WDFW
2008, pp. 68). As a Priority Species, the
Oregon spotted frog may receive some
protection of its habitat under
environmental reviews of applications
for county or municipal development
permits and through implementation of
Priority Habitats and Species
management recommendations. Priority
Habitat and Species Management
Recommendations for this species
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
include maintaining stable water levels
and natural flow rates; maintaining
vegetation along stream banks or pond
edges; avoidance of introducing
nonnative amphibians, reptiles, or fish;
avoidance of removing algae from
rearing areas; avoiding alteration of
muddy substrates; controlling
stormwater runoff away from frog
habitat; avoiding application of
pesticides in or adjacent to water bodies
used by Oregon spotted frogs; and
surveying within the historical range of
the species (Nordstrom and Milner
1997, pp. 6–5–6–6).
The Clean Water Act of 1972 requires
States to set water quality standards to
protect beneficial uses, identify sources
of pollution in waters that fail to meet
State water quality standards (Section
303(d)), and to develop water quality
plans to address those pollutants.
Although the Clean Water Act is a
Federal law, authority for implementing
this law has been delegated to the State.
Washington State adopted revised water
quality standards for temperature and
intergravel dissolved oxygen in
December 2006, and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) approved these
revised standards in February 2008
(EPA 2008). Although candidate species
were not the focus, proponents believed
that the proposed standards would
likely protect native aquatic species.
The temperature standards are intended
to restore thermal regimes to protect
sensitive native salmonids, and, if
temperature is not a limiting factor in
sustaining viable salmonid populations,
other native species would likely be
protected (EPA 2007, p. 14).
The State has developed water quality
plans for the Lower Nooksack, Samish,
and Upper Chehalis Rivers; however, as
of 2008 (most recent freshwater listing),
portions of the Sumas River; Black
Slough in the S.F. Nooksack River subbasin; portions of the Samish River;
segments of the Black River; segments of
Dempsey, Allen, and Beaver Creeks in
the Black River drainage, and a segment
in the upper portion of Trout Lake Creek
were listed by the Washington
Department of Ecology (WDOE) as not
meeting water quality standards for a
variety of parameters, including
temperature, fecal coliform, pH, and
dissolved oxygen (see Factor E). In
addition, for the streams/rivers where
the temperature or fecal coliform
standard is exceeded, the water quality
plans call for planting trees and shrubs
and excluding cattle, which would not
be conducive to the creation and
maintenance of early seral stage
conditions (i.e., emergent vegetation)
necessary for Oregon spotted frog egglaying habitat (see Factor A).
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Oregon—Oregon has a State
Endangered Species Act, but the Oregon
spotted frog is not State listed. Although
this species is on the Oregon sensitive
species list and is considered critically
sensitive, this designation provides little
protection (ODFW 1996, OAR 635–100–
0040). Once an Oregon ‘‘native wildlife’’
species is federally listed as threatened
or endangered, it is included as a Statelisted species and receives some
protection and management, primarily
on State owned or managed lands (OAR
635–100–0100 to OAR 635–100–0180;
ORS 496.171 to ORS 496.192).
Although the Clean Water Act is a
Federal law, authority for implementing
this law has been delegated to the State.
Oregon adopted revised water quality
standards for temperature, intergravel
dissolved oxygen, and anti-degradation
in December 2003, and EPA approved
these revised standards in March 2004
(EPA 2004). Although candidate species
were not the focus, it was believed that
the proposed standards would likely
protect native aquatic species. The
proposed temperature standards are
intended to restore thermal regimes to
protect sensitive native salmonids and,
if temperature is not a limiting factor in
sustaining viable salmonid populations,
other native species would likely be
protected (EPA 2004). In December
2012, EPA approved additions to
Oregon’s 303(d) list, which includes
waterbodies that do not meet water
quality standards for multiple
parameters (ODEQ 2012). Many of the
streams associated with Oregon spotted
frog habitat are 303(d) listed by the
Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (see Factor E).
Oregon’s Removal-Fill Law (ORS
196.795–990) requires people who plan
to remove or fill material in waters of
the State to obtain a permit from the
Department of State Lands. Wetlands
and waterways in Oregon are protected
by both State and Federal laws. Projects
impacting waters often require both a
State removal-fill permit, issued by the
Department of State Lands (DSL), and a
Federal permit issued by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps). A permit is
required only if 50 cubic yards (cy) or
more of fill or removal will occur. The
removal fill law does not regulate the
draining of wetlands (see Local Laws
and Regulations below).
Local Laws and Regulations
Washington—The Washington
Shoreline Management Act’s purpose is
‘‘to prevent the inherent harm in an
uncoordinated and piecemeal
development of the State’s shorelines.’’
Shorelines are defined as: all marine
waters; streams and rivers with greater
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
than 20 cfs (0.6 cms) mean annual flow;
lakes 20 ac or larger; upland areas called
shorelands that extend 200 ft (61 m)
landward from the edge of these waters;
and the following areas when they are
associated with one of the previous
shorelines: biological wetlands and river
deltas, and some or all of the 100-year
floodplain, including all wetlands
within the 100-year floodplain. Each
city and county with ‘‘shorelines of the
state’’ must prepare and adopt a
Shoreline Master Program (SMP) that is
based on State laws and rules but is
tailored to the specific geographic,
economic, and environmental needs of
the community. The local SMP is
essentially a shoreline-specific
combined comprehensive plan, zoning
ordinance, and development permit
system.
The Washington State Growth
Management Act of 1990 requires all
jurisdictions in the State to designate
and protect critical areas. The State
defines five broad categories of critical
areas, including (a) wetlands; (b) areas
with a critical recharging effect on
aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish
and wildlife habitat conservation areas;
(d) frequently flooded areas; and (e)
geologically hazardous areas. The
County Area Ordinance (CAO) is the
county regulation that most directly
addresses protection of the critical areas
mapped by each county.
Frequently, local government will
have adopted zoning regulations and
comprehensive land use plans that
apply both within and outside shoreline
areas. When these codes are applied
within the shoreline area, there may be
differences in the zoning regulations
and the plan policies as compared with
the regulations and policies of the SMP.
Because the SMP is technically a State
law (i.e., WAC), the requirements of the
SMP will prevail in the event of a
conflict with the local zoning or plan.
Generally, however, a conflict will not
exist if the zoning or plan requirements
are more protective of the shoreline
environment than the SMP. For
example, if the zoning district allows a
density of one unit per acre, and the
SMP allows a density of two units per,
the requirements of the more restrictive
code would prevail.
Within each county in Washington,
the SMP and CAO are the regulations
that most directly address protection of
Oregon spotted frog habitat. A brief
discussion of the current SMPs and
CAOs for the five counties where
Oregon spotted frogs are known to occur
follows.
Whatcom County: Whatcom County
updated its Shoreline Management
Program in 2008. Based on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
interpretation of the 2008 SMP, the
known Oregon spotted frog occupied
locations in the Lower Chilliwack or
South Fork Nooksack River sub-basins
are not ‘‘shorelines.’’ Samish River
within Whatcom County is designated
as Conservancy Shoreline that provides
specific allowed uses and setbacks.
Presently, the two primary uses of this
area are agricultural and residential,
both of which are allowed under the
SMP, with some restrictions.
Restrictions include shoreline setbacks
of 15–20 ft (4.5–6.1 m) and allowance of
no more than 10 percent impervious
surface (although it is uncertain whether
this is applicable on a per-project, peracre, or per-basin basis). One of the
allowed uses is restoration, which is
focused on recovery of salmon and bull
trout. Many of the restoration actions
targeting salmon and bull trout recovery
are not conducive to maintaining early
seral vegetation stages necessary to
maintain Oregon spotted frog egg-laying
habitat. Some activities would require a
permit that must be reviewed and
approved by Whatcom County and the
Washington Department of Ecology for
consistency.
The Whatcom County CAO that is the
most relevant to Oregon spotted frogs
applies to wetland areas, which are
present in the three sub-basins where
Oregon spotted frogs occur in this
county. Activities in all wetlands are
regulated unless the wetland is 1⁄10 ac or
smaller in size; however, activities that
can destroy or modify Oregon spotted
frog habitat can still occur under the
existing CAO. Activities that are
conditionally allowed include surface
water discharge; storm water
management facilities; storm water
conveyance or discharge facilities;
public roads, bridges, and trails; singlefamily developments; and onsite sewage
disposal systems. Buffers and mitigation
are required, but can be adjusted by the
county. In general, wetlands and the
associated wetland buffer CAOs target
an avoidance strategy, which may not be
beneficial to the maintenance of Oregon
spotted frog early seral stage habitat on
a long-term basis in areas where reed
canarygrass is present. Within the areas
occupied by Oregon spotted frogs in the
three sub-basins, all egg-laying habitat is
within seasonally flooded areas, which
may or may not be defined as wetlands.
Rather than an avoidance strategy, these
areas may require management actions
to remove reed canarygrass in order to
maintain egg-laying habitat and provide
for Oregon spotted frog persistence.
Within Whatcom County, protective
measures for Oregon spotted frogs are
afforded under both the SMP and the
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
53609
CAOs, although no measures are
specifically directed toward this
species.
Skagit County: Skagit County’s
revisions to its SMP are under review
and anticipated to be adopted by June
2013 (www.skagitcounty.net). Until the
revised SMP is approved by WDOE, the
1976 SMP remains in effect. The portion
of the Samish River in Skagit County is
designated as Rural Shoreline Area, and
typified by low overall structural
density, and low to moderate intensity
of agriculture, residential development,
outdoor recreation, and forestry
operations uses. This designation is
intended to maintain open spaces and
opportunities for recreational activities
and a variety of uses compatible with
agriculture and the shoreline
environment. Presently, the two primary
uses of the Samish River where Oregon
spotted frog occur are agricultural and
residential. With some restrictions,
almost all activities are allowed within
this designation, and the draining of
wetlands is not prohibited. Agricultural
users are encouraged to retain
vegetation along stream banks.
Developments and sand and gravel
extractions are allowed provided they
are compatible with agricultural uses.
These types of activities can be
detrimental to Oregon spotted frog egglaying habitat.
The Skagit County CAO designates
lands adjacent to the Samish River
where Oregon spotted frogs are known
to occur as Rural Resource or
Agricultural. These land designations
and the associated allowed activities are
intended to provide some protection of
hydrological functions, but they are
primarily designed to retain a rural
setting (low residential density) or to
ensure the stability and productivity of
agriculture and forestry in the county,
which has some benefits to the Oregon
spotted frog.
Thurston County: Thurston County’s
revision of its SMP is currently under
way, and until the revised SMP is
completed and approved, the 1990 SMP
remains in effect. The majority of the
areas within the Black River that are
known to be occupied by Oregon
spotted frogs are either undesignated
(primarily the tributaries) or designated
as Natural or Conservancy
Environments. Two small areas are
designated as Urban at the town of
Littlerock and along Beaver Creek. Fish
Pond Creek, a known Oregon spotted
frog breeding location, is within the
designated Urban Growth Area. Within
the Natural Environment designation
areas, most activity types are prohibited,
although livestock grazing, lowintensity recreation, low-density (1⁄10 ac)
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53610
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
residences, and conditional shoreline
alterations are allowed. Within
Conservancy Environments, most
activities are conditionally allowed, and
would require a permit that must be
reviewed and approved by Thurston
County and WDOE for consistency with
the SMP.
Thurston County approved a revision
to the CAO in July 2012. The Thurston
County CAO that is the most relevant to
Oregon spotted frogs addresses
Wetlands, although the 100-year
floodplain and Channel Migration Zone
designations are also applicable.
Activities in most wetlands are
regulated, other than those less than or
equal to 1,000 square feet in size. As a
result, activities that can destroy or
modify Oregon spotted frog habitat may
still occur, such as asphalt batch plant
construction, new agricultural uses, boat
ramps, docks, piers, floats, bridge or
culvert projects, clearing-gradingexcavation activities, and dredging/
removal operations. Buffers and
mitigation are required, but can be
adjusted by the county. In general,
wetlands and the associated wetland
buffer CAOs strive toward a nomanagement approach, which may not
be beneficial to the maintenance of
Oregon spotted frog early seral stage
habitat on a long-term basis. Within the
areas occupied by Oregon spotted frogs
in the Black River, all egg-laying habitat
is within seasonally flooded areas,
which may or may not be defined as
wetlands. Rather than an avoidance
strategy, these areas may require
management actions to remove reed
canarygrass in order to maintain egglaying habitat. Within Thurston County,
protective measures for Oregon spotted
frogs are afforded under both the SMP
and CAOs, although no measures are
specifically directed toward this
species.
Skamania County: Skamania County’s
revision to its SMP is under way, and
until revised, the 1980 SMP is in effect.
According to the 1980 SMP, Trout Lake
Creek is not a shoreline of Skamania
County. The portions of Trout Lake
Creek that are in Skamania County have
no designated critical areas. Therefore,
the SMP and CAO are not applicable to
Oregon spotted frog habitat in Skamania
County.
Klickitat County: Klickitat County’s
SMP was adopted in 1998 and revised
in 2007. Based on the 2007 SMP, only
Trout Lake Creek is considered a
‘‘shoreline,’’ and within the area
occupied by Oregon spotted frogs,
regulations for both Natural and
Conservancy Environments apply.
Within the Natural Environments, most
activity types are prohibited, except for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
nonintensive pasturing or grazing,
recreation (access trails/passive uses),
bulkheads (conditional uses), and
shoreline alterations (conditional).
Within Conservancy Environments,
most activities are conditionally
allowed, and require a permit that must
be reviewed and approved by Klickitat
County and WDOE for consistency.
Klickitat County’s CAO was adopted
in 2001 and amended in 2004. Mapping
of critical areas was not available, so our
analysis includes only wetlands
provisions. Activities in all wetlands
greater than 2,500 square ft (232 square
m) in size are regulated; however, some
activities are exempted, including
agricultural uses and maintenance of
surface water systems (for example,
irrigation and drainage ditches). These
types of activities can destroy or modify
Oregon spotted frog habitat. Buffers and
mitigation are required, but can be
adjusted by the county. In general,
wetlands and the associated wetland
buffer CAOs strive toward a nomanagement approach, which may
result in the loss of Oregon spotted frog
early seral stage habitat on a long-term
basis. Within the areas occupied by
Oregon spotted frogs in Klickitat
County, all egg-laying habitat is within
seasonally flooded areas, which may or
may not be defined as wetlands. Rather
than an avoidance strategy, these areas
may require management actions to
remove reed canarygrass in order to
maintain egg-laying habitat. Within
Klickitat County, protective measures
for Oregon spotted frogs are afforded
under both the SMP and CAOs,
although no measures are specifically
directed toward this species.
Oregon—In Oregon, the Land
Conservation and Development
Commission in 1974 adopted Goal 5 as
a broad statewide planning goal that
covers more than a dozen resources,
including wildlife habitats and natural
areas. Goal 5 and related Oregon
Administrative Rules (Chapter 660,
Divisions 16 and 23) describe how cities
and counties are to plan and zone land
to conserve resources listed in the goal.
Goal 5 is a required planning process
that allows local governments to make
decisions about land use regulations
and whether to protect the individual
resources based upon potential conflicts
involving economic, social,
environmental, and energy
consequences. It does not require
minimum levels of protections for
natural resources, but does require
weighing the various impacts to
resources from land use.
Counties in Oregon within the range
of Oregon spotted frog may have zoning
ordinances that reflect protections set
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
forth during the Goal 5 planning
process. The following will briefly
discuss these within each county where
Oregon spotted frogs are currently
known to occur.
Deschutes County: In accordance with
the State-wide planning process
discussed above (State Regulations and
Laws—Oregon), Deschutes County
completed a Comprehensive Plan in
1979, which was updated in 2011,
although Oregon spotted frog habitat is
not included within the Comprehensive
Plan as a Goal 5 resource site. The
Comprehensive Plan is implemented
primarily through zoning. Deschutes
County zoning ordinances that regulate
the removal and fill of wetlands
(18.128.270), development within the
floodplain (18.96.100) and siting of
structures within 100 ft (30 m) of
streams may provide indirect
protections to Oregon spotted frog
habitat on private lands along the Upper
and Little Deschutes Rivers. The
Deschutes County zoning regulations do
not regulate the draining of wetlands or
hydrologic modifications, and the
Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL)
regulates only actions that involve more
than 50 cubic yards (cy) (38 m3) of
wetland removal. Therefore,
development associated with small
wetland removals is neither regulated
under the Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan nor Oregon DSL
(See DSL discussion above), which
could negatively impact Oregon spotted
frog habitat.
Klamath County: Article 57 of the
Klamath County Comprehensive Plan
Policy (KCCPP) and associated Klamath
County Development Code mandates
provisions to preserve significant
natural and cultural resources; address
the economic, social, environmental,
and energy consequences of conflicting
uses upon significant natural and
cultural resources; and permit
development in a manner that does not
adversely impact identified resource
values (KCDC 2005, p. 197). This plan
identifies significant wetlands, riparian
areas, Class I streams, and fish habitat
as a significant resource and identifies
potentially conflicting uses including
shoreline development or alteration,
removal of riparian vegetation, filling or
removing material, in-stream
modification, introduction of pollutants,
water impoundments, and drainage or
channelization (KCCPP 2005, pp. 33–34,
KCDC 2005, p. 199). All land uses that
represent these conflicting uses are
reviewed and applicants must clearly
demonstrate that the proposed use will
not negatively impact the resource
(KCDC 2005, p. 200; KCCPP 2005, p.
25). However, all accepted farm
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
practices or forest practices are exempt
from this provision (KCDC 2005, p.
198), including (but not limited to)
buildings, wineries, mineral
exploration, and under certain
circumstances, the establishment of golf
courses and agricultural and
commercial industries (KCDC 2005, pp.
160–163; 176–177). If any of these
practices disturb less than 50 cy (38.2
m3) of wetlands, they are not regulated
by either KC CPP or Oregon DSL (See
DSL discussion above). Therefore, the
development associated with small
wetland removals could negatively
impact Oregon spotted frog habitat.
Jackson County: No specific county
regulations pertain to wetlands within
Jackson County ordinances. This county
relies on the Oregon DSL to regulate the
development and protection of wetlands
(see DSL discussion above) (Skyles
2012, pers. comm.).
Summary of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms
The existing regulatory mechanisms
described above are not sufficient to
reduce or remove threats to the Oregon
spotted frog habitat, particularly habitat
loss and degradation. The lack of
essential habitat protection under
Federal, State, Provincial, and local
laws leaves this species at continued
risk of habitat loss and degradation in
British Columbia, Washington, and
Oregon. The review of impacts to
wetlands under the Clean Water Act is
minimal, and several occupied subbasins in Washington and Oregon do
not meet water quality standards. In
many cases, laws and regulations that
pertain to retention and restoration of
wetland and riverine areas are designed
to be beneficial to fish species,
specifically salmonids, resulting in the
unintentional elimination or
degradation of Oregon spotted frog
habitat. For example, CAOs in some
Washington counties prohibit grazing
within the riparian corridor, which is an
active management technique used to
control invasive reed canarygrass.
Additional regulatory flexibility
would be desirable for actively
maintaining habitat in those areas
essential for the conservation of Oregon
spotted frog. We note that the area
where these potential incompatibilities
apply are limited in scope (i.e.,
approximately 5,000 ac (2,000 ha) and
20 mi (33 km) along the Black Slough
and Sumas, Samish, and Black Rivers in
Washington), because the area inhabited
by Oregon spotted frogs is quite small
relative to the extensive range of
salmonids. In other cases, no regulations
address threats related to the draining or
development of wetlands or hydrologic
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
53611
variances of population abundances and
high local extinction rates relative to
other groups of amphibians, with
smaller frog populations undergoing
disproportionately large fluctuations in
abundance (Green 2003, pp. 339–341).
The vulnerability of Oregon spotted frog
egg masses to fluctuating water levels
(Hayes et al. 2000, pp. 10–12; Pearl and
Bury 2000, p. 10), the vulnerability of
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade
post-metamorphic stages to predation
Factors Affecting Its Continued
(Hayes 1994, p. 25), and low
Existence
overwintering survival (Hallock and
Pearson 2001, p. 8) can contribute to
Site Size and Isolation/Population
relatively rapid population turnovers,
Turnover Rates/Breeding Effort
suggesting Oregon spotted frogs are
Concentrations and Site Fidelity
particularly vulnerable to local
Most species’ populations fluctuate
extirpations from stochastic events and
naturally in response to weather events,
chronic sources of mortality (Pearl and
disease, predation, or other factors.
Hayes 2004, p. 11). The term ‘‘rapid
These factors, however, have less
population turnovers’’ refers to
impact on a species with a wide and
disproportionately large fluctuations in
continuous distribution. In addition,
abundance.
smaller, isolated populations are
Oregon spotted frogs concentrate their
generally more likely to be extirpated by breeding efforts in relatively few
stochastic events and genetic drift
locations (Hayes et al. 2000, pp. 5–6;
(Lande 1988, pp. 1456–1458). Many of
McAllister and White 2001, p. 11). For
the Oregon spotted frog breeding
example, Hayes et al. (2000, pp. 5–6)
locations comprise less than 50 adult
found that 2 percent of breeding sites
frogs, are isolated from other breeding
accounted for 19 percent of the egg
locations, and may already be stressed
masses at the Conboy Lake NWR.
by other factors, such as drought or
Similar breeding concentrations have
predation, and are then more vulnerable been found elsewhere in Washington
to random, naturally occurring events.
and in Oregon. Moreover, Oregon
Where Oregon spotted frog locations
spotted frogs exhibit relatively high
have small population sizes and are
fidelity to breeding locations, using the
isolated, their vulnerability to
same seasonal pools every year and
extirpation from factors such as
often using the same egg-laying sites. In
fluctuating water levels, disease, and
years of extremely high or low water,
predation increases.
the frogs may use alternative sites. For
Funk et al. (2008, p. 205) found low
example, the Trout Lake Creek and
genetic variation in Oregon spotted
Conboy Lake frogs return to traditional
frogs, which likely reflects small
breeding areas every year, but the eggeffective population sizes, historical or
laying sites change based on water
current genetic bottlenecks, and/or low
depth at the time of breeding. A
gene flow among populations. Genetic
stochastic event that impacts any one of
work by Blouin et al. (2010) indicates
these breeding locations could
low genetic diversity within and high
significantly reduce the Oregon spotted
genetic differentiation among each of
frog population associated with that
the six Oregon spotted frog groups
sub-basin.
(British Columbia, Chehalis and
Egg mass count data suggests a
Columbia drainages, Camas Prairie,
positive correlation and significant link
central Oregon Cascades, and the
between site size and Oregon spotted
Klamath Basin). This pattern of genetic
frog breeding population size (Pearl and
fragmentation is likely caused by low
Hayes 2004, p. 12). Larger sites are more
connectivity between sites and naturally likely to provide the seasonal
small populations sizes. Gene flow is
microhabitats required by Oregon
very limited between locations,
spotted frogs, have a more reliable prey
especially if separated by 6 mi (10 km)
base, and include overwintering habitat.
or more, and at the larger scale, genetic
The minimum amount of habitat
thought to be required to maintain an
groups have the signature of complete
isolation (Blouin et al. 2010, p. 2187). At Oregon spotted frog population is about
10 ac (4 ha) (Hayes 1994, Part II pp. 5
least two of the locations sampled by
and 7). Smaller sites generally have a
Blouin et al. (2010) (Camas Prairie and
small number of frogs and, as described
Trout Lake) show indications of recent
above, are more vulnerable to
genetic drift.
extirpation. Some sites in Oregon are at
Modeling across a variety of
or below the 10-ac (4-ha) threshold;
amphibian taxa suggests that pondhowever, Pearl and Hayes (2004, p. 14)
breeding frogs have high temporal
modifications, which can eliminate or
degrade Oregon spotted frog habitat. In
summary, degradation of habitat for the
Oregon spotted frog is ongoing despite
existing regulatory mechanisms. These
regulatory mechanisms have been
insufficient to significantly reduce or
remove the threats to the Oregon spotted
frog.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53612
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
believe that these sites were historically
subpopulations within a larger breeding
complex and Oregon spotted frogs may
only be persisting in these small sites
because the sites exchange migrants or
seasonal habitat needs are provided
nearby.
Movement studies suggest Oregon
spotted frogs are limited in their
overland dispersal and potential to
recolonize sites. Most Oregon spotted
frog movements are associated with
aquatic connections (Watson et al. 2003,
p. 295; Pearl and Hayes 2004, p. 15).
However, within 10 of the 15 occupied
sub-basins, one or more of the known
breeding locations are isolated and
separated by at least 3.1 mi (5 km) (see
Life History) and within 9 of the 15 subbasins, one or more of the known
breeding locations are isolated and
separated by at least 6 mi (10 km), the
distance over which gene flow is
extremely low (see Taxonomy). In many
instances the intervening habitat lacks
the substantial hydrological connections
that would allow Oregon spotted frog
movement. In addition, widespread
predaceous fish introductions within
these corridors pose a very high risk to
frogs that do try to move between
known locations. Therefore, should a
stochastic event occur that results in the
extirpation of an area, natural
recolonization is unlikely unless
another known location is
hydrologically connected and within 3.1
mi (5 km).
In British Columbia, the distance
between the Morris Valley, Mountain
Slough, and Maria Slough locations is
about 8 km and each of these locations
is 50–60 km from Maintenance
Detachment Aldergrove, making all of
the known populations isolated from
one another (COSFRT 2012, p. 15). In
addition, suitable wetland habitat
between any two of these locations is
highly fragmented, and movement
between populations is unlikely to
occur. Based on this information and
the small number of breeding
individuals (less than 350), the
Canadian Oregon spotted frog recovery
team found that the risk from
demographic and environmental
stochastic events is high and could
result in further local extirpations
(COSFRT 2012, p. v).
In five of the six extant sub-basins in
Washington, Oregon spotted frogs are
restricted to one watershed within the
sub-basin. Within four of these subbasins (South Fork Nooksack, Samish,
White Salmon, and Middle Klickitat
Rivers), the known egg-laying locations
are aquatically connected, such that
movements could occur and facilitate
genetic exchange. In the Lower
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
Chilliwack, Oregon spotted frogs are
currently known to occur from only one
egg-laying location in one watershed
(Sumas River). There may be additional
locations within 3.1 mi (5 km) that are
aquatically connected, but further
surveys would be needed in order to
make this determination. In the Black
River, known egg-laying locations occur
along the mainstem, as well as in six
tributaries. Oregon spotted frogs in Fish
Pond Creek are likely isolated from
Oregon spotted frogs in the rest of the
Black River system due to changes in
the outflow of Black Lake. Black Lake
Ditch was constructed in 1922, and a
pipeline at the outlet of the Black Lake
to Black River was constructed in the
1960s; both of these structures changed
the flow such that Black Lake drains to
the north, except during high flows
rather than down the Black River as it
did historically (Foster Wheeler
Environmental Corporation 2003, pp. 2,
3, 5, 24). Oregon spotted frogs in the
other five tributaries may also be
isolated from each other because there
is little evidence that the frogs use the
Black River to move between tributaries,
although egg-laying locations in these
tributaries are aquatically connected via
the Black River.
In Oregon, two of the eight extant subbasins contain single, isolated
populations of Oregon spotted frogs:
Lower Deschutes River (i.e., Camas
Prairie) and Middle Fork Willamette
River (i.e., Gold Lake). The McKenzie
River sub-basin contains two
populations of Oregon spotted frogs that
are in close proximity but have no
apparent hydrologic connection to each
other or to populations in other subbasins. In the Deschutes River Basin,
Oregon spotted frog egg-laying sites are
found throughout two sub-basins: the
Upper Deschutes River and the Little
Deschutes River. These two sub-basins
are aquatically connected at the
confluence of the Little Deschutes River
and the mainstem Deschutes River
below Wickiup Reservoir. Genetic
exchange likely occurs between Oregon
spotted frogs on the lower reach of the
Little Deschutes River and those along
the Deschutes River at Sunriver where
breeding occurs within 3.1 mi (5 km).
The Wickiup dam and regulated flows
out of the reservoir limit connectivity
for Oregon spotted frogs to move within
the Upper Deschutes River sub-basin,
such that connectivity between the
populations above and below the dam
are unlikely. Only four egg-laying
locations occur below Wickiup
Reservoir, two of which are within 6 mi
(10 km) but separated by a waterfall
along the Deschutes River. Above
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Wickiup Reservoir, there are
approximately six clusters of egg-laying
sites that may be isolated from each
other by lack of hydrologic connectivity
(i.e., lakes without outlets) or distances
greater than 6 mi (10 km).
In the Little Deschutes River subbasin, approximately 23 known egglaying locations are within five
watersheds: Upper, Middle and Lower
Little Deschutes River; Crescent Creek;
and Long Prairie. Most egg-laying
locations throughout the Little
Deschutes River sub-basin are within 6
mi (10 km) of each other, and, given that
much of the private land is unsurveyed,
the distance between breeding areas is
likely smaller. In the lower reach of the
Little Deschutes River near the
confluence with the Deschutes River
where more extensive surveys have
been conducted, egg-laying sites are
within 3.1 mi (5 km). Wetland
complexes are extensive and continuous
along the Little Deschutes River and its
tributaries, which likely provides
connectivity between breeding areas.
Regulated flows out of Crescent Lake
may affect the aquatic connectivity
between egg-laying locations, although
the impacts to Oregon spotted frog
connectivity are not fully understood.
The Long Prairie watershed also has
been hydrologically altered by the
historical draining of wetlands and
ditching to supply irrigation water.
Connectivity between three known egglaying locations within this watershed is
likely affected by the timing and
duration of regulated flows, and historic
ditching for irrigation.
Oregon spotted frogs are found in six
watersheds within three sub-basins of
the Klamath River Basin in Oregon
(Williamson River, Upper Klamath
Lake, and Upper Klamath). Within the
Williamson River sub-basin, individuals
in the Jack Creek watershed are isolated
from other populations due to lack of
hydrologic connectivity. The Klamath
Marsh and Upper Williamson
populations are aquatically connected
such that movements could occur and
facilitate genetic exchange, although
this presumed gene flow has not been
demonstrated by recent genetic work
(Robertson and Funk 2012, p. 10).
The Upper Klamath Lake sub-basin
populations are found in two
watersheds: Wood River and Klamath
Lake. Populations within and adjacent
to the Wood River are aquatically
connected and genetically similar
(Robertson and Funk 2012, p. 10).
However, while the Wood River
populations and the Klamath Lake
populations have genetic similarities
(Robertson and Funk 2012, p. 10, 11),
altered hydrologic connections,
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
distances (>6 mi (terrestrial) (10km)),
and invasive species, have created
inhospitable habitat. These conditions
make it unlikely that individual frogs
are able to move between watersheds or
establish additional breeding complexes
along the current hydrologic system.
The only potential for hydrologic
connectivity and movement between
populations in the Klamath Lake
populations is between Sevenmile Creek
and Crane Creek, and between the
individual breeding complexes on the
Wood River in the Wood River
watershed. The Upper Klamath subbasin’s Parsnip Lakes and Buck Lake
populations are isolated from each other
and the other Klamath Basin
populations (Robertson and Funk 2012,
p. 5) due to great hydrological distances
(> 20 mi (32 km)) and barriers
(inhospitable habitat and dams).
Site size and isolation/population
turnover rates/breeding effort
concentrations and site fidelity
conclusion— Historically, Oregon
spotted frogs were likely distributed
throughout a watershed, occurred in
multiple watersheds within a sub-basin,
and adjusted their breeding areas as
natural disturbances, such as flood
events and beaver activity, shifted the
location and amount of appropriate
habitat. Currently, Oregon spotted frogs
are restricted in their range within most
occupied sub-basins (in some cases only
occurring in one watershed), and
breeding areas are isolated (greater than
dispersal distance apart). Many of the
Oregon spotted frog breeding locations
across the range comprise less than 50
adult frogs and are isolated from other
breeding locations. Genetic work
indicates low genetic diversity within
and high genetic differentiation among
the six Oregon spotted frog groups. Each
of these groups have the signature of
complete isolation, and two show
indications of recent genetic drift (a
change in the gene pool of a small
population that takes place strictly by
chance). Oregon spotted frogs can
experience rapid population turnovers
because of their breeding location
fidelity and vulnerability to fluctuating
water levels, predation, and low
overwinter survival. A stochastic event
at any one of these small, isolated
breeding locations could significantly
reduce the Oregon spotted frog
population associated with that subbasin. Therefore, based on the best
information available, we consider
small site size and isolation and small
population sizes to be a threat to the
Oregon spotted frog.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
Water Quality and Contamination
Poor water quality and water
contamination are playing a role in the
decline of Oregon spotted frogs, and
water quality concerns have been
specifically noted within six of the
occupied sub-basins (see Table 2 and
Factor D), although data specific to this
species are limited. Because of this
limitation, we have examined responses
by similar amphibians as a surrogate for
impacts on Oregon spotted frogs.
Studies comparing responses of
amphibians to other aquatic species
have demonstrated that amphibians are
as sensitive as, and often more sensitive
than, other species when exposed to
aquatic contaminants (Boyer and Grue
1995, p. 353). Immature amphibians
absorb contaminants during respiration
through the skin and gills. They may
also ingest contaminated prey.
Pesticides, heavy metals, nitrates and
nitrites, and other contaminants
introduced into the aquatic environment
from urban and agricultural areas are
known to negatively affect various life
stages of a wide range of amphibian
species, including ranid frogs (Hayes
and Jennings 1986, p. 497; Boyer and
Grue 1995, pp. 353–354; Hecnar 1995,
pp. 2133–2135; Materna et al. 1995, pp.
616–618; NBII 2005, Mann et al. 2009,
p. 2904). Exposure to pesticides can
lower an individual’s immune function,
which increases the risk of disease or
possible malformation (Stark 2005, p.
21; Mann et al. 2009 pp. 2905, 2909). In
addition, it has been demonstrated that
some chemicals reduce growth and
delay development.
A reduction of growth or development
would prolong an individual’s larval
period, thus making it more susceptible
to predators for a longer period of time
or resulting in immobility during
periods of time when movement
between habitats may be necessary
(Mann et al. 2009, p. 2906). Many of the
described effects from pesticides
described are sublethal but ultimately
may result in the mortality of the
exposed individuals as described above.
Furthermore, the results of several
studies have suggested that, while the
impacts of individual chemicals on
amphibians are sublethal, a combination
or cocktail of a variety of chemicals may
be lethal (Mann et al. 2009, p. 2913;
Bishop et al. 2010, p. 1602). The use of
pesticides may be occurring throughout
the range of the Oregon spotted frog due
to the species’ overlap with agricultural
and urban environments; however,
information regarding the extent,
methods of application, and amounts
applied are not available. Therefore, we
are unable to make an affirmative
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
53613
determination at this time that
pesticides are a threat.
Methoprene, a chemical widely
applied to wetlands for mosquito
control, was historically linked to
abnormalities in southern leopard frogs
(Lithobates utricularia), including
completely or partially missing hind
limbs, discoloration, and missing eyes.
Missing eyes and delayed development
in northern cricket frogs (Acris
crepitans) have also been linked to
methoprene (Stark 2005, p. 20).
However, a recent scientific literature
review suggests that methoprene is not
ultimately responsible for frog
malformations (Mann et al. 2009, pp.
2906–2907). The findings of this review
suggest that, in order for malformations
to occur, the concentration of chemical
in the water would induce mortality
(Mann et al. 2009, p. 2906). Therefore,
based on the best available information,
we do not consider methoprene to be a
threat to Oregon spotted frogs.
Although the effects on amphibians of
rotenone, which is used to remove
undesirable fish from lakes, are poorly
understood, mortality likely occurs at
treatment levels used on fish
(McAllister et al. 1999, p. 21). The role
of rotenone treatments in the
disappearance of Oregon spotted frogs
from historical sites is unknown;
however, some studies indicate that
amphibians might be less sensitive than
fish and might be capable of recovering
from exposure to rotenone (Mullin et al.
2004, pp. 305–306; Walston and Mullin
2007, p. 65). However, these studies did
not measure the effects on highly
aquatic amphibians, like the Oregon
spotted frog. In fall of 2011, ODFW used
rotenone to remove goldfish from a
small pond adjacent to Crane Prairie
Reservoir. In April 2012, approximately
40 spotted frog egg masses were located
in the pond, where there had been no
prior record of Oregon spotted frog
occupancy in the past (Wray 2012, pers.
comm.). No rotenone treatments in
Cascade lakes occupied by Oregon
spotted frog are planned in the near
future (Hodgson 2012, pers. comm.),
and to date, in the Upper Klamath Lake
sub-basin, no fish killing agents have
been applied within Oregon spotted frog
habitat (Banish 2012, pers. comm.).
Therefore, based on the best available
information, we do not consider
rotenone to be a threat to Oregon
spotted frogs.
Water acidity (low pH) can inhibit
fertilization and embryonic
development in amphibians, reduce
their growth and survival through
physiological alterations, and produce
developmental anomalies (Hayes and
Jennings 1986, pp. 498–499; Boyer and
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53614
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Grue 1995, p. 353). A low pH may
enhance the effects of other factors, such
as activating heavy metals in sediments.
An elevated pH, acting singly or in
combination with other factors such as
low dissolved oxygen, high water
temperatures, and elevated un-ionized
ammonia levels, may have detrimental
effects on developing frog embryos
(Boyer and Grue 1995, p. 354).
Marco et al. (1999, p. 2838)
demonstrated the strong sensitivity of
Oregon spotted frog tadpoles to nitrate
and nitrite ions, and suggested that
nitrogen-based chemical fertilizers may
have contributed to the species’ decline
in the lowland areas of its distribution.
Recommended levels of nitrates and
nitrites in drinking water are moderately
to highly toxic for Oregon spotted frogs,
indicating that EPA water quality
standards do not protect sensitive
amphibian species (Marco et al. 1999, p.
2838). In the Marco et al. study, Oregon
spotted frog tadpoles did not show a
rapid adverse effect to nitrate ions, but
at day 15 of exposure they reflected high
sensitivity followed by synchronous
death. Many public water supplies in
the United States contain levels of
nitrate that routinely exceed
concentrations of 10 milligrams of
nitrate per liter (mg/L); the median
lethal concentrations for aquatic larvae
of the Oregon spotted frog is less than
10 mg/L (Marco et al. 1999, p. 2838).
In Washington, portions of the Sumas
River; Black Slough in the S.F.
Nooksack sub-basin; portions of the
Samish River; segments of the Black
River; segments of Dempsey, Allen, and
Beaver Creeks in the Black River subbasin; and a segment in the upper
portion of Trout Lake Creek are listed by
the Washington Department of Ecology
as not meeting water quality standards
for a variety of parameters, including
temperature, fecal coliform, pH, and
dissolved oxygen. In Oregon, many of
the streams associated with Oregon
spotted frog habitat are listed by the
Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality as not meeting water quality
standards for multiple parameters: (1)
Little Deschutes River—temperature,
dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll A, pH,
aquatic weeds or algae; (2) Deschutes
River—temperature, dissolved oxygen,
turbidity, sedimentation; (3) Middle
Fork Willamette River—sedimentation;
(4) Upper Klamath—temperature; and
(5) Williamson River—sedimentation.
Johnson and Chase (2004, p. 522)
point to elevated levels of nutrients
(particularly phosphorus) from
agricultural fertilizers and cattle grazing
in freshwater ecosystems as causing
shifts in the composition of aquatic
snails from small species to larger
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
species. These larger species serve as
intermediate hosts for a parasite
(Ribeiroia ondatrae), which causes
malformations in amphibians (see
Disease above). Elevated sources of
nutrient inputs into river and wetland
systems can also result in eutrophic
(nutrient-rich) conditions, characterized
by blooms of algae that can produce a
high pH and low dissolved oxygen.
Increased eutrophic conditions in the
Upper Klamath Lake sub-basin may
have contributed to the absence of
Oregon spotted frogs. Beginning in
2002, algal blooms, poor water quality,
and low dissolved oxygen were
documented in Jack Creek, during
which a decline in Oregon spotted frog
reproduction was also documented
(Oertley 2005, pers. comm.). Although
more research is needed, Johnson et al.
(2002a; Johnson and Chase 2004) state
that eutrophication associated with
elevated nitrogen (and phosphorus) has
been linked with increased snail
populations, which in turn can be
linked to parasites that use frogs such as
the Oregon spotted frog as alternate
hosts (see discussion under ‘‘Disease
and Predation’’ above for additional
information).
In British Columbia, Oregon spotted
frogs at Morris Valley, Mountain
Slough, and Maria Slough are in largely
agricultural areas. Agricultural runoff
includes fertilizers (including manure),
and runoff or percolation into the
ground water from manure piles (Rouse
et al. 1999), and spraying of agricultural
chemicals such as pesticides or
insecticides (including Btk, or Bacillus
thuringiensis bacterium) or fungicides
(used by blueberry producers),
including wind-borne chemicals. Waterborne sewage and non-point source
runoff from housing and urban areas
that include nutrients, toxic chemicals,
and/or sediments may also be increasing
in intensity. Additional sources of
contaminants may include chemical
spraying during forestry activities,
maintenance of power line corridors, or
disruption of normal movements of
nutrients by forestry activities
(Canadian Recovery Strategy (COSFRS)
2012, p. 21). The COSFRS (2012, p. 17)
identifies pollution associated with
agricultural and forestry effluents as
being (1) high impact; (2) large in scope;
(3) serious in severity; (4) high in
timing, and (5) a stress that has direct
and indirect mortality results. One of
the recovery objectives is to coordinate
with the Minister of Agriculture to
implement supporting farming practices
and environmental farm plans options
to decrease agrochemical and nutrient
pollution into Oregon spotted frog
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
habitat and work with all levels of
government, land managers, and private
landowners to inform and encourage
best practices and ensure compliance in
relation to water quality, hydrology, and
land use practice (COSFRS 2012, p. 34).
Water quality and contamination
conclusion—Although pesticides could
be a threat to the Oregon spotted frog,
those threats are undetermined at this
time. Oregon spotted frogs are highly
aquatic throughout their life cycle, and
are thus likely to experience extended
exposure to waterborne contaminants.
Poor water quality parameters and
contaminants may act singly or in
combination with other factors to result
in inhibited fertilization and embryonic
development, developmental anomalies,
or reduced growth and survival. Many
public water supplies in the United
States contain levels of nitrates that
routinely exceed lethal concentrations
for aquatic larvae of the Oregon spotted
frog, and reduced water quality is
documented in a number of occupied
sub-basins. Although more work on the
species’ ecotoxicology is warranted,
based on the best information available,
we consider water quality and
contamination to be a threat to the
Oregon spotted frog across the range.
Hybridization
Hybridization between Oregon
spotted frogs and closely related frog
species is unlikely to affect the survival
of the Oregon spotted frog. Natural
hybridization between Oregon spotted
frogs and Cascade frogs has been
demonstrated experimentally and
verified in nature (Haertel and Storm
1970, pp. 436–444; Green 1985, p. 263).
However, the offspring are infertile, and
the two species seldom occur together.
Hybridization between Oregon spotted
frogs and red-legged frogs has also been
confirmed (I.C. Phillipsen, K.
McAllister, and M. Hayes unpublished
data), but it is unknown if the hybrids
are fertile. Because, Oregon spotted frog
and Columbia spotted frog populations
are not known to occur together, based
on the best available information, we do
not consider hybridization to be a threat
to Oregon spotted frogs.
Climate Change
Our analyses under the Endangered
Species Act include consideration of
ongoing and projected changes in
climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ and
‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). The term ‘‘climate’’
refers to the mean and variability of
different types of weather conditions
over time, with 30 years being a typical
period for such measurements, although
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
shorter or longer periods also may be
used (IPCC 2007a, p. 78). The term
‘‘climate change’’ thus refers to a change
in the mean or variability of one or more
measures of climate (e.g., temperature or
precipitation) that persists for an
extended period, typically decades or
longer, whether the change is due to
natural variability, human activity, or
both (IPCC 2007a, p. 78).
Scientific measurements spanning
several decades demonstrate that
changes in climate are occurring, and
that the rate of change has been faster
since the 1950s. Examples include
warming of the global climate system,
and substantial increases in
precipitation in some regions of the
world and decreases in other regions.
(For these and other examples, see IPCC
2007a, p. 30; and Solomon et al. 2007,
pp. 35–54, 82–85). Results of scientific
analyses presented by the IPCC show
that most of the observed increase in
global average temperature since the
mid-20th century cannot be explained
by natural variability in climate, and is
‘‘very likely’’ (defined by the IPCC as 90
percent or higher probability) due to the
observed increase in greenhouse gas
(GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere
as a result of human activities,
particularly carbon dioxide emissions
from use of fossil fuels (IPCC 2007a, pp.
5–6 and figures SPM.3 and SPM.4;
Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 21–35). Further
confirmation of the role of GHGs comes
from analyses by Huber and Knutti
(2011, p. 4), who concluded it is
extremely likely that approximately 75
percent of global warming since 1950
has been caused by human activities.
Scientists use a variety of climate
models, which include consideration of
natural processes and variability, as
well as various scenarios of potential
levels and timing of GHG emissions, to
evaluate the causes of changes already
observed and to project future changes
in temperature and other climate
conditions (e.g., Meehl et al. 2007,
entire; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 11555,
15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529).
All combinations of models and
emissions scenarios yield very similar
projections of increases in the most
common measure of climate change,
average global surface temperature
(commonly known as global warming),
until about 2030. Although projections
of the magnitude and rate of warming
differ after about 2030, the overall
trajectory of all the projections is one of
increased global warming through the
end of this century, even for the
projections based on scenarios that
assume that GHG emissions will
stabilize or decline. Thus, strong
scientific data support projections that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
warming will continue through the 21st
century, and that the magnitude and
rate of change will be influenced
substantially by the extent of GHG
emissions (IPCC 2007a, pp. 44–45;
Meehl et al. 2007, pp. 760–764 and 797–
811; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 15555–
15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529).
(See IPCC 2007b, p. 8, for a summary of
other global projections of climaterelated changes, such as frequency of
heat waves and changes in
precipitation. Also see IPCC 2012
(entire) for a summary of observations
and projections of extreme climate
events.)
Various changes in climate may have
direct or indirect effects on species.
These effects may be positive, neutral,
or negative, and they may change over
time, depending on the species and
other relevant considerations, such as
interactions of climate with other
variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation)
(IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, 18–19).
Identifying likely effects often involves
aspects of climate change vulnerability
analysis. Vulnerability refers to the
degree to which a species (or system) is
susceptible to, and unable to cope with,
adverse effects of climate change,
including climate variability and
extremes. Vulnerability is a function of
the type, magnitude, and rate of climate
change and variation to which a species
is exposed, its sensitivity, and its
adaptive capacity (IPCC 2007a, p. 89;
see also Glick et al. 2011, pp. 19–22). No
single method for conducting such
analyses applies to all situations (Glick
et al. 2011, p. 3). We use our expert
judgment and appropriate analytical
approaches to weigh relevant
information, including uncertainty, in
our consideration of various aspects of
climate change.
As is the case with all stressors that
we assess, even if we conclude that a
species is currently affected or is likely
to be affected in a negative way by one
or more climate-related impacts, the
species does not necessarily meet the
definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or
a ‘‘threatened species’’ under the Act. If
a species is listed as an endangered or
threatened species, knowledge regarding
the vulnerability of the species to, and
known or anticipated impacts from,
climate-associated changes in
environmental conditions can be used
to help devise appropriate strategies for
its recovery.
Global climate projections are
informative, and, in some cases, the
only or the best scientific information
available for us to use. However,
projected changes in climate and related
impacts can vary substantially across
and within different regions of the
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
53615
world (e.g., IPCC 2007a, pp. 8–12).
Therefore, we use ‘‘downscaled’’
projections when they are available and
have been developed through
appropriate scientific procedures,
because such projections provide higher
resolution information that is more
relevant to spatial scales used for
analyses of a given species (see Glick et
al. 2011, pp. 58–61, for a discussion of
downscaling). With regard to our
analysis for the Oregon spotted frog,
downscaled projections are available.
The climate in the Pacific Northwest
(PNW) has already experienced a
warming of 0.8 degrees Celsius (C) (1.4
degrees Fahrenheit (F)) during the 20th
century (Mote et al. 2008, p.3). Using
output from eight climate models the
PNW is projected to warm further by 0.6
to 1.9 degrees C (1.1 to 3.4 degrees F)
by the 2020s, and 0.9 to 2.9 degrees C
(1.6 to 5.2 degrees F) by the 2040s (Mote
et al. 2008, pp. 5–6). Additionally, the
majority of models project wetter
winters and drier summers (Mote et al.
2008, p.7), and of greatest consequence,
a reduction in regional snowpack,
which supplies water for ecosystems
during the dry summer (Mote et al.
2003). The small summertime
precipitation increases projected by a
minority of models do not change the
fundamentally dry summers of the PNW
and do not lessen the increased drying
of the soil column brought by higher
temperatures (Mote et al. 2003, p. 8).
Watersheds that are rain dominated
(such as the Fraser River in British
Columbia and the Black River in
Washington) will likely experience
higher winter streamflow because of
increases in average winter
precipitation, but overall will
experience relatively little change with
respect to streamflow timing (Elsner et
al. 2010, p. 248). Water temperatures for
western Washington are generally cooler
than those in the interior Columbia
basin; however, climate change
predictions indicate the summertime
stream temperatures exceeding 19.5
degrees C (67.1 degrees F) will increase,
although by a smaller fraction than the
increases in the interior Columbia basin
(Mantua et al. 2010, p. 199).
Transient basins (mixed rain- and
snowmelt-dominant usually in mid
elevations, such as Lower Chilliwack,
SF Nooksack, White Salmon, and
Middle Klickitat Rivers sub-basins in
Washington) will likely experience
significant shifts in streamflow and
water temperature, becoming rain
dominant as winter precipitation falls
more as rain and less as snow, and
undergo more severe summer low-flow
periods and more frequent days with
intense winter flooding (Elsner et al.
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53616
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
2010, pp. 248, 252, 255; Mantua et al.
2010, entire).
Snowmelt-dominated watersheds,
such as White Salmon in Washington
and the Upper Deschutes, Little
Deschutes, and Klamath River subbasins in Oregon, will likely become
transient, resulting in reduced peak
spring streamflow, increased winter
streamflow, and reduced late summer
flow (Littell et al. 2009, p. 8). In
snowmelt-dominated watersheds that
prevail in the higher altitude
catchments and in much of the interior
Columbia Basin, flood risk will likely
decrease and summer low flows will
decrease in most rivers under most
scenarios (Littell et al. 2009, p. 13).
In Washington, the snow water
equivalent measured on April 1 is
projected to decrease by 28 to 30
percent across the State by the 2020s, 38
to 46 percent by the 2040s, and 56 to 70
percent by the 2080s, and the areas with
elevations below 3,280 ft (1,000 m) will
experience the largest decreases in
snowpack, with reductions of 68 to 80
percent by the 2080s (Elsner et al. 2010,
p. 244). In the Puget Trough sub-basins,
summertime soil moisture will decrease
as a result of the warming climate and
reduced snowpack. While annual
precipitation is projected to slightly
increase across the State, by 3.4 percent
by the 2080s, the seasonality of the
precipitation will change more
dramatically with increased winter and
decreased summer precipitation, with
most of the precipitation falling between
October and March (Elsner et al. 2010,
p. 247).
Climate change models predict that
water temperatures will rise throughout
Oregon as air temperatures increase into
the 21st century. A decline in summer
stream flow may exacerbate water
temperature increases as the lower
volume of water absorbs solar radiation
(Chang and Jones, p. 134).
Analyses of the hydrologic responses
of the upper Deschutes basin (including
the Upper and Little Deschutes River
sub-basins) and the Klamath Basin to
climate change scenarios indicates that
the form of precipitation will shift from
predominately snow to rain and cause
decreasing spring recharge and runoff
and increasing winter recharge and
runoff (Waibel 2011, pp., 57–60; Mayer
and Naman 2011, p. 3). However, there
is spatial variation within the Deschutes
sub-basins as to where the greatest
increases in recharge and runoff will
occur (Waibel 2011, pp., 57–60).
Changes in seasonality of stream flows
may be less affected by climate change
along the crest of the Cascades in the
upper watersheds of the Deschutes,
Klamath, and Willamette River basins in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
Oregon, where many rivers receive
groundwater recharge from subterranean
aquifers and springs (Chang and Jones
2010, p. 107). Summer stream flows
may thus be sustained in High Cascade
basins that are groundwater fed (Chang
and Jones 2010, p. 134). Conversely,
Mayer and Naman (2011 p. 1) indicate
that streamflow into Upper Klamath
Lake will display absolute decreases in
July-September base flows in
groundwater basins as compared to
surface-dominated basins. This earlier
discharge of water in the spring will
result in less streamflow in the summer
(Mayer and Naman 2011, p. 12).
Although predictions of climate
change impacts do not specifically
address Oregon spotted frogs, short- and
long-term changes in precipitation
patterns and temperature regimes will
likely affect wet periods, winter snow
pack, and flooding events (Chang and
Jones 2010). These changes are likely to
affect amphibians through a variety of
direct and indirect pathways, such as
range shifts, breeding success, survival,
dispersal, breeding phenology, aquatic
habitats availability and quality, food
webs, competition, spread of diseases,
and the interplay among these factors
(Blaustein et al. 2010 entire; Hixon et al.
2010, p. 274; Corn 2003 entire).
Amphibians have species-specific
temperature tolerances, and exceeding
these thermal thresholds is expected to
reduce survival (Blaustein et al. 2010,
pp. 286–287). Earlier spring thaws and
warmer ambient temperatures may
result in earlier breeding, especially at
lower elevations in the mountains
where breeding phenology is driven
more by snow pack than by air
temperature (Corn 2003, p. 624). Shifts
in breeding phenology may also result
in sharing breeding habitat with species
not previously encountered and/or new
competitive interactions and predator/
prey dynamics (Blaustein et al. 2010.
pp. 288, 294). Oregon spotted frogs are
highly aquatic and reductions in
summer flows may result in summer
habitat going dry, potentially resulting
in increased mortality or forcing frogs to
seek shelter in lower quality wetted
areas where they are more susceptible to
predation.
Amphibians are susceptible to many
types of pathogens including
trematodes, copepods, fungi, oomycetes,
bacteria, and viruses. Changes in
temperature and precipitation could
alter host-pathogen interactions and/or
result in range shifts resulting in either
beneficial or detrimental impacts on the
amphibian host (Blaustein et al. 2010, p.
296). Kiesecker et al. (2001a, p. 682)
indicate climate change events, such as
El Nino/Southern Oscillation, that result
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
in less precipitation and reduced water
depths at egg-laying sites results in high
mortality of embryos because their
exposure to UV–B and vulnerability to
infection (such as Saprolegnia) is
increased. Warmer temperatures and
less freezing in areas occupied by
bullfrogs is likely to increase bullfrog
winter survivorship, thereby increasing
the threat from predation. Uncertainty
about climate change impacts does not
mean that impacts may or may not
occur; it means that the risks of a given
impact are difficult to quantify
(Schneider and Kuntz-Duriseti 2002, p.
54; Congressional Budget Office 2005,
entire; Halsnaes et al. 2007, p. 129).
Oregon spotted frogs occupy habitats at
a wide range of elevations, and all of the
occupied sub-basins are likely to
experience precipitation regime shifts;
therefore, the Oregon spotted frog’s
response to climate change is likely to
vary across the range and the
population-level impacts are uncertain.
The interplay between Oregon spotted
frogs and their aquatic habitat will
ultimately determine their population
response to climate change. Despite the
potential for future climate change
throughout the range of the species, as
discussed above, we have not identified,
nor are we aware of any data on, an
appropriate scale to evaluate habitat or
population trends for the Oregon
spotted frog or to make predictions
about future trends and whether the
species will be significantly impacted.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Other
Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting
Its Continued Existence
The U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS), maintains voluntary
agreements with private landowners to
apply pesticides within the United
States. Based on their 2010 Operational
Procedures, all water bodies (rivers,
ponds, reservoirs, streams, vernal pools,
wetlands, etc.) will be avoided by a
minimum of a 50-foot buffer for ground
application of bait, a 200-foot buffer for
aerial application of bait, and a 500-foot
buffer for the aerial application of
liquids (USDA APHIS 2010 Treatment
Guidelines, p. 4). As previously
described under other threat factors,
conservation efforts may also help
reduce the threat of other natural or
manmade factors affecting the species.
Summary of Other Natural or Manmade
Factors
Many of the Oregon spotted frog
breeding locations are small and
isolated from other breeding locations.
Moreover, due to their fidelity to
breeding locations and vulnerability to
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
fluctuating water levels, predation, and
low overwinter survival, Oregon spotted
frogs can experience rapid population
turnovers that they may not be able to
overcome. Genetic work indicates low
genetic diversity within and high
genetic differentiation among the six
Oregon spotted frog groups identified by
Blouin, and each of these groups has the
signature of complete isolation with two
groups showing indications of recent
genetic drift. Poor water quality
parameters and contaminants may act
singly or in combination with other
factors to result in inhibited fertilization
and embryonic development,
developmental anomalies, or reduced
growth and survival. Oregon spotted
frogs in every occupied sub-basin are
subject to more than one stressor, such
as loss or reduced quality of habitat and
predation and, therefore, may be more
susceptible to mortality and sublethal
effects. The changing climate may
exacerbate these stressors. Therefore,
based on the best information available,
we conclude that other natural or
manmade factors are a threat to the
Oregon spotted frog, which has
significant population effects occurring
throughout the entire (current) range of
the species and expected to continue
into the future.
Cumulative Effects From Factors A
Through E
The Oregon spotted frog faces several
threats, and all occupied sub-basins are
subjected to multiple threats, which
cumulatively pose a risk to individual
populations (See Table 2). Many of
these threats are intermingled, and the
magnitude of the combined threats to
the species is greater than the individual
threats. For example, the small sizes and
isolation of the majority of Oregon
spotted frog breeding locations makes
Oregon spotted frogs acutely vulnerable
to fluctuating water levels, disease,
predation, poor water quality, and
extirpation from stochastic events.
Hydrologic changes, resulting from
activities such as water diversions and
removal of beavers, increases the
likelihood of fluctuating water levels
and temperatures and may also facilitate
predators. Existing regulatory
mechanisms facilitate hydrologic
changes, and restoration actions are
specifically designed to benefit
salmonid species, which often results in
the reduction of habitat quality and
quantity for Oregon spotted frogs where
they overlap.
Habitat management and a warming
climate may improve conditions for
pathogens and predators. Saprolegnia,
Bd, and Ribeiroia ondatrae have been
found in Oregon spotted frogs, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
compounded with other stressors, such
as UV–B exposure, degradation of
habitat quality, or increased predation
pressure, may contribute to population
declines. Bd and R. ondatrae, in
particular, infect post-metamorphic
frogs and reductions in these life stages
are more likely to lead to population
declines. Sub-basins projected to
transition from snow-dominant or
transient to rain-dominant will be less
susceptible to freezing temperatures
with the expectation of reduced
mortality of bullfrogs during winter and
increased predation risk to Oregon
spotted frogs.
Amphibian declines may frequently
be associated with multiple correlated
factors (Adams 1999, pp. 1167–1169).
Two of the greatest threats to freshwater
systems in western North America,
exotic species and hydrological changes,
are often correlated. In addition,
occurrence and abundance of bullfrogs
may be linked with invasions by
nonnative fish (Adams et al. 2003, p.
349). Adams (1999) examined the
relationships among introduced species,
habitat, and the distribution and
abundance of red-legged frogs in
western Washington. Red-legged frog
occurrence in the Puget lowlands was
more closely associated with habitat
structure and exotic fish than with the
presence of bullfrogs (Adams 1999, pp.
1167–1168), and similar associations
were found in a recent study in
Oregon’s Willamette Valley (Pearl et al.
2005b, p. 16). The spread of exotic
species is correlated with a shift toward
greater permanence in wetland habitats
regionally (for example, Kentula et al.
1992, p. 115). For example, exotic fish
and bullfrogs are associated with
permanent wetlands. Conservation of
more ephemeral wetland habitats,
which directly benefit native
amphibians such as Oregon spotted
frogs, would be expected to reduce
predation and competition threats posed
by exotic fish and bullfrogs (Adams
1999, pp. 1169–1170).
Amphibians are affected by complex
interactions of abiotic and biotic factors
and are subjected simultaneously to
numerous interacting stressors. For
example, contaminants and UV–B
radiation may result in mortality or
induce sublethal effects on their own,
but they may have synergistic,
interaction effects that exceed the
additive effects when combined. Some
stressors, such as contaminants, may
hamper the immune system, making
amphibians more susceptible to
pathogenic infections (Kiesecker 2002 p.
9902). Predator presence can alter the
behavior of amphibians, resulting in
more or less exposure to UV–B radiation
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
53617
(Michel and Burke 2011), thereby
altering the rate of malformations.
Climate-driven dry events that result in
lower water levels may concentrate
contaminants, as well as increase the
amount of exposure to UV–B radiation.
While any one of these individual
stressors may not be a concern, a
contaminant added to increased UV–B
exposure and a normally healthy
population level of Ribeiroia ondatrae
may lead to a higher mortality rate or an
increased number of malformed frogs
that exceeds the rate caused by any one
factor alone (Blaustein et al. 2003 entire;
Szurocksi and Richardson 2009 p. 382).
Oregon spotted frogs in every occupied
sub-basin are subject to more than one
stressor and, therefore, may be more
susceptible to mortality and sublethal
effects.
The historical loss of Oregon spotted
frog habitats and lasting anthropogenic
changes in natural disturbance
processes are exacerbated by the
introduction of reed canarygrass,
nonnative predators, and potentially
climate change. In addition, current
regulatory mechanisms and voluntary
incentive programs designed to benefit
fish species have inadvertently led to
the continuing decline in quality of
Oregon spotted frog habitats in some
locations. The current wetland and
stream vegetation management
paradigm is generally a no-management
or restoration approach that often
results in succession to a tree- and
shrub-dominated community that
unintentionally degrades or eliminates
remaining or potential suitable habitat
for Oregon spotted frog breeding.
Furthermore, incremental wetland loss
or degradation continues under the
current regulatory mechanisms. If left
unmanaged, these factors are
anticipated to result in the eventual
elimination of remaining suitable
Oregon spotted frog habitats or
populations. The persistence of habitats
required by the species is now largely
management dependent.
Conservation efforts to ameliorate
impacts from habitat degradation and
predators are currently under way;
however, the benefits of these
conservation actions to Oregon spotted
frogs are site-specific and do not
counteract the impacts at a sub-basin
scale. The cumulative effects of these
threats are more than additive, and
removing one threat does not ameliorate
the others and may actually result in an
increase in another threat. For example,
removing livestock grazing to improve
water quality—without continuing to
manage the vegetation—allows invasive
reed canarygrass, trees, and shrubs to
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
53618
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
grow and effectively eliminate egglaying habitat.
Therefore, based on the best
information available, we conclude that
the cumulative effects from factors
discussed in Factors A, C, D, and E are
a threat to the Oregon spotted frog, and
these threats are significantly affecting
populations throughout the entire range
of the species. Moreover, these threats
are expected to continue into the future.
TABLE 2—THREATS OPERATING WITHIN EACH SUB-BASIN *
Sub-basin
Factor A
Factor C
Factor E
Lower Fraser River ........................
Wetland loss; hydrologic changes;
development; grazing, reed
canarygrass; water quality.
Introduced warmwater fish; bullfrogs.
Lower Chilliwack River ...................
Grazing; reed canarygrass; water
quality.
Introduced warmwater fish ...........
South Fork Nooksack ....................
Grazing; reed canarygrass; shrub
encroachment/planting; loss of
beavers; water quality.
Wetland loss; grazing; reed
canarygrass; shrub encroachment/planting; water quality.
Introduced coldwater fish .............
Wetland loss; reed canarygrass;
shrub
encroachment/planting;
development; loss of beaver;
water quality.
Wetland loss; reed canarygrass;
water quality.
Wetland loss; hydrologic changes;
loss of beaver; development;
grazing;
reed
canarygrass;
shrub encroachment; water
management.
Shrub encroachment ....................
Introduced warmwater fish; introduced coldwater fish; bullfrogs.
Small population size; breeding
locations disconnected; contaminants; cumulative effects of
other threats; climate change.
Small population size; breeding
locations disconnected; contaminants; cumulative effects of
other threats; climate change.
Small population size; cumulative
effects of other threats; contaminants; climate change.
Breeding locations disconnected;
contaminants; cumulative effects of other threats; climate
change.
Small population size; breeding
locations disconnected; contaminants; cumulative effects of
other threats; climate change.
Cumulative effects of other
threats; climate change.
Cumulative effects of other
threats; climate change.
Samish River .................................
Black River .....................................
White Salmon River .......................
Middle Klickitat River .....................
Lower Deschutes ...........................
Upper Deschutes ...........................
Introduced warmwater fish; introduced coldwater fish.
Introduced coldwater fish .............
Introduced warmwater fish; introduced coldwater fish, bullfrogs.
Introduced coldwater fish .............
Introduced coldwater fish, bullfrogs.
Breeding locations disconnected;
cumulative effects of other
threats; climate change.
McKenzie .......................................
Wetland loss; reed canarygrass;
shrub
encroachment;
hydrological changes (water
management).
Wetland
loss;
hydrological
changes (water management);
development; grazing; reed
canarygrass; shrub encroachment.
Shrub encroachment ....................
Introduced coldwater fish .............
Middle Fork Willamette ..................
Shrub encroachment ....................
Introduced coldwater fish .............
Williamson ......................................
Development; grazing; shrub encroachment; loss of beaver.
Introduced warmwater fish; introduced coldwater fish.
Upper Klamath Lake ......................
Water management; development;
shrub
and
reed
canarygrass
encroachment;
grazing.
Wetland loss; water management;
development; grazing; shrub
encroachment; loss of beaver.
Introduced warmwater fish; introduced coldwater fish; bullfrogs.
Only two breeding locations in
sub-basin, which are disconnected; cumulative effects of
other threats; climate change.
Single occupied site in sub-basin;
disconnected from other subbasins; cumulative effects of
other threats; climate change.
Small population size; breeding
locations disconnected; cumulative effects of other threats;
climate change.
Small population size; breeding
locations disconnected; cumulative effects of other threats;
climate change.
Small population size; breeding
locations disconnected; cumulative effects of other threats;
climate change.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Little Deschutes .............................
Upper Klamath ...............................
Introduced warmwater fish; introduced coldwater fish, bullfrogs.
Small population size; single occupied site within sub-basin;
isolated from frogs in other subbasins; cumulative effects of
other threats; climate change.
Breeding locations disconnected;
cumulative effects of other
threats; climate change.
Introduced warmwater fish; introduced coldwater fish.
* Existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) have been insufficient to significantly reduce or remove the threats to the Oregon spotted frog.
* Factors A, C, and E are operative within some to several occupied sites within each sub-basin, to differing degrees. To clarify, these threats
apply to locations within each sub-basin, and do not necessarily apply to the sub-basin in its entirety. Detailed information is available in a
rangewide threats synthesis document, which is available from Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Determination
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to Oregon spotted
frog. Past human actions have
destroyed, modified, and curtailed the
range and habitat available for the
Oregon spotted frog, which is now
absent from 76 to 90 percent of its
former range. The Oregon spotted frog
populations within two of the subbasins are declining, but the population
trend in the other 13 sub-basins is
undetermined. However, the Oregon
spotted frog is extant in only 15 of 31
sub-basins where it historically
occurred. In addition, the majority of
remaining populations are isolated both
between and within sub-basins, with
minimal opportunity for natural
recolonization. These isolated
populations are, therefore, vulnerable to
ongoing threats and extirpation, and
threats are known to be ongoing or
increasing across the range of the
Oregon spotted frog, as summarized
below.
Habitat necessary to support all life
stages is continuing to be impacted and/
or destroyed by human activities that
result in the loss of wetlands to land
conversions; hydrologic changes
resulting from operation of existing
water diversions/manipulation
structures, new and existing residential
and road developments, drought, and
removal of beavers; changes in water
temperature and vegetation structure
resulting from reed canarygrass
invasions, plant succession, and
restoration plantings; and increased
sedimentation, increased water
temperatures, reduced water quality,
and vegetation changes resulting from
the timing, intensity, and location of
livestock grazing. Oregon spotted frogs
in all currently occupied sub-basins in
British Columbia, Washington, and
Oregon are subject to one or more of
these threats to their habitat. Eleven of
the 15 sub-basins are currently
experiencing a high to very high level of
habitat impacts, and these impacts are
expected to continue into the future.
Disease continues to be a concern, but
more information is needed to
determine if disease is a threat to
Oregon spotted frogs. At least one
nonnative predaceous species occurs
within each of the sub-basins currently
occupied by Oregon spotted frogs.
Introduced fish have been documented
within each sub-basin; these introduced
species prey on tadpoles, negatively
affect overwintering habitat, and can
significantly threaten Oregon spotted
frog populations, especially during
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
droughts. Bullfrogs (and likely green
frogs) prey on juvenile and adult Oregon
spotted frogs, and bullfrog tadpoles can
outcompete or displace Oregon spotted
frog tadpoles. In short, nonnative
bullfrogs effectively reduce the
abundance of all Oregon spotted frog
life stages and pose an added threat to
a species that has significant negative
impacts rangewide from habitat
degradation. Nine of the 15 occupied
sub-basins are currently experiencing
moderate to very high impacts due to
predation by introduced species, and
these impacts are expected to continue
into the future.
Lack of essential habitat protection
under Federal, State, Provincial, and
local laws leaves this species at
continued risk of habitat loss and
degradation in British Columbia,
Washington, and Oregon. In many cases,
laws and regulations that pertain to
retention and restoration of wetland and
riverine areas are a no-management (i.e.,
avoidance) approach, or are designed to
be beneficial to fish species (principally
salmonids), resulting in the elimination
or degradation of Oregon spotted frog
early-seral habitat. In other cases, no
regulations address threats related to the
draining or development of wetlands or
hydrologic modifications, which can
also eliminate or degrade Oregon
spotted frog habitat. Therefore,
degradation of habitat is ongoing despite
regulatory mechanisms, and these
mechanisms have been insufficient to
significantly reduce or remove the
threats to the Oregon spotted frog.
Many of the Oregon spotted frog
breeding locations are small and
isolated from other breeding locations.
Due to their fidelity to breeding
locations and vulnerability to
fluctuating water levels, predation, and
low overwinter survival, Oregon spotted
frogs can experience rapid population
turnovers that they may not be able to
overcome. Low connectivity among
occupied sub-basins and among
breeding locations within a sub-basin,
in addition to small population sizes,
contributes to low genetic diversity
within genetic groups and high genetic
differentiation among genetic groups.
Oregon spotted frogs in every occupied
sub-basin are subject to more than one
stressor, such as loss or reduced quality
of habitat and predation. Therefore, the
species may be more susceptible to the
synergistic effects of combined threats,
which may be exacerbated by climate
change. The threat to Oregon spotted
frogs from other natural or manmade
factors is occurring throughout the
entire range of the species, and the
population-level impacts are expected
to continue into the future.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
53619
All of the known Oregon spotted frog
occupied sub-basins are currently
affected by one or more of these threats,
which reduce the amount and quality of
available breeding, summer, and
overwintering habitat. While the risk to
an individual site from each of these
factors may vary, the cumulative risk of
these threats to each site is high. This
scenario is reflected in declining and/or
small populations, which constitute the
majority the Oregon spotted frog’s
remaining distribution. We find that
Oregon spotted frogs are likely to
become endangered throughout all or a
significant portion of their range within
the foreseeable future, based on the
immediacy, severity, and scope of the
threats described above. We do not,
however, have information at the
present time to suggest that the existing
threats are of such a great magnitude
that Oregon spotted frogs are in
immediate danger of extinction. Threats
are not geographically concentrated in
any portions of the species’ range, and
the species is extant and redundant at
a number of localities within 13 of 15
sub-basins within British Columbia,
Washington, and Oregon. One extant
population remains in each of the Lower
Deschutes River and Middle Fork
Willamette sub-basins in Oregon. Egg
mass surveys continue to document
reproducing adults in most areas,
although in at least two locations within
the current range, Oregon spotted frogs
may no longer be extant (i.e., the
Maintenance Detachment Aldergrove
site in British Columbia and the 110th
Avenue site at Nisqually National
Wildlife Refuge in Washington).
Therefore, on the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we propose listing the
Oregon spotted frog as a threatened
species in accordance with sections
3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Significant Portion of the Range
Under the Act and our implementing
regulations, a species may warrant
listing if it is endangered or threatened
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. The Act defines ‘‘endangered
species’’ as any species which is ‘‘in
danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range,’’ and
‘‘threatened species’’ as any species
which is ‘‘likely to become an
endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.’’ The
definition of ‘‘species’’ is also relevant
to this discussion. The Act defines
‘‘species’’ as follows: ‘‘The term
‘species’ includes any subspecies of fish
or wildlife or plants, and any distinct
population segment [DPS] of any
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53620
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife
which interbreeds when mature.’’ The
phrase ‘‘significant portion of its range’’
(SPR) is not defined by the statute, and
we have never addressed in our
regulations: (1) The consequences of a
determination that a species is either
endangered or likely to become so
throughout a significant portion of its
range, but not throughout all of its
range; or (2) what qualifies a portion of
a range as ‘‘significant.’’
In practice, a key part of the
determination that a species is in danger
of extinction in a significant portion of
its range is whether the threats are
geographically concentrated in some
way. If the threats to the species are
essentially uniform throughout its
range, no portion is likely to warrant
further consideration. Moreover, if any
concentration of threats to the species
occurs only in portions of the species’
range that clearly would not meet the
biologically based definition of
‘‘significant,’’ such portions will not
warrant further consideration.
The best available data suggests that,
under current conditions, Oregon
spotted frogs will likely continue to
decline toward extinction. Having
already determined that the Oregon
spotted frog is a threatened species
throughout its range, we considered
whether threats may be so concentrated
in some portion of its range that, if that
portion were lost, the entire species
would be in danger of extinction. We
reviewed the entire supporting record
for the status review of this species with
respect to the geographic concentrations
of threats, and the significance of
portions of the range to the conservation
of the species. Oregon spotted frogs
currently occupy 15 sub-basins that are
widely distributed, such that a
catastrophic event in one or more of the
sub-basins would not extirpate Oregon
spotted frogs throughout their range.
Based on our five-factor analysis of
threats throughout the range of the
Oregon spotted frog, we found threats to
the survival of the species occur
throughout the species’ range and are
not significantly concentrated or
substantially greater in any particular
portion of their range. Therefore, we
find that there is no significant portion
of the Oregon spotted frog’s range that
may warrant a different status.
Therefore, the species as a whole is not
presently in danger of extinction, and
does not meet the definition of an
endangered species under the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to
species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and
prohibitions against certain practices.
Recognition through listing results in
public awareness and conservation by
Federal, State, Tribal, and local
agencies, private organizations, and
individuals. The Act encourages
cooperation with the States and requires
that recovery actions be carried out for
all listed species. The protection
required by Federal agencies and the
prohibitions against certain activities
are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. The ultimate
goal of such conservation efforts is the
recovery of these listed species, so that
they no longer need the protective
measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of
the Act requires the Service to develop
and implement recovery plans for the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery
planning process involves the
identification of actions that are
necessary to halt or reverse the species’
decline by addressing the threats to its
survival and recovery. The goal of this
process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components
of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the
development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed and
preparation of a draft and final recovery
plan. The recovery outline guides the
immediate implementation of urgent
recovery actions and describes the
process to be used to develop a recovery
plan. Revisions of the plan may be done
to address continuing or new threats to
the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The
recovery plan identifies site-specific
management actions that set a trigger for
review of the five factors that control
whether a species remains endangered
or may be downlisted or delisted, and
methods for monitoring recovery
progress. Recovery plans also establish
a framework for agencies to coordinate
their recovery efforts and provide
estimates of the cost of implementing
recovery tasks. Recovery teams
(comprising species experts, Federal
and State agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, and stakeholders) are
often established to develop recovery
plans. When completed, the recovery
outline, draft recovery plan, and the
final recovery plan will be available on
our Web site (https://www.fws.gov/
endangered), or from our Washington
Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Implementation of recovery actions
generally requires the participation of a
broad range of partners, including other
Federal agencies, States, Tribal,
nongovernmental organizations,
businesses, and private landowners.
Examples of recovery actions include
habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of
native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and
outreach and education. The recovery of
many listed species cannot be
accomplished solely on Federal lands
because their range may occur primarily
or solely on non-Federal lands. To
achieve recovery of these species
requires cooperative conservation efforts
on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If this species is listed, funding for
recovery actions will be available from
a variety of sources, including Federal
budgets, State programs, and cost-share
grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and
nongovernmental organizations. In
addition, pursuant to section 6 of the
Act, the States of Washington, Oregon,
and California would be eligible for
Federal funds to implement
management actions that promote the
protection or recovery of the Oregon
spotted frog. Information on our grant
programs that are available to aid
species recovery can be found at:
https://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the Oregon spotted frog is
only proposed for listing under the Act
at this time, please let us know if you
are interested in participating in
recovery efforts for this species.
Additionally, we invite you to submit
any new information on this species
whenever it becomes available and any
information you may have for recovery
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that
is proposed or listed as an endangered
or threatened species and with respect
to its critical habitat, if any is
designated. Regulations implementing
this interagency cooperation provision
of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part
402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to confer with the
Service on any action that is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat. If a species is
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of
the Act requires Federal agencies to
ensure that activities they authorize,
fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
the species or destroy or adversely
modify its critical habitat. If a Federal
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
action may affect a listed species or its
critical habitat, the responsible Federal
agency must enter into formal
consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the
species’ habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as
described in the preceding paragraph
include actions to manage or restore
habitat; actions that may negatively
affect the species through removal,
conversion, or degradation of habitat;
actions that may introduce nonnative
predaceous species; or actions that
require collecting or handling the
species. Examples of activities
conducted, regulated or funded by
Federal agencies that may affect listed
species or their habitat include, but are
not limited to:
(1) Vegetation management such as
planting, grazing, burning, mechanical
treatment, and/or application of
pesticides adjacent to or in Oregon
spotted frog habitat;
(2) Water manipulation, such as flow
management, water diversions, or canal
dredging or piping;
(3) Recreation management actions
such as development of campgrounds or
boat launches adjacent to or in Oregon
spotted frog habitat;
(4) River restoration, including
channel reconstruction, placement of
large woody debris, vegetation planting,
reconnecting riverine floodplain, or
gravel placement adjacent to or in
Oregon spotted frog habitat;
(5) Pond construction;
(6) Issuance of section 404 Clean
Water Act permits by the Army Corps of
Engineers; and
(7) Import, export, or trade of the
species.
The Act and its implementing
regulations set forth a series of general
prohibitions and exceptions that apply
to all endangered wildlife. The
prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act,
codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered
wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any
person subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States to take (includes harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt
any of these), import, export, ship in
interstate commerce in the course of
commercial activity, or sell or offer for
sale in interstate or foreign commerce
any listed species. Under the Lacey Act
(18 U.S.C. 42–43; 16 U.S.C. 3371–3378),
it is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver,
carry, transport, or ship any such
wildlife that has been taken illegally.
Certain exceptions apply to agents of the
Service and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out
otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing
permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for
endangered species, and at 17.32 for
threatened species. With regard to
endangered wildlife, a permit must be
issued for the following purposes: for
scientific purposes, to enhance the
propagation or survival of the species,
and for incidental take in connection
with otherwise lawful activities.
Our policy, as published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34272), is to identify to the maximum
extent practicable at the time a species
is listed, those activities that would or
would not constitute a violation of
section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of
the effect of a proposed listing on
proposed and ongoing activities within
the range of species proposed for listing.
The following activities could
potentially result in a violation of
section 9 of the Act; this list is not
comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling,
possessing, selling, delivering, carrying,
or transporting of the species, including
import or export across State lines and
international boundaries, except for
properly documented antique
specimens of these taxa at least 100
years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1)
of the Act;
(2) Introduction of nonnative species
that compete with or prey upon the
Oregon spotted frog, such as bullfrogs,
green frogs, or warm or cold water fishes
to the States of Washington, Oregon, or
California;
(3) Unauthorized modification of the
wetted area or removal or destruction of
emergent aquatic vegetation in any body
of water in which the Oregon spotted
frog is known to occur; and
(4) Unauthorized discharge of
chemicals into any waters in which the
Oregon spotted frog is known to occur.
Questions regarding whether specific
activities would constitute a violation of
section 9 of the Act should be directed
to the Washington Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT). Requests for copies of the
regulations concerning listed animals
and general inquiries regarding
prohibitions and permits may be
addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ecological Services, Eastside
Federal Complex, 911 N.E. 11th
Avenue, Portland, OR 97232–4181
(telephone 503–231–6158; facsimile
503–231–6243).
If the Oregon spotted frog is listed
under the Act, the State of Oregon’s
Endangered Species Act (O.R.S. sec.
496.171–996; 498.026) is automatically
invoked, which would also prohibit take
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
53621
of this species and encourage
conservation by State government
agencies. Further, the State may enter
into agreements with Federal agencies
to administer and manage any area
required for the conservation,
management, enhancement, or
protection of endangered species. Funds
for these activities could be made
available under section 6 of the Act
(Cooperation with the States). Thus, the
Federal protection afforded to these
species by listing them as endangered
species will be reinforced and
supplemented by protection under State
law.
The Oregon spotted frog is currently
listed under the State of Washington’s
ESA as endangered. The State of
California’s ESA is not automatically
invoked if the Oregon spotted frog is
listed under the Act. We are unaware of
any legal protections afforded to the
species in British Columbia upon
listing.
Consideration of a 4(d) Special Rule
The Service may develop specific
prohibitions and exceptions that are
tailored to the specific conservation
needs of the species. In such cases,
some of the prohibitions and
authorizations under 50 CFR 17.31 and
17.32 may be appropriate for the species
and incorporated into a special rule
under section 4(d) of the Act, but the
4(d) special rule will also include
provisions that are tailored to the
specific conservation needs of the
threatened species and may be more or
less restrictive than the general
provisions at 50 CFR 17.31. We are
considering whether it is appropriate to
develop a 4(d) rule that would not
prohibit take that is incidental to
implementing a State comprehensive
Oregon spotted frog conservation
program, implementing regional or local
Oregon spotted frog conservation
programs, and activities or efforts
conducted by individual landowners
that are outside of a more structured
program but are still consistent with
maintaining or advancing the
conservation of Oregon spotted frog.
State, Regional, and Local Conservation
Programs
We anticipate that conservation
programs covered under such a 4(d) rule
would need to be developed and
administered by an entity having
jurisdiction or authority over the
activities in the program; would need to
be approved by the Service as
adequately protective to provide a
conservation benefit to the Oregon
spotted frog; and may need to include
adaptive management, monitoring, and
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53622
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
reporting components sufficient to
demonstrate that the conservation
objectives of the plan are being met. For
example, a comprehensive conservation
program that has a clear mechanism for
enrollment of participating landowners
that want to manage their lands for the
benefit of the Oregon spotted frog may
not be prohibited from taking Oregon
spotted frogs. In making its
determination, the Service would
consider:
(i) How the program addresses the
threats affecting the Oregon spotted frog
within the program area;
(ii) How the program establishes
objective, measurable biological goals
and objectives for population and
habitat necessary to ensure a
conservation benefit, and provides the
mechanisms by which those goals and
objectives would be achieved;
(iii) How the program administrators
demonstrate the capability and funding
mechanisms for effectively
implementing all elements of the
conservation program, including
enrollment of participating landowners,
monitoring of program activities, and
enforcement of program requirements;
(iv) How the program employs an
adaptive management strategy to ensure
future program adaptation as necessary
and appropriate; and
(v) How the program includes
appropriate monitoring of effectiveness
and compliance.
The considerations presented here are
meant to encourage the development of
efforts to improve habitat conditions
and the status of the Oregon spotted frog
across its range. For the Service to
approve coverage of a comprehensive or
local/regional conservation program
under the 4(d) special rule being
considered, the program must provide a
conservation benefit to Oregon spotted
frog. Conservation, as defined in section
3(3) of the Act, means ‘‘to use and the
use of all methods and procedures
which are necessary to bring any
endangered species or threatened
species to the point at which the
measures provided pursuant to the Act
are no longer necessary.’’ The program
may also be periodically reviewed by
the Service to determine that it
continues to provide the intended
conservation benefit to Oregon spotted
frog. As a result of this provision, the
Service expects that conservation
actions will be implemented with a high
level of certainty that the program will
lead to the long-term conservation of
Oregon spotted frog.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
Activities Conducted by Individual
Private Landowners
The Service is considering whether it
is appropriate to develop a 4(d) rule on
non-Federal lands when those lands are
managed following technical guidelines
that have been developed in
coordination with a State or Federal
agency or agencies responsible for the
management and conservation of fish
and wildlife, or their agent(s), and that
has been determined by the Service to
provide a conservation benefit to the
Oregon spotted frog. For example, a
conservation district develops specific
technical guidelines for controlling reed
canarygrass that the Service agrees
maintains breeding habitat, hence there
is a conservation benefit to the species.
Individual non-Federal landowners
following these specific technical
guidelines may be exempted from take.
Guidelines should incorporate
procedures, practice standards, and
conservation measures that promote the
continued existence of the Oregon
spotted frog.
Ideally, appropriate guidelines would
be associated with a program that would
provide financial and technical
assistance to participating landowners
to implement specific conservation
measures beneficial to Oregon spotted
frog that also contribute to the
sustainability of landowners’ activities.
Conservation measures encompassed by
such a program should be consistent
with management or restoration of
emergent wetland habitats that include
vegetation management and appropriate
water management for maintaining
habitat for Oregon spotted frog.
We believe including such a provision
in a 4(d) special rule for individual
landowner activities will promote
conservation of the species by
encouraging landowners with Oregon
spotted frog to continue managing the
remaining landscape in ways that meet
the needs of their operations or
activities while simultaneously
supporting suitable habitat for the frog
and other wetland-dependent species.
We will consider all comments and
information received during our
preparation of a final determination on
the status of the species and a 4(d)
special rule. Accordingly, the final
decision may differ from our original
proposal.
Educational and Scientific Activities
Finally, we are considering whether it
is appropriate to include a provision for
take of Oregon spotted frog when that
take is in accordance with applicable
State law for educational or scientific
purposes, the enhancement of
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
propagation or survival of the species,
zoological exhibition, and other
conservation purposes consistent with
the Act. An example of an activity that
could be covered under such a
provision includes presence/absence
and population monitoring surveys.
Such surveys are typically conducted
during the breeding season and may
cause disturbance in the breeding
habitat, particularly when egg mass
counts are used to estimate the number
of frogs. These surveys entail walking
transects through the shallow-water
breeding habitat, which may cause some
disturbance of breeding frogs and a low
likelihood of trampling of egg masses or
frogs. However, if surveys are conducted
in accordance with scientifically
accepted methodologies, minimal
impact to Oregon spotted frogs,
primarily in the form of harassment,
should occur.
Accordingly, we are soliciting public
comment as to which prohibitions, and
exceptions to those prohibitions, are
necessary and advisable to provide for
the conservation of the Oregon spotted
frog (see Public Comments above). After
reviewing the initial public comments
on this topic, we will evaluate whether
a 4(d) special rule is appropriate for the
Oregon spotted frog and, if so, publish
a proposed 4(d) special rule for public
comment. Currently, we have not
proposed a 4(d) special rule for Oregon
spotted frog. If the Oregon spotted frog
is ultimately listed as a threatened
species without a 4(d) special rule, the
general prohibitions (50 CFR 17.31) and
exceptions to these prohibitions (50 CFR
17.32) for threatened species would be
applied to the Oregon spotted frog, as
explained above.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on
peer review published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270),
we will seek the expert opinions of at
least three appropriate and independent
specialists regarding this proposed rule.
The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our listing determination and
critical habitat designation are based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions,
and analyses. We have invited these
peer reviewers to comment during this
public comment period.
We will consider all comments and
information received during this
comment period on this proposed rule
during our preparation of a final
determination. Accordingly, the final
decision may differ from this proposal.
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for
one public hearing on this proposal, if
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
53623
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Proposed Rules
requested. Requests must be received
within 45 days after the date of
publication of this proposed rule in the
Federal Register. Such requests must be
sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will
schedule public hearings on this
proposal, if any are requested, and
announce the dates, times, and places of
those hearings, as well as how to obtain
reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers
at least 15 days before the hearing.
Required Determinations
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new
collections of information that require
approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). This rule will not impose
recordkeeping or reporting requirements
on State or local governments,
individuals, businesses, or
organizations. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that
environmental assessments and
environmental impact statements, as
defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not
be prepared in connection with listing
a species as an endangered or
threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act. We published
a notice outlining our reasons for this
determination in the Federal Register
on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders
12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we
publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than
jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and
sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
If you feel that we have not met these
requirements, send us comments by one
of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To
better help us revise the rule, your
comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell
us the numbers of the sections or
paragraphs that are unclearly written,
which sections or sentences are too
long, the sections where you feel lists or
tables would be useful, etc.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in
this rulemaking is available on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov
and upon request from the Washington
Species
Vertebrate population
where endangered or
threatened
Historic range
Common name
Scientific name
*
AMPHIBIANS
*
*
Frog, Oregon spotted.
*
Rana pretiosa .........
*
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Canada (BC);
U.S.A. (WA, OR,
CA).
Authors
The primary authors of this package
are the staff members of the Washington
Fish and Wildlife Office, Oregon Fish
and Wildlife Office—Bend Field Office,
and Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife
Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend
part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
PART 17—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–
1544; and 4201–4245; unless otherwise
noted.
2. In § 17.11(h) add an entry for ‘‘Frog,
Oregon spotted’’ to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in
alphabetical order under ‘‘Amphibians’’
to read as set forth below:
■
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
*
*
(h) * * *
*
*
T
*
..................
*
*
[FR Doc. 2013–20986 Filed 8–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
*
Critical
habitat
*
Dated: July 18, 2013.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
*
*
When
listed
Status
*
*
Entire .........................
*
Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
E:\FR\FM\29AUP3.SGM
29AUP3
Special
rules
*
*
NA
NA
*
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 168 (Thursday, August 29, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53581-53623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20986]
[[Page 53581]]
Vol. 78
Thursday,
No. 168
August 29, 2013
Part IV
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for
Oregon Spotted Frog; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 53582]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R1-ES-2013-0013; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AZ04
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status
for Oregon Spotted Frog
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to list the
Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa), as a threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act. If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would
extend the Act's protections to this species. The effect of this
regulation is to add this species to the list of Endangered and
Threatened wildlife under the Act.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
October 28, 2013. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests
for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by October 15, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Written Comments: You may submit comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R1-ES-2013-0013,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. You may submit a
comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2013-0013; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Berg, Manager, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond
Drive SE., Suite 102, Lacey, WA 98503, by telephone 360-753-9440 or by
facsimile 360-753-9445. Persons who use a telecommunications device for
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if a species is
determined to be an endangered or threatened species throughout all or
a significant portion of its range, we are required to promptly publish
a proposal in the Federal Register and make a determination on our
proposal within 1 year. Listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species can be completed only by issuing a rulemaking. The
Oregon spotted frog is a candidate for listing and, by virtue of a
settlement agreement with Wild Earth Guardians, we must make a final
listing determination under the Act by the end of fiscal year 2014.
This rule will propose to list the Oregon spotted frog as
threatened.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we can determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence.
We have determined that the Oregon spotted frog is impacted by one
or more of the following factors to the extent that the species meets
the definition of a threatened species under the Act:
Habitat necessary to support all life stages is continuing
to be impacted and/or destroyed by human activities that result in the
loss of wetlands to land conversions; hydrologic changes resulting from
operation of existing water diversions/manipulation structures, new and
existing residential and road developments, drought, and removal of
beavers; changes in water temperature and vegetation structure
resulting from reed canarygrass invasions, plant succession, and
restoration plantings; and increased sedimentation, increased water
temperatures, reduced water quality, and vegetation changes resulting
from the timing and intensity of livestock grazing (or in some
instances, removal of livestock grazing at locations where it maintains
early seral stage habitat essential for breeding);
Predation by nonnative species, including nonnative trout
and bullfrogs;
Inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms that result in
significant negative impacts such as habitat loss and modification; and
Other natural or manmade factors including small and
isolated breeding locations, low connectivity, low genetic diversity
within occupied sub-basins, and genetic differentiation between sub-
basins.
We will seek peer review. We are seeking comments from
knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise to review our
analysis of the best available science and application of that science
and to provide any additional scientific information to improve this
proposed rule. Because we will consider all comments and information
received during the comment period, our final determination may differ
from this proposal.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from the public, other concerned governmental
agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry,
or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We
particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat or both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), which are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing regulations
that may be addressing those threats.
[[Page 53583]]
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of this species,
including the locations of any additional populations of this species.
(5) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of
the species, and ongoing conservation measures for the species and its
habitat.
(6) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
areas occupied by the species and possible impacts of these activities
on this species.
(7) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on the Oregon spotted frog.
(8) Information on the type, application of, and methods of
monitoring chemical contaminants, in addition to the projected and
reasonably likely impacts of chemical contaminants on the Oregon
spotted frog.
(9) The development of a 4(d) special rule. We are also considering
developing a special rule to exempt certain ongoing land and water
management activities (e.g., grazing, mechanical vegetation management,
water level manipulation) from take prohibitions of the Act if the
Oregon spotted frog is listed, when those activities are conducted in a
manner consistent with the conservation of the frog. Under section 4(d)
of the Act, the Secretary may publish a special rule that modifies the
standard protections for threatened species with special measures
tailored to the conservation of the species that are determined to be
necessary and advisable. Note that a 4(d) special rule will not remove
or alter in any way the consultation requirements under section 7 of
the Act.
We see meaningful opportunities to conserve the Oregon spotted frog
by allowing and promoting ongoing, and possibly new, activities on non-
Federal lands that contribute to the conservation of this now largely
management-dependent species. The Service is continuing to evaluate the
range and scope of activities that may be consistent with the
conservation of the frog and the range of options for providing
``take'' coverage (e.g., special rules, Habitat Conservation Plans,
Safe Harbor Agreements, and other types of conservation agreements) for
non-Federal landowners conducting these activities that further Oregon
spotted frog conservation. We are specifically seeking information and
comments regarding:
(a) What measures are necessary and advisable for the conservation
and management of the Oregon spotted frog that are appropriate for a
proposed 4(d) special rule to encourage landowners to manage their
lands for the benefit of the Oregon spotted frog.
(b) Information regarding the types of activities that occur within
Oregon spotted frog habitat and how they are or can be implemented
(e.g., timing, extent) consistent with maintaining or advancing
conservation of the frog.
(c) Whether the Service should develop a 4(d) special rule to allow
incidental take of Oregon spotted frog if the take results from
implementation of a comprehensive State conservation program or
regional or local conservation programs.
(d) Information concerning whether it would be appropriate to
include in the 4(d) special rule a provision for take of Oregon spotted
frog in accordance with applicable State law for educational or
scientific purposes, the enhancement of propagation or survival of the
species, zoological exhibition, and other conservation purposes
consistent with the Act.
(e) Additional provisions the Service may wish to consider for a
4(d) special rule in order to conserve, recover, and manage the Oregon
spotted frog.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request
that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES
section.
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Previous Federal Actions
We received a petition dated May 1, 1989, from the Board of
Directors of the Utah Nature Study Society on May 4, 1989. The petition
requested that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS)
add the spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) to the Federal List of Endangered
and Threatened Species. The Service published a notice of a 90-day
finding in the Federal Register (54 FR 42529) on October 17, 1990,
stating that substantial information indicates that the petitioned
action may be warranted. On May 7, 1993, the Service published a 12-
month finding in the Federal Register (58 FR 27260) indicating that the
spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) warranted listing as threatened in some
portions of its range, but was precluded by other higher priority
listing actions. Subsequent genetic analyses separated the spotted frog
into two separate species, Rana pretiosa (Oregon spotted frog) and Rana
luteiventris (Columbia spotted frog). The Service recognized these
taxonomic changes in the Federal Register (62 FR 49398) on September
19, 1997, and assigned a listing priority number of ``2'' to the Oregon
spotted frog and a listing priority number of ``3'' (Wasatch Front
population), ``6'' (West Desert population), or ``9'' (Great Basin
population) for the Columbia spotted frog. The candidate status for
Oregon spotted frog was most recently reaffirmed in the October 26,
2011, Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR) (76 FR 66370).
In a settlement agreement with plaintiff WildEarth Guardians on May
10, 2011, the Service submitted a workplan to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia in re Endangered Species Act Section 4
Deadline Litigation, No. 10-377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D. DC May
10, 2011), and obtained the court's approval to systematically, over a
period of 6 years, review and address the needs of more than 250
candidate species to determine if they should be added to the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. The Oregon
spotted frog is one of the candidate species identified in the May 2011
workplan.
[[Page 53584]]
Status Assessment for Oregon Spotted Frog
Background
Species Description
The Oregon spotted frog is named for the characteristic black spots
covering the head, back, sides, and legs. The dark spots have ragged
edges and light centers, usually associated with a tubercle or raised
area of skin. These spots become larger and darker, and the edges
become more ragged with age (Hayes 1994, p. 14). Body color also varies
with age. Juveniles are usually brown or, occasionally, olive green on
the back and white, cream, or flesh-colored with reddish pigments on
the underlegs and abdomen (McAllister and Leonard 1997, pp. 1-2).
Adults range from brown to reddish brown but tend to become redder with
age. Large, presumably older, individuals may be brick red over most of
the dorsal (back) surfaces (McAllister and Leonard 1997, pp. 1-2). Red
surface pigments on the adult abdomen also increase with age, and the
underlegs of adults are a vivid orange red. Tan to orange folds along
the sides of the back (dorsolateral folds) extend from behind the eye
to midway along the back (McAllister and Leonard 1997, p. 1). The eyes
are upturned; there is a faint mask, and a light jaw stripe extends to
the shoulder. Small bumps and tubercles usually cover the back and
sides (Leonard et al. 1993, p. 130). The hind legs are short relative
to body length, and the hind feet are fully webbed (Leonard et al.
1993, p. 130).
The Oregon spotted frog is a medium-sized frog that ranges from
about 44 to 105 millimeters (mm) (1.7 to 4.1 inches (in)) in body
length (McAllister and Leonard 1997, p. 1; Rombough et al. 2006, p.
210). Females are typically larger than males; females reach up to 105
mm (4 in) (Rombough et al. 2006, p. 210) and males to 75 mm (3 in)
(Leonard et al. 1993, p. 130).
Morphological characters can be used to distinguish Oregon spotted
frogs from other closely related spotted frogs. Mottling with dark
pigments and fragmentation of the superficial red or orange-red wash on
the abdomen can distinguish the Oregon spotted frog from some Columbia
spotted frog populations (Hayes 1997, p. 3; Hayes et al. 1997, p. 1).
Coloration of the underlegs and abdomen, size and shapes of spots,
groin mottling, eye positions, relative length of hind legs to body
size, degree of webbing, behaviors, and other characteristics can be
used to distinguish among adults of closely related species. However,
tadpoles are difficult to distinguish among species (Corkran and Thoms
1996, p. 150; McAllister and Leonard 1997, p. 6).
The Oregon spotted frog has a weak call consisting of a rapid
series of six to nine low clucking notes described as sounding like a
distant woodpecker's tapping. Males will call at any time, both day and
night (McAllister and Leonard 1997, p. 12). Males have been documented
to call from submerged sites that are physically distant (tens to
hundreds of meters) from oviposition (egg-laying) sites (Bowerman 2010,
p. 85). These submerged calls are inaudible at the surface and begin
several days prior to breeding. Submerged calling is more frequent at
night, although daytime calling has been recorded during overcast days
(Bowerman 2010, pp. 85-86). It is unclear if mate selection takes place
during this period of calling remotely from the breeding site, but it
seems likely (Bowerman 2010, p. 86). This species rarely vocalizes
except during the breeding season, which occurs in the spring (Leonard
et al. 1993, p. 132); however, vocalizations have been heard during the
fall (Leonard et al. 1997, pp. 73-74; Pearl 2010, pers. comm.).
Taxonomy
The common name ``spotted frog'' and the scientific name Rana
pretiosa (order Anura; family Ranidae) were first applied to a series
of five specimens collected in 1841 by Baird and Girard (1853, p. 378)
from the vicinity of Puget Sound. Two of these specimens were later
determined to be northern red-legged frogs (Rana aurora) (Hayes 1994,
p. 4; Green et al. 1997, p. 4). Dunlap (1955) demonstrated the
morphological differences between northern red-legged frogs, Cascades
frogs, and spotted frogs. Subsequently, the ``spotted frog'' was
separated into two species, Rana pretiosa (Oregon spotted frog) and
Rana luteiventris (Columbia spotted frog) based on genetic analyses
(Green et al. 1996, 1997).
Phylogenetic analyses were conducted on samples of Oregon spotted
frogs collected from 3 locations in Washington and 13 locations in
Oregon (Funk et al. 2008). Results indicate two well-supported clades
(a group of biological taxa (as species) that includes all descendants
of one common ancestor) nested within the Oregon spotted frog: the
Columbia clade (Trout Lake Natural Area Preserve (NAP) and Camas
Prairie) and the southern Oregon clade (Wood River and Buck Lake in the
Klamath Basin). The Columbia River does not appear to act as a barrier,
as the two sites that comprise the Columbia clade occur in Washington
(Trout Lake NAP) and in Oregon (Camas Prairie). Haplotype and
nucleotide diversity was low for Oregon spotted frogs in general and
was very low for each of the two nested clades, respectively (Funk et
al. 2008, p. 203). Only six haplotypes were found across the entire
range of the Oregon spotted frog, indicating low genetic variation
(Funk et al. 2008, p. 205). Recent genetic work conducted by Robertson
and Funk (2012, p. 6) in the Deschutes and Klamath basins indicate the
sampled Oregon spotted frog sites are characterized by very small
effective population sizes and little genetic variation (i.e., measured
as low heterozygosity and low allelic richness).
Blouin et al. (2010) performed genetic analyses on Oregon spotted
frogs from 23 of the known sites in British Columbia, Washington, and
Oregon for variation at 13 microsatellite loci and 298 base pairs of
mitochondrial DNA. Their results indicate that Rana pretiosa comprised
six major genetic groups: (1) British Columbia; (2) the Chehalis
drainage in Washington, (3) the Columbia drainage in Washington, (4)
Camas Prairie in northern Oregon, (5) the central Cascades of Oregon,
and (6) the Klamath basin (Blouin et al. 2010, pp. 2184-2185). Within
the northern genetic groups, the British Columbia (Lower Fraser River)
and Chehalis (Black River) populations form the next natural grouping
(Blouin et al. 2010, p. 2189). Recently discovered locales in the
Sumas, South Fork Nooksack, and Samish Rivers occur in-between these
two groups. While no genetic testing has been done on these newly found
populations, it is reasonable to assume that they are likely to be
closely related to either the British Columbia or Chehalis group, or
both, given their proximity and use of similar lowland marsh habitats.
Levels of genetic variation in the Oregon spotted frog groups are
low compared to other ranid frogs, suggesting these populations are
very small and/or very isolated (Blouin et al. 2010, p. 2184). Blouin
et al. (2010) found a high frequency of mitochondrial DNA private
alleles (i.e., an allele found in only one population or geographic
location) in the central Cascades and Klamath Basin groups. This
finding suggests an historical (rather than recent) isolation between
individual groups (Blouin et al. 2010, p. 2189). This finding also
reinforces microsatellite-based conclusions that gene flow among sites
has been very low, even on small geographic scales (Blouin et al. 2010,
p. 2188). Recent work by Robertson and Funk (2012) in the Deschutes and
Klamath basins reinforces the Blouin et al. (2010)
[[Page 53585]]
findings. Due to Oregon spotted frogs' highly aquatic habits,
connectivity between Oregon spotted frog sites depends on the
connectivity of streams, rivers, and lakes. Gene flow (based on both
microsatellite and mitochondrial analyses) is extremely low beyond 6 mi
(10 km) (Blouin et al. 2010, pp. 2186, 2188) and most Oregon spotted
frog populations are separated by more than 6.2 miles (mi) (10
kilometers (km). Therefore, Blouin et al. (2010, p. 2189), and
Robertson and Funk (2012, p. 5) hypothesize that low aquatic
connectivity and small isolated populations are important causes of the
low genetic diversity within sites and the high genetic differentiation
among sites.
Life-History
Male Oregon spotted frogs are not territorial and often gather in
large groups of 25 or more individuals at specific locations (Leonard
et al. 1993, p. 132). Breeding occurs in February or March at lower
elevations and between early April and early June at higher elevations
(Leonard et al. 1993, p. 132). Males and females separate soon after
egg-laying with females returning to fairly solitary lives. Males often
stay at the breeding site, possibly for several weeks, until egg-laying
is completed (McAllister and Leonard 1997, p. 13) (The term egg-laying
site or habitat is used interchangeably with breeding site or habitat
throughout this rule).
Oregon spotted frogs' eggs are extremely vulnerable to desiccation
and freezing as a result of the species' laying habits. Females may
deposit their egg masses at the same locations in successive years,
indicating the sites may have unique characteristics. For example, some
marked males and females at Sunriver (Upper Deschutes River, OR)
returned to the same breeding site for 3 or more years (Bowerman 2006,
pers. comm.). Further, at several sites in Oregon and Washington, the
same egg-laying locations have been used for more than a decade (Hayes
2008, pers. comm.). Although egg masses are occasionally laid singly,
the majority of egg masses are laid communally in groups of a few to
several hundred (Licht 1971, p. 119; Nussbaum et al. 1983, p. 186;
Cooke 1984, p. 87; Hayes et al. 1997 p. 3; Engler and Friesz 1998, p.
3). They are laid in shallow, often temporary, pools of water;
gradually receding shorelines; on benches of seasonal lakes and
marshes; and in wet meadows. These sites are usually associated with
the previous year's emergent vegetation, are generally no more than 14
in (35 centimeters (cm)) deep (Pearl and Hayes 2004, pp. 19-20), and
most of these sites dry up later in the season (Joe Engler, FWS, pers.
comm. 1999). Shallow water is easily warmed by the sun, and warmth
hastens egg development (McAllister and Leonard 1997, p. 8). However,
laying eggs in shallow water can result in high mortality rates for
eggs and hatchling larvae due to desiccation or freezing.
Licht (1974, pp. 617-625) documented the highly variable mortality
rates for spotted frog life-history stages in marsh areas in the lower
Fraser Valley, BC: embryos (30 percent), tadpoles (99 percent), and
post-metamorphic (after the change from tadpole to adult, or
``metamorphosis'') frogs (95 percent). Licht (1974, p. 625) estimated
mortality of each life stage and predicted only a 1 percent chance of
survival of eggs to metamorphosis, a 67 percent chance of juvenile
survival for the first year, and a 64 percent adult annual survival
with males having a higher mortality rate than females. An average
adult between-year survival of 37 percent was estimated by a mark-
recapture study at Dempsey Creek in Washington between 1997 and 1999
(Watson et al. 2000, p. 19).
Adult Oregon spotted frogs begin to breed by 1-3 years of age,
depending on sex, elevation, and latitude. Males may breed at 1 year at
lower elevations and latitudes but generally breed at 2 years of age.
Females breed by 2 or 3 years of age, depending on elevation and
latitude. Longevity of the species is not well understood; however,
there are multiple examples of Oregon spotted frogs living beyond 7
years of age (Watson et al. 2000, p. 21; Kelly McAllister, WDOT 2008,
pers. comm.; Jill Oertley, U.S. Forest Service 2005, pers. comm.; Pearl
2005, pers. comm.).
Egg-laying can begin as early as February in British Columbia and
Washington and as late as early June in the higher elevations. Tadpoles
metamorphose into froglets (tiny frogs) (about 16-43 mm (0.6-1.75 in)
in length) during their first summer (Leonard et al. 1993, p. 132;
Pearl and Bowerman 2005, pers. comm.). Tadpoles are grazers, having
rough tooth rows for scraping plant surfaces and ingesting plant tissue
and bacteria. They also consume algae, detritus, and probably carrion
(Licht 1974, p. 624; McAllister and Leonard 1997, p. 13).
Post-metamorphic Oregon spotted frogs are opportunistic predators
that prey on live animals, primarily insects, found in or near the
water. Important prey groups of adult frogs include leaf beetles
(Chrysomelidae), ground beetles (Carabidae), spiders (Arachnidae), rove
beetles (Staphylinidae), syrphid flies (Syrphidae), long-legged flies
(Dolichopodidae), ants (Formicidae), water striders (Gerridae),
spittlebugs (Cercopidae), leaf hoppers (Cicadellidae), aphids
(Aphididae), dragonflies and damsel flies (Odonates), and yellowjackets
(Vespidae) (Licht 1986a, pp. 27-28). Oregon spotted frogs also eat
adult Pacific tree frogs (Pseudacris regilla), small red-legged frogs,
and newly metamorphosed red-legged frogs and western toad (Bufo boreas)
juveniles (Licht 1986a, p. 28; Pearl and Hayes 2002, pp. 145-147; Pearl
et al. 2005a, p. 37).
Similar to many North American pond-breeding anurans (belonging to
the Order Anura, which contains all frogs), predators can strongly
affect the abundance of larval and post-metamorphic Oregon spotted
frogs. The heaviest losses to predation are thought to occur shortly
after tadpoles emerge from eggs, when they are relatively exposed and
poor swimmers (Licht 1974, p. 624). However, the odds of survival
appear to increase as tadpoles grow in size and aquatic vegetation
matures, thus affording cover (Licht 1974, p. 624). Adult Oregon
spotted frogs have a number of documented and potential natural
predators, including garter snakes (Thamnophis species (spp.)), great
blue herons (Ardea herodias), green-backed herons (Butorides
virescens), American bitterns (Botaurus lentiginosus), belted
kingfishers (Ceryle alcyon), sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis),
raccoons (Procyon lotor), coyotes (Canis latrans), striped skunks
(Mephitis mephitis), mink (Mustela vison), river otters (Lutra
canadensis), and feral cats (Felis domesticus) (McAllister and Leonard
1997, p. 13; Hayes et al. 2005, p. 307; Hayes et al. 2006, p. 209).
Tadpoles may be preyed upon by numerous vertebrate predators including
belted kingfishers, hooded mergansers (Lophodytes cucullatus), common
garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis), western terrestrial garter snakes
(Thamnophis elegans), larval and adult roughskin newts (Taricha
granulosa), larval northwestern salamanders (Ambystoma gracile),
cutthroat trout (Oncorynchus clarki), Olympic mudminnows (Novumbra
hubbsi), and three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus)
(McAllister and Leonard 1997, p. 14).
Subadult Oregon spotted frogs have been observed within dense
aggregations of recently hatched Oregon spotted frog tadpoles, and
stomach flushing verified that these subadult Oregon spotted frogs had
consumed (cannibalized) recently hatched conspecific (belonging to the
same
[[Page 53586]]
species) tadpoles (K. McAllister, pers. comm. 2008). Invertebrate
predators include dytiscid beetles (Dytiscus spp.), giant water bugs
(Lethocerus americanus), backswimmers (Notonecta undulata and N.
kirbyi), water scorpions (Ranatra sp.), dragonfly nymphs (Odonata), and
worm-leeches (Arhynchobdellida) (McAllister and Leonard 1997, p. 14).
Leeches and other invertebrates, roughskin newts, and northwestern
salamanders are likely Oregon spotted frog egg predators (McAllister
and Leonard 1997, p. 14).
The introduction of nonnative species into the historical range of
the Oregon spotted frog is believed to have contributed to the decline
of this and other species of frogs (Hayes and Jennings 1986, pp. 491-
492, 494-496; Hayes 1994, p. 5; 61 FR 25813; McAllister and Leonard
1997, pp. 25-26; Pearl et al. 2004, pp. 17-18). Bullfrogs (Lithobates
catesbeiana) are known predators of Oregon spotted frogs (R. Haycock
and R.A. Woods, unpubl. data, 2001 cited in COSFRT 2012, p. 19), and
introduced fish such as brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and
centrarchids (Micropterus and Lepomis spp.) are also likely predators
(Pearl et al. 2009a, p. 140).
Habitat
Watson et al. (2003, p. 298) summarized the conditions required for
completion of the Oregon spotted frog life cycle as shallow water areas
for egg and tadpole survival, perennially deep, moderately vegetated
pools for adult and juvenile survival in the dry season, and perennial
water for protecting all age classes during cold wet weather.
The Oregon spotted frog inhabits emergent wetland habitats in
forested landscapes, although it is not typically found under forest
canopy. Historically, this species was also associated with lakes in
the prairie landscape of the Puget lowlands (McAllister and Leonard
1997, p. 16). This is the most aquatic native frog species in the
Pacific Northwest, as all other species have a terrestrial life stage.
It is almost always found in or near a perennial body of water, such as
a spring, pond, lake, sluggish stream, irrigation canal, or roadside
ditch (Engler 1999, pers. comm.). The observation that extant Oregon
spotted frog populations tend to occur in larger wetlands led Hayes
(1994, Part II pp. 5, 7) to hypothesize that a minimum size of 9 acres
(ac) (4 hectares (ha)) may be necessary to reach suitably warm
temperatures and support a large enough population to persist despite
high predation rates. However, Oregon spotted frogs also occupy smaller
sites and are known to occur at sites as small as 2.5 ac (1 ha) and as
large as 4,915 ac (1,989 ha) (Pearl and Hayes 2004, p. 11). Oregon
spotted frogs have been found at elevations ranging from near sea level
in the Puget Trough lowlands in Washington to approximately 5,000 feet
(ft) (1,500 meters (m)) in the Oregon Cascades in western Oregon
(Dunlap 1955, p. 316; Hayes 1997, p. 16; McAllister and Leonard 1997,
pp. 8-10).
Oregon spotted frogs can make use of a variety of pond types as
long as there is sufficient vegetation and seasonal habitat available
for breeding, summer feeding, and overwintering (Pearl et al. 2009a, p.
144). Oregon spotted frogs at Dempsey Creek in Washington selected
areas of relatively shallow water with less emergent vegetation but
more submergent vegetation than adjacent habitats. They avoided dry,
upland areas of pasture grass (Watson et al. 1998, p. 10; 2000, pp. 54-
57; 2003, p. 297). Radio telemetry data indicates Oregon spotted frogs
at Dempsey Creek also make extensive use of scrub-shrub wetland
habitats adjacent to forested uplands (Risenhoover et al. 2001a, p.
13).
Oregon spotted frogs breed in shallow pools (2-12 in (5-30 cm)
deep) that are near flowing water, or which may be connected to larger
bodies of water during seasonally high water or at flood stage.
Characteristic vegetation includes grasses, sedges, and rushes,
although eggs are laid where the vegetation is low or sparse, such that
vegetation structure does not shade the eggs (McAllister and Leonard
1997, p. 17). While native vegetation is the preferred substrate, the
frog may also use short, manipulated canarygrass/native vegetation mix
(J. Engler, pers. comm. 1999). Full solar exposure seems to be a
significant factor in breeding habitat selection (McAllister and White
2001, p. 12; Pearl and Hayes 2004, p. 18). The availability of the
unique characteristics of traditional egg-laying sites is limited, and
adults may have limited flexibility to switch sites (Hayes 1994, p.
19). This may make the Oregon spotted frog particularly vulnerable to
modification of egg-laying sites (Hayes 1994, p. 19).
After breeding, during the dry season, Oregon spotted frogs move to
deeper, permanent pools or creeks (Watson et al. 2003, p. 295). They
are often observed near the water surface basking and feeding in beds
of floating and submerged vegetation (Watson et al. 2003, pp. 292-298;
Pearl et al. 2005a, pp. 36-37).
Known overwintering sites are associated with flowing systems, such
as springs and creeks, that provide well-oxygenated water (Hallock and
Pearson 2001, p. 15; Hayes et al. 2001, pp. 20-23, Tattersall and
Ultsch 2008, pp. 123, 129, 136) and sheltering locations protected from
predators and freezing (Risenhoover et al. 2001b; Watson et al. 2003,
p. 295). Oregon spotted frogs apparently burrow in mud, silty
substrate, clumps of emergent vegetation, woody accumulations within
the creek, and holes in creek banks when inactive during periods of
prolonged or severe cold (Watson et al. 2003, p. 295; Hallock and
Pearson 2001, p. 16; McAllister and Leonard 1997, p. 17); however, they
are intolerant of anoxic (absence of dissolved oxygen) conditions and
are unlikely to burrow into the mud for more than a day or two
(Tattersall and Ultsch 2008, p. 136) because survival under anoxic
conditions is only a matter of 4-7 days (Tattersall and Ultsch 2008, p.
126). This species remains active during the winter in order to select
microhabitats that can support aerobic metabolism and allow it to evade
predators (Hallock and Pearson 2001, p. 15; Hayes et al. 2001, pp. 20-
23; Tattersall and Ultsch 2008, p. 136). In central Oregon, where
winters generally result in ice cover over ponds, Oregon spotted frogs
follow a fairly reliable routine of considerable activity and movement
beneath the ice during the first month following freeze-up. Little
movement is observed under the ice in January and February, but
activity steadily increases in mid-March, even when ice cover persists
(Bowerman 2006, pers. comm.). Radio-tracked frogs remained active all
winter, even under the ice at Trout Lake NAP (Hallock 2009, pers comm.)
and Conboy National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) (Hayes et al. 2001, pp. 16-
19).
Results of a habitat utilization and movement study at Dempsey
Creek in Washington indicate that adult frogs made infrequent movements
between widely separated pools and more frequent movements between
pools in closer proximity (Watson et al. 2003, p. 294), but remained
within the study area throughout the year. Home ranges averaged 5.4 ac
(2.2 ha), and daily movement was 16-23 ft (5-7 m) throughout the year
(Watson et al. 2003, p. 295). During the breeding season (February-
May), frogs used about half the area used during the rest of the year.
During the dry season (June-August), frogs moved to deeper, permanent
pools, and occupied the smallest range of any season, then moved back
toward their former breeding range during the wet season (September-
January) (Watson et al. 2003, p. 295). Individuals equipped with radio
transmitters stayed within 2,600 ft (800 m) of capture
[[Page 53587]]
locations at the Dempsey Creek site (Watson et al. 1998, p. 10) and
within 1,312 ft (400 m) at the Trout Lake NAP (Hallock and Pearson
2001, p. 16).
Recaptures of Oregon spotted frogs at breeding locations in the
Buck Lake population in Oregon indicated that adults often move less
than 300 ft (100 m) between years (Hayes 1998a, p. 9). However, longer
travel distances, while infrequent, have been observed between years
and within a single year between seasons. Three adult Oregon spotted
frogs (one male and two females) marked in a study at Dempsey Creek and
the Black River in Washington moved a distance of 1.5 mi (2.4 km)
between seasons along lower Dempsey Creek to the creek's mouth from the
point where they were marked (McAllister and Walker 2003, p. 6). Adult
female Oregon spotted frogs traveled 1,434 ft (437 m) between seasons
from their original capture location at the Trout Lake Wetland NAP
(Hallock and Pearson 2001, p. 8). Two juvenile frogs at the Jack Creek
site in Oregon were recaptured the next summer 4,084 ft (1,245 m) and
4,511 ft (1,375 m) downstream from where they were initially marked,
and one adult female moved 9,183 ft (2,799 m) downstream (Cushman and
Pearl 2007, p. 13). Oregon spotted frogs at the Sunriver site routinely
make annual migrations of 1,640 to 4,265 ft (500 to 1,300 m) between
the major egg-laying complex and an overwintering site (Bowerman 2006,
pers. comm.).
While these movement studies are specific to Oregon spotted frogs,
the number of studies and size of the study areas are limited and
haven't been conducted over multiple seasons or years. In addition, the
ability to detect frogs is challenging because of the difficult terrain
in light of the need for the receiver and transmitter to be in close
proximity. Hammerson (2005) recommends that a 3.1-mile (5-km) dispersal
distance be applied to all ranid frog species, because the movement
data for ranids are consistent. The preponderance of data indicates
that a separation distance of several kilometers may be appropriate and
practical for delineation of occupancy, despite occasional movements
that are longer or that may allow some genetic interchange between
distant populations (for example, the 6.2-mi (10-km) distance noted by
Blouin et al. 2010, pp. 2186, 2188). Accordingly, based on the best
available scientific information, we presume that Oregon spotted frog
habitats are connected for purposes of genetic exchange when occupied/
suitable habitats fall within a maximum movement distance of 3.1 mi (5
km).
Historical Range/Distribution
Historically, the Oregon spotted frog ranged from British Columbia
to the Pit River basin in northeastern California (Hayes 1997; p. 40;
McAllister and Leonard 1997, p. 7). Oregon spotted frogs have been
documented at 61 historical localities in 48 watersheds (3 in British
Columbia, 13 in Washington, 29 in Oregon, and 3 in California) in 31
sub-basins (McAllister et al. 1993, pp. 11-12; Hayes 1997, p. 41;
McAllister and Leonard 1997, pp. 18-20; COSEWIC 2011, pp. 12-13) (See
Table 1). We are assuming the watersheds that have recently been
documented to be occupied were also occupied historically based on
their complete disconnect from known-occupied watersheds and the
limited dispersal ability of Oregon spotted frog. For the rest of the
document, we will describe historical and current range or distribution
based on river sub-basins/watersheds. A river sub-basin is equivalent
to a 4th field watershed and a hydrologic unit code of 8. A watershed
is equivalent to a 5th field watershed and a hydrologic unit code of
10.
Table 1--Oregon Spotted Frog Historical and Extant Distribution
Throughout Range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Sub-basins *: Watersheds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
British Columbia............. Lower Fraser River sub-basin
near Sumas Prairie in Abbotsford,
Nicomen Island in Matsqui, and in
Langley Township. Recently (1996/1997
and 2008) discovered at MD Aldergrove,
Maria Slough, Mountain Slough, and
Morris Valley.
Washington Counties: Clark, Fraser River sub-basin: recently
King, Klickitat, Pierce, discovered (2012) in the Sumas River, a
Skagit, Snohomish, and tributary to the Lower Chilliwack River
Thurston. watershed;
Nooksack River sub-basin: South
Fork Nooksack River (recently discovered
(2011 and 2012) in the Black Slough);
Straits of Georgia sub-basin:
recently discovered (2011 and 2012)
along the mainstem of the Samish River;
Lower Skagit River sub-basin:
Skagit River-Frontal Skagit Bay and
Finney Creek-Skagit River;
Skykomish River sub-basin: Woods
Creek-Skykomish River at Monroe;
Duwamish River sub-basin: Lower
Green River at Kent;
Lake Washington sub-basin: Lake
Washington at Seattle;
Puget Sound (no sub-basin):
Chambers Creek-Frontal Puget Sound
(Spanaway Lake) and McLane Creek-Frontal
Puget Sound (Patterson/Pattison Lake);
Nisqually River sub-basin: Lower
Nisqually River-Frontal Puget Sound
(Kapowsin);
Upper Chehalis River sub-basin:
Black River (Demspey Creek, Beaver
Creek, Blooms Ditch, and recently
discovered in Salmon and Fish Pond
Creeks);
Lower Willamette River sub-
basin: Salmon Creek-Frontal Columbia
River at Brush Prairie, Vancouver, and
possibly Burnt Bridge Creek at Orchards;
Middle Columbia-Hood River sub-
basin: White Salmon River (Trout Lake
Creek at Gular and Trout Lake);
Klickitat River sub-basin:
Middle Klickitat River (Conboy Lake on
Outlet, Fraiser, and Chapman Creeks).
Oregon Counties: Multnomah, Lower Willamette River sub-
Clackamas, Marion, Linn, basin: Johnson Creek;
Benton, Jackson, Lane, Lower Deschutes River sub-basin:
Wasco, Deschutes, and Tygh Creek and White River;
Klamath. Clackamas River sub-basin: Oak
Grove Fork Clackamas River;
Middle Willamette River sub-
basin: Mill Creek-Willamette River and
Oak Creek;
South Santiam River sub-basin:
South Santiam River-Hamilton Creek;
Upper Willamette River sub-
basin: Muddy Creek;
McKenzie River sub-basin: Upper
McKenzie River and South Fork McKenzie
River;
Middle Fork Willamette River sub-
basin: Salt Creek-Willamette River;
Upper Deschutes River sub-basin:
Deschutes River-McKenzie Canyon,
Deschutes River-Pilot Butte, Deschutes
River-Fall River, and Deschutes River-
Browns Creek;
Little Deschutes River sub-
basin: Upper Little Deschutes River,
Middle Little Deschutes River, Lower
Little Deschutes River, Long Prairie,
and Crescent Creek;
[[Page 53588]]
Williamson River sub-basin:
Klamath Marsh-Jack Creek, West of
Klamath Marsh, and Williamson River
above Klamath Marsh.
Sprague River sub-basin: North
Fork Sprague River and Sprague River
above Williamson;
Upper Klamath Lake sub-basin:
Wood River and Klamath Lake watersheds;
Upper Klamath sub-basin: Spencer
Creek and Jenny Creek;
Lost River sub-basin: Lake
Ewauna-Upper Klamath River.
California Counties: Modoc, Lost River sub-basin: Lower
Shasta, and Siskiyou. Klamath Lake.
Upper Pit River sub-basin: Pine
Creek-South Pit River (near Alturas).
Lower Pit River sub-basin: Town
of Pittville-Pit River (near Fall River
Mills).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Bolded sub-basins represent the sub-basins with extant locales. Oregon
spotted frogs may not be extant in all of the historic watersheds
within these sub-basins.
Current Range/Distribution
Currently, the Oregon spotted frog is found from extreme
southwestern British Columbia south through the Puget Trough, and in
the Cascades Range from south-central Washington at least to the
Klamath Basin in southern Oregon. Oregon spotted frogs occur in lower
elevations in British Columbia and Washington and are restricted to
high elevations in Oregon (Pearl et al. 2010 p. 7). In addition, Oregon
spotted frogs currently have a very limited distribution west of the
Cascade crest in Oregon, are considered to be extirpated from the
Willamette Valley in Oregon (Cushman et al. 2007, p. 14), and may be
extirpated in the Klamath and Pit River basins of California (Hayes
1997, p. 1).
In British Columbia, Oregon spotted frogs no longer occupy the
locations documented historically, but they currently are known to
occupy four disjunct locations in a single sub-basin, the Lower Fraser
River (Canadian Oregon Spotted Frog Recovery Team 2012, p. 6).
In Washington, Oregon spotted frogs are known to occur only within
six sub-basins/watersheds: the Sumas River, a tributary to the Lower
Fraser River; the Black Slough in the lower South Fork Nooksack River,
a tributary of the Nooksack River; Samish River; Black River, a
tributary of the Chehalis River; Outlet Creek (Conboy Lake), a
tributary to the Middle Klickitat River; and Trout Lake Creek, a
tributary of the White Salmon River. The Klickitat and White Salmon
Rivers are tributaries to the Columbia River. The Oregon spotted frogs
in each of these sub-basins/watersheds are isolated from frogs in other
sub-basins.
A reintroduction project was initiated in 2008 at Dailman Lake in
Pierce County on Joint Base Lewis-McChord Military Reservation. This
sub-basin (Nisqually River) was historically occupied by Oregon spotted
frogs with documented occurrences at Spanaway Lake, Spanaway Pond,
Little Spanaway Lake and Kapowsin (McAllister and Leonard 1997, pp. 18-
19). Eggs were collected from the Black River and the Conboy Lake
Oregon spotted frog breeding locations, captive reared until
metamorphosis, and released in the fall or subsequent spring. Through
2011, researchers collected 7,870 eggs and released 3,355 frogs (Tirhi
and Schmidt 2011, pp. 51-53). Surveys in April 2011 found 3 verified
Oregon spotted frog egg masses and 11 suspected egg masses. However,
breeding was not detected in 2012. This effort is ongoing and the
efficacy and viability of a breeding Oregon spotted frog population
being established in this area is undetermined. The reintroduction
efforts at this location are not likely to facilitate Oregon spotted
frog recovery in this extirpated sub-basin because of the extent of
development at the historical locales and lack of suitable habitat;
therefore, this location will not be discussed further.
In Oregon, Oregon spotted frogs are known to occur only within
eight sub-basins: Lower Deschutes River, Upper Deschutes River, Little
Deschutes River, McKenzie River, Middle Fork Willamette, Upper Klamath,
Upper Klamath Lake, and the Williamson River. The Oregon spotted frogs
in most of these sub-basins are isolated from frogs in other sub-
basins, although Oregon spotted frogs in the lower Little Deschutes
River are aquatically connected with those below Wickiup Reservoir in
the Upper Deschutes River sub-basin. Oregon spotted frog distribution
west of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon is restricted to a few lakes in
the upper watersheds of the McKenzie River and Middle Fork Willamette
River sub-basins, which represent the remaining 2 out of 12
historically occupied sub-basins.
In California, this species has not been detected since 1918
(California Academy of Science Museum Record 44291) at historical sites
and may be extirpated (Hayes 1997 pp. 1, 35). However, there has been
little survey effort of potential habitat since 1996, so this species
may still occur in California.
Population Estimates and Status
Of the 61 historical localities where the species' previous
existence can be verified (e.g., museum specimens, photographs,
reliable published records), only 13 were confirmed as being occupied
in studies conducted in the 1990s (Hayes 1997, p. 1; McAllister and
Leonard 1997, p. 20). Hayes visited historical localities one to four
times, with a minimum of 2 hours devoted to site visits for localities
that could be identified precisely. For sites where the location was
imprecisely known, he searched three to six points in the area that
possessed favorable habitat, for 20 minutes to 3 hours, depending on
site size. He also visited sites that were judged to have a potentially
high likelihood of having Oregon spotted frogs (i.e., within the
historical range, consistent with elevations documented for verifiable
specimens, and within suitable habitat) (Hayes 1997, p. 6). Based on
those studies, Hayes (1997, p. 1) estimated the species may no longer
occur in 76 to 90 percent of its historical range. Although this
estimated loss of historical localities does not take into account the
localities found since 2000, the current range of the Oregon spotted
frog is significantly smaller than the historical range, based on the
best available scientific and commercial information.
Egg mass counts are believed to be a good metric of adult
population size and are the most time-efficient way to estimate
population size (Phillipsen et al. 2009, p. 7). Adult females lay one
egg mass per year, and the breeding period occurs within a reliable and
predictable timeframe each year (McAllister 2006, pers. comm.). Egg
mass numbers are collected in a single survey timed to coincide with
the end of the breeding season, when egg laying should be
[[Page 53589]]
complete and the egg mass count represents a reliable estimate of total
egg masses. Because one egg mass is approximately equivalent to one
breeding female plus one to two adult males, a rough estimate of adult
population size can be made if a thorough egg mass census is completed
(Phillipsen et al. 2009, p. 7). Using egg mass counts to estimate
population size has some weaknesses. For example, researchers have
uncertainties about whether adult females breed every year and find
difficulty in distinguishing individual egg masses in large communal
clusters. However, a minimum population estimate can be derived from
the total egg mass count multiplied by two (one egg mass equals two
adult frogs). While there are weaknesses in these estimates, as
discussed above, they are the best estimates available for Oregon
spotted frog numbers.
Egg mass counts, as currently conducted at most sites, do not allow
for evaluation of trends within a site nor between sites because
surveys are not standardized. Survey effort, area coverage, and timing
can differ between years at individual sites. In addition, method of
survey can differ between years at individual sites and differs between
sites. Because of the weaknesses associated with the egg mass counts,
site estimates derived from egg mass counts are considered to be a
minimum estimate and generally should not be compared across years or
with other sites. However, some breeding locations have been surveyed
in a consistent manner (in some cases by the same researcher) and for
enough years that trend data are available and considered to be
reliable. Trend information is provided in the following sub-basin
summaries for the locations where the information is available.
For the purposes of this document, the terms `location' and `site'
simply refer to the general locations where breeding has been observed.
In some cases, a site may be equivalent to an Oregon spotted frog
population (for example, Penn Lake). In other cases, a site may include
multiple breeding locations within wetland complexes where hydrological
connections may facilitate movement between breeding areas, but where
movement patterns and genetic conditions are undetermined within the
complexes (for example, Klamath Marsh NWR. Accordingly, a site should
not be interpreted to be a population. Because of the lack of complete
information between breeding locations, populations were not
specifically identified for this status review, and the focus of our
analysis regarding the status of Oregon spotted frogs was within the
individual river sub-basins.
The following summarizes the best available scientific and
commercial information available regarding populations within the
currently occupied river sub-basins in British Columbia, Washington,
and Oregon. We used multiple data sources, including various
unpublished reports, databases, and spreadsheets provided by our
partner agencies. These sources are identified in the following
sections as ``multiple data sources'' and are included in our
literature cited list, which is included as supplementary information
on https://www.regulations.gov for this proposed rule. These sources are
available upon request from the Washington Fish and Wildlife Office
(see ADDRESSES). In most sub-basins, trend information regarding the
collective status of the populations within the sub-basin is limited or
not available, though it is presented below where available. The status
of a sub-basin may be undetermined because the Oregon spotted frog
presence has only recently been identified, the trend information is
uncertain, or sufficient survey information is not available to
indicate a trend. However, when viewed at the range-wide scale, the
Oregon spotted frog has been extirpated from most of its historical
range, and the threat of current and future impacts to the Oregon
spotted frog occurs over the entire range of the species. Ongoing
threats have significantly reduced the overall extent and distribution
of suitable habitat for the Oregon spotted frog, as discussed in
``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' below.
British Columbia
Currently, Oregon spotted frogs are known to occur only within four
sites in the Lower Fraser River Basin. Of the four sites, Maintenance
Detachment Aldergrove (MD Aldergrove) is nearing, or may have reached
extirpation, as no egg masses have been discovered at the site since
2006; Mountain Slough appears to be stable; Maria Slough may be
declining; and there is limited data for the recently discovered Morris
Valley site (COSEWIC 2011, p. v). Estimates from the three most well-
studied populations (MD Aldergrove, Maria Slough, Mountain Slough)
indicate a population decline of 35 percent during the period 2000-2010
(COSEWIC 2011, p. 32), and the most recent egg mass counts indicate the
minimum population size for all of British Columbia is fewer than 350
adults (COSEWIC 2011, pp. 27-30). One extant population is near
extinction, and the remaining populations are small and vulnerable to
disturbance and stochastic events. Extirpation of the MD Aldergrove
population would result in a reduction of 76 percent of the extent of
Oregon spotted frog in the Lower Fraser River (COSEWIC 2011, pp. vii-
ix). Therefore, populations of Oregon spotted frogs in the Lower Fraser
River are declining.
Washington
In Washington, the Oregon spotted frog was historically found in
the Puget Trough from the Canadian border to the Columbia River, and
east to the Washington Cascades (McAllister et al. 1997, p. vii).
Current distribution is limited to four watersheds in the Puget Trough,
three that drain to Puget Sound and one that drains to the Pacific
Ocean, and two watersheds in the southeast Cascades that drain to the
Columbia River. In 1997, the locations for 11 historical populations in
Washington were verified using museum specimen and published records,
and only 1 historically known population and 2 recently discovered
populations were known to remain in Washington in 1997 (McAllister et
al. 1997, p. vii). The authors also stated that past populations of the
Oregon spotted frog in Washington are largely undocumented (McAllister
et al. 1997, p. 18). Current population estimates are based on the 2012
census of egg masses at all known extant breeding areas. Based on these
estimates, the minimum population in Washington was at least 7,368
breeding adults in 2012.
Trend data are limited; however, the Oregon spotted frog population
in the Middle Klickitat River (Conboy Lake) appears to be declining
(see below for further information). The population trend within the
rest of the occupied sub-basins is unknown, although some individual
breeding areas may be stable or extirpated (for example, 110th Ave in
the Black River). More detailed discussions of Washington's occupied
sub-basins/watersheds are provided below.
Lower Chilliwack River (Sumas River)--In 2012, one Oregon spotted
frog breeding area was found on a privately owned dairy farm on a small
tributary to the Sumas River (Bohannon et al. 2012). The Sumas River is
a tributary to the Lower Fraser River, along which the British Columbia
breeding areas occur. However, the breeding area on the Sumas River is
more than 20 mi (35 km) upstream of the confluence with the Fraser
River, and separated by unsuitable aquatic habitat. Therefore, an
aquatic connection to the British Columbia
[[Page 53590]]
breeding areas is not likely (COSEWIC 2011, p. 12). Fewer than 50 egg
masses (<100 adults) were found during the 2012 surveys, however,
suitable habitat within the Sumas River has not been surveyed
extensively (Bohannon et al. 2012) and the full extent of Oregon
spotted frog distribution and abundance has not been determined.
South Fork Nooksack River--In 2011 and 2012, Oregon spotted frog
breeding areas were found on privately owned parcels in the Black
Slough, a tributary of the South Fork Nooksack River. On one parcel,
the egg-laying habitat was in off-channel wetlands dominated by reed
canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) and recent shrub plantings. Egg-
laying areas on other parcels were located within former pasture lands
that had been planted with trees and fenced within the last 2 or 3
years under the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) to
eliminate grazing and improve water quality (Bohannon et al. 2012). At
least 230 adults (based on 2012 surveys) are associated with the known
breeding areas along the Black Slough; however, this area has not been
surveyed extensively (Bohannon et al. 2012), and the full extent of
Oregon spotted frog distribution and abundance has not been determined.
Samish River--In 2011 and 2012, Oregon spotted frog breeding areas
were found on privately owned parcels along the upper reaches of the
Samish River. All of the breeding areas are seasonally flooded grazed
or formerly grazed pasture lands that are predominantly reed
canarygrass (Bohannon et al. 2012). At least 1,220 adults (based on
2012 surveys) are associated with the known breeding areas along the
Samish River; however, this area has not been surveyed extensively, and
the full extent of Oregon spotted frog distribution and abundance has
not been determined.
Black River--Oregon spotted frogs occupy wetlands in the floodplain
and tributaries of the upper Black River drainage between Black Lake
and the town of Littlerock. They are currently known to occur at two
locations within the Black River floodplain (Blooms Ditch near 110th
Avenue Bridge and near 123rd Avenue) and in four tributaries: Dempsey
Creek, Salmon Creek, Allen Creek, and Beaver Creek (Hallock 2013; WDFW
and USFWS multiple data sources). In 2012, a new breeding location was
detected along Fish Pond Creek, which flows directly into Black Lake,
not Black River. Oregon spotted frog egg-laying areas in the Black
River may be isolated from each other and the frogs associated with the
Fish Pond Creek may not be hydrologically connected to frogs in the
Black River due to the human alteration of the Black Lake drainage
pattern. Further investigation of this new location is needed.
The full extent of the population's distribution, abundance, and
status in the Black River has not been determined. As of 2012, the
Black River adult breeding population comprised at least 1,748 breeding
adults (Hallock 2013, p. 27). Oregon spotted frogs in Dempsey Creek
have been monitored relatively consistently since the late 1990s. Other
breeding areas in the Black River have been monitored inconsistently or
are newly found, and surveys to identify additional breeding locations
continue. The Dempsey Creek breeding area may be declining, but the
trend for the remainder of the occupied areas is undetermined.
White Salmon River (Trout Lake Creek)--Oregon spotted frogs occupy
approximately 1,285 ac (520 ha) of the lower Trout Lake Creek
watershed, ranging in elevation 1,960-2,080 ft (597-633 m). In total,
as of 2012, a minimum population estimate of 2,124 breeding adults
(Hallock 2012) associated with 12 breeding areas have been identified.
Two of the breeding areas have been monitored since they were found by
Leonard (1997). The other locations have been monitored sporadically
since they were discovered. Monitoring of egg mass numbers at two
breeding areas within the Trout Lake NAP revealed considerable
population volatility and a general pattern of decline from 2001
through 2007 (Hallock 2011, p. 8). During the period of egg mass
declines, three events of note occurred that could have influenced
frogs at the NAP: Annual precipitation was unusually low, cattle
grazing was reduced and then eliminated, and frogs infected with
chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatids (Bd)) were present (Pearl
et al. 2009b, Hayes et al. 2009). While the 2009 and 2010 egg mass
counts indicate that Oregon spotted frog numbers may be rebounding
within the eastern portions of the NAP, the numbers in the western
portion continue to be less than half of the estimates from the 1990s.
Middle Klickitat River (Conboy Lake)--The extent of Conboy Lake
wetland complex habitat occupied by Oregon spotted frogs at high water
is approximately 7,462 ac (3,020 ha), ranging in elevation 1,804-1,896
ft (550-576 m). This wetland complex comprises two lakebeds that are
entirely seasonal (except in wet years) and are joined by Camas Ditch,
which flows into Outlet Creek, the main drainage for the system that
flows northeast into the Klickitat River. As of 2012, there were a
minimum of 1,954 breeding adults in the Conboy Lake wetland complex
(Hallock 2013, p. 27). This used to be the largest Oregon spotted frog
population throughout the entire range (highest egg mass count 7,018 in
year 1998). However, Oregon spotted frog egg mass surveys suggest a
continued long-term decline (approximately 86 percent) since 1998
(Hayes and Hicks 2011; Hallock 2013, p. 36). At present, the population
trend of Oregon spotted frogs in the Middle Klickitat River is
considered to be declining.
Oregon
Population estimates of Oregon spotted frogs in Oregon are
primarily based on egg mass surveys conducted in 2011 and 2012 at all
known extant sites, and newly discovered occupied areas that had been
unsurveyed prior to 2012. Population estimates for the Middle Fork
Willamette River sub-basin are based on mark-recapture studies
conducted by USGS in 2011, rather than egg mass surveys. Based on these
survey data, the minimum population estimate in Oregon consists of
approximately 12,847 breeding adults. More detailed discussions of
Oregon's occupied sub-basins are provided below and are available in
our files.
Lower Deschutes River--Within the Lower Deschutes River sub-basin,
a single extant population of Oregon spotted frog occurs at Camas
Prairie, an 82-ac (33-ha) marsh located along Camas Creek in the White
River watershed. The Camas Prairie Oregon spotted frogs are the most
geographically isolated, carry several alleles that are absent or rare
in other sites, and have the lowest genetic diversity of Oregon spotted
frogs rangewide (Blouin et al. 2010, p. 2185). The frogs at this
location appear to be the only remaining representatives of a major
genetic group that is now almost extinct (Blouin et al. 2010, p. 2190).
Since 2004, egg mass surveys have been conducted annually, and the
population trend has been positive. Based on the 2012 egg mass count,
the minimum population size of breeding adults is 152 (Corkran 2012,
pers. comm.). Although the population trend has been positive at the
single known location, the number of individuals in the population
remains low.
Upper Deschutes River--Oregon spotted frogs in the Upper Deschutes
River sub-basin occur in high-elevation lakes up to 5,000 ft (1,524 m),
wetland ponds, and riverine wetlands and oxbows along the Deschutes
River. Approximately 13 known breeding locations are within four
watersheds in
[[Page 53591]]
the sub-basin: Charleton Creek, Browns Creek, Fall River, and North
Unit Diversion Dam. Eight of these breeding locations occur in lakes on
the Deschutes National Forest that drain to the Crane Prairie and
Wickiup Reservoir complex. Three of the known breeding sites occur
downstream of Wickiup Reservoir in riverine wetlands along the
Deschutes River, extending to Bend, Oregon.
The consistency of population surveys varies by breeding site, and
population trend information is limited. Only two sites within the sub-
basin have been monitored consistently since the early 2000s and show
an increasing population trend: Dilman Meadow and Sunriver (USGS and J.
Bowerman 2000 through 2012 datasets). Trend data are not available for
the remainder of populations within the Upper Deschutes River sub-
basin. Sunriver, located downstream of Wickiup Reservoir, is the
largest population of Oregon spotted frogs within the Deschutes River
sub-basin with a population of at least 1,454 breeding adults based on
2012 egg mass surveys (J. Bowerman dataset 2012). A minimum population
estimate for the Upper Deschutes River sub-basin (including Sunriver)
is approximately 3,530 breeding adults based on surveys since 2006
(USGS 2006 to 2012 and J. Bowerman 2012 datasets).
Little Deschutes River--Oregon spotted frogs are distributed
throughout wetland, pond, and riverine habitats in the Little Deschutes
River sub-basin, which drains an area of approximately 1,020 square
miles (2,600 km\2\) and flows north from its headwaters in northern
Klamath County to its convergence with the Deschutes River 1 mi (1.2
km) south of Sunriver and approximately 20 mi (32 km) south of Bend,
Oregon. The Little Deschutes River is approximately 92 mi (148 km)
long. Approximately 23 known breeding locations (as of 2012) are within
five watersheds in the sub-basin: Upper, Middle, and Lower Little
Deschutes River; Crescent Creek; and Long Prairie. Big Marsh, a 2,000-
ac (809 ha) wetland located within headwaters at 4,760 ft (1,451 m)
elevation on the Deschutes National Forest, has the largest monitored
population of Oregon spotted frogs in the Little Deschutes River sub-
basin and possibly rangewide. The estimated population size of Big
Marsh based on a 2012 U.S. Forest Service (USFS) egg mass survey is
5,324 breeding adults (male and female) (USFS data 2012).
Because 70 percent of the sub-basin is privately owned and mostly
unsurveyed, a population estimate for the entire Little Deschutes River
sub-basin is difficult to determine. A minimum population estimate of
Oregon spotted frogs based on limited survey data from public and
private lands in 2012 is approximately 6,628 breeding adults (including
Big Marsh above). However, the vast acreage of wetland complexes and
suitable habitat for Oregon spotted frogs along the mainstem Little
Deschutes River and Crescent Creek indicate that the frog population
within the unsurveyed areas may be well above this estimate. Although
the trend of the frog population at Big Marsh appears to be increasing
based on USFS surveys from 2002 to 2012 (USFS 2002-2012), the
population trend of the remainder of frogs within the sub-basin is
undetermined.
McKenzie River--Oregon spotted frogs in the McKenzie River sub-
basin are located within the South Fork McKenzie River watershed in an
area referred to as the Mink Lake Basin in the wilderness of the
Willamette National Forest. There are two known breeding populations:
one at Penn Lake and one at an unnamed marsh 0.28 mi (0.45 km) north of
Mink Lake. The Penn Lake and Unnamed Marsh populations are about 0.93
mi (1.5 km) apart and are not hydrologically connected via surface
water. Mark-recapture monitoring of these populations has been
conducted by USGS from 2007 through 2011 (Adams et al. 2007, 2008 p.
13, 2009 p. 14, 2010 p. 14 and 2011 p. 14). A population estimate for
breeding adults in the McKenzie River sub-basin, based on mark-
recapture efforts by USGS in 2011 is 217 (i.e., 179 at Penn Lake and 38
at Unnamed Marsh) (Adams et al. 2011). However, trend has not been
estimated for these populations.
Middle Fork Willamette River--Oregon spotted frogs in the Middle
Fork Willamette River sub-basin are limited to a single population at
Gold Lake and bog, located in the 465-ac (188-ha) Gold Lake Bog
Research Natural Area on the Willamette National Forest within the Salt
Creek watershed. This population is one of three remaining populations
of Oregon spotted frogs west of the Cascade mountain crest in Oregon.
The Gold Lake Bog site consists of three small ponds over an area of
approximately 3.7 ac (1.5 ha) within a larger bog where three major
streams converge. Breeding surveys are periodically conducted by USGS
and the Willamette National Forest. However, long-term trend data are
lacking for this site. Based on USGS egg mass surveys in 2007, the
estimated population size is approximately 1,458 breeding adults (USGS
datasets).
Williamson River--Oregon spotted frogs in the Williamson River sub-
basin occur in two watersheds: Klamath Marsh/Jack Creek and Williamson
River above Klamath Marsh and consist of three populations: Jack Creek,
Klamath Marsh NWR, and the Upper Williamson River. Data from 1996
through the present suggests the Jack Creek population is declining,
and the survey data from 2000 through the present suggests that the
Klamath Marsh population is stable. These watersheds are a mixture of
both private and public (BLM, USFS, and NWR) lands and consist of both
wetland and riverine potential habitats from 4,500 to 5,200 ft (1,371-
1,585 m) in elevation. As of 2011, the minimum population estimate for
the sub-basin is approximately 376 breeding individuals (male and
female) (KMNWR 2011, USFS 2012, USGS multiple datasets). Permission to
survey adjacent private lands has not been obtained, however, the
private lands surrounding the public lands appear to have suitable
habitat and likely contain additional breeding complexes and
individuals.
Upper Klamath Lake--Oregon spotted frogs in the Upper Klamath Lake
sub-basin occupy two watersheds that flow into Upper Klamath Lake:
Klamath Lake and Wood River. There are four populations in this sub-
basin: Crane Creek, Fourmile Creek, Sevenmile Creek, the Wood River
channel and the adjacent but separate BLM Wood River canal. These
populations occur in both riverine and wetland habitats. Historically,
these two watersheds were hydrologically connected. Survey efforts on
Fourmile Creek, Sevenmile Creek, and the Wood River channel have been
sporadic while Crane Creek and the BLM Wood River canal have been
surveyed annually. These data suggest that there is still insufficient
information to obtain population trends for all but the BLM Wood River
canal population, which is declining. As of 2011, the minimum
population estimate for the sub-basin is approximately 374 breeding
individuals (male and female) (USGS multiple datasets, BLM multiple
datasets). Permission to survey adjacent private lands has not been
obtained, however, the private lands surrounding the known populations
appear to have suitable habitat and likely contain additional breeding
complexes and individuals. Trend data are lacking for three out of four
populations in the Upper Klamath Lake.
Upper Klamath--Oregon spotted frogs in the Upper Klamath sub-basin
occupy two lacustrine habitats: Parsnip Lakes in Jackson County and
Buck Lake in Klamath County. Both of these sites are
[[Page 53592]]
isolated hydrologically by great distances (>20 mi (32 km)) and
hydrological barriers (inhospitable habitat and dams) to other sites in
the Klamath Basin. Historical surveys in this sub-basin resulted in a
population estimate of about 1,170 adults (range of <0 to 2,379, 95
percent CI) (Hayes 1998a, p. 10 and Parker 2009, p. 4). Trend data is
lacking for Parsnip Lakes population in the Upper Klamath sub-basin,
but recent surveys conducted at Buck Lake have documented small numbers
of egg masses (38 egg masses in 2010, or the equivalent of 76 breeding
individuals (male and female) and 18 egg masses at Parsnip Lakes, or 36
breeding individuals (male and female) (BLM 2012). Survey data for the
Upper Klamath sub-basin suggests that the Buck Lake population is in
decline. However, there is insufficient survey data information to
determine the population trend of the Parsnip Lakes population. The
minimum population estimate for this sub-basin is currently (2011)
estimated to be 112 breeding individuals suggesting drastic population
declines since 1998.
Summary of Current Population Range and Trend
Oregon spotted frogs may no longer occur in as much as 90 percent
of their historically documented range, including all of the historical
localities in California (i.e., 90 percent of the historical areas are
no longer occupied). Currently, the Oregon spotted frog is found in 15
sub-basins ranging from extreme southwestern British Columbia south
through the Puget Trough, and in the Cascades Range from south-central
Washington at least to the Klamath Basin in Oregon. Oregon spotted
frogs occur in lower elevations in British Columbia and Washington and
are restricted to higher elevations (i.e., 4,000 to 5,200 ft (1,219 to
1,585 m) in Oregon. In addition, Oregon spotted frogs currently have a
very limited distribution west of the Cascade crest in Oregon and are
considered to be extirpated from the Willamette Valley.
In most sub-basins, trend information regarding the collective
status of the populations within the sub-basin is limited or not
available. The best available scientific and commercial information
available indicates the trend is undetermined for Oregon spotted frog
populations in 13 of the sub-basins and is declining in the Lower
Fraser River and Middle Klickitat sub-basins. Threats to the remaining
populations are ongoing or increasing, however, as described below.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based
on any of the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination. Each of these threats/factors is discussed below.
Threats for the Oregon spotted frog were assessed by breeding
locations and occupied watersheds, then summarized by occupied sub-
basin. Each of the five threat categories were summarized by sub-basin
using the unified threats classification system (loosely based on the
IUCN-CMP (World Conservation Union-Conservation Measures Partnership)),
best available data, and best professional judgment. We summarized each
occupied sub-basin for scope, severity, impact, timing, and stress, to
ensure our determination would be based on the best scientific and
commercial data available, as required under section 4(b)(1)(A). Scope
is the proportion of the occupied area within the sub-basin that can
reasonably be expected to be affected. Severity is the level of damage
to the species from the threat that can reasonably be expected. Impact
summarizes the degree to which a species is observed, inferred, or
suspected to be directly or indirectly affected and is based on the
combination of the severity and scope rating (for example, if the
severity and scope ratings were both high, then the impact rating was
high). Timing is the immediacy of the threat (i.e., is the threat
ongoing, could happen in the short term, or is only in the past).
Stress is the key ecological, demographic, or individual attribute that
may be impaired or reduced by a threat. The completed analysis (Threats
Synthesis Rangewide Analysis) is available at https://www.regulations.gov and https://www.fws.gov/wafwo. The syntheses by
threat categories are included in the following threat factor
discussions.
Large historical losses of wetland habitat have occurred across the
range of the Oregon spotted frog. Wetland losses are estimated from
between 30 to 85 percent across the species range with the greatest
percentage lost having occurred in British Columbia. These wetland
losses have directly influenced the current fragmentation and isolation
of remaining Oregon spotted frog populations.
Loss of natural wetland and riverine disturbance processes as a
result of human activities has and continues to result in degradation
of Oregon spotted frog habitat. Historically, a number of disturbance
processes created early successional wetlands favorable to Oregon
spotted frogs throughout the Pacific Northwest: (1) Rivers freely
meandered over their floodplains, removing trees and shrubs and baring
patches of mineral soil; (2) beavers created a complex mosaic of
aquatic habitat types for year-round use; and (3) summer fires burned
areas that would be shallow water wetlands during the Oregon spotted
frog breeding season the following spring. Today, all of these natural
processes are greatly reduced, impaired, or have been permanently
altered as a result of human activities, including stream bank,
channel, and wetland modifications; operation of water control
structures (e.g., dams and diversions); beaver removal; and fire
suppression.
The historical loss of Oregon spotted frog habitats and lasting
anthropogenic changes in natural disturbance processes are exacerbated
by the introduction of reed canarygrass, nonnative predators, and
potentially climate change. In addition, current regulatory mechanisms
and voluntary incentive programs designed to benefit fish species have
inadvertently led to the continuing decline in quality of Oregon
spotted frog habitats in some locations. The current wetland and stream
vegetation management paradigm is generally a no-management or
restoration approach that often results in succession to a tree- and
shrub-dominated community that unintentionally degrades or eliminates
remaining or potential suitable habitat for Oregon spotted frog
breeding. Furthermore, incremental wetland loss or degradation
continues under the current regulatory mechanisms. If left unmanaged,
these factors are anticipated to result in the eventual elimination of
remaining suitable Oregon spotted frog habitats or populations. The
persistence of habitats required by the species is now largely
management dependent.
[[Page 53593]]
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Threats to the species' habitat include changes in hydrology due to
construction of dams and human-related alterations to seasonal
flooding, introduction of nonnative plant and animal species,
vegetation succession and encroachment, poor water quality, livestock
grazing (in some circumstances), and residential and commercial
development.
Habitat losses and alterations affect amphibian species in a
variety of ways, including reducing or eliminating immigration through
losses of adjacent populations (see ``Factor E'') and effects on
critical aspects of the habitat (Hayes and Jennings 1986, pp. 492-494).
These critical aspects include suitable egg-laying and nursery sites,
refuges from predation or unfavorable environmental conditions, and
suitable temperatures necessary for egg laying, growth, and development
(Hayes and Jennings 1986, pp. 492-494).
Because Oregon spotted frogs have specific habitat requirements,
they are particularly vulnerable to habitat alterations: (1) A
restricted number of communal egg-laying locations are used year after
year; (2) the species' warm water microhabitat requirement results in
habitat overlap with introduced warm water fish species and other warm
water fauna that prey on Oregon spotted frogs (for example, bullfrogs);
(3) the availability of suitable warm water habitat, a requirement in
the active season, is generally limited in the cool climate of the
Pacific Northwest; (4) the species is vulnerable to the loss or
alteration of springs used for overwintering; and (5) their habitat
requirements (for example, spatial structure) for overwintering, active
season, and breeding habitats are more complex than for other frog
species (Hayes et al. 1997, p. 4). In addition, breeding habitat is
arguably the single most important habitat component for many aquatic-
breeding amphibians because amphibian embryos and larvae depend on
aquatic habitats for survival (Leonard 1997, p. 1).
Loss of Wetlands
British Columbia--Extensive diking of river ways and draining of
Sumas Lake for conversion to agriculture significantly modified
drainage patterns and resulted in loss of associated wetlands in the
Fraser River lowlands of British Columbia (COSEWIC 2011, p. 20). Boyle
et al. (1997, p. 190) estimated an 85 percent loss of habitat types
preferred by Oregon spotted frogs (fen, swamp/bog/marsh) between 1820
and 1990. Moore et al. (2003 cited in COSEWIC 2011) found wetland loss
continued between 1989 and 1999 as a result of urban and agricultural
encroachment. Agricultural land use changes, such as the conversion of
field habitat to blueberry and cranberry production, has led to impacts
through drain tile installation and riparian area encroachment/erosion.
Sediment deposition into streams and wetlands by runoff from adjacent
agricultural fields can impact Oregon spotted frog breeding habitat by
changing the channel/wetland shape and depth (Lynch and Corbett 1990).
Land conversion for agriculture is ongoing at Mountain Slough and to
some extent at Maria Slough and Morris Valley (COSFRT 2012, p. 24),
within Oregon spotted frog habitat.
Washington--Estimates for Washington indicate that over 33 percent
of wetlands were drained, diked, and filled between pre-settlement
times and the 1980s (Canning and Stevens 1990, p. 23); losses in the
historical range of the Oregon spotted frog are even higher because of
the high degree of development in the low elevations of the Puget
Trough (McAllister and Leonard 1997, p. 22).
Major alterations to Conboy Lake wetland complex in Washington
began when settlers started moving to Glenwood Valley in the late
1800s. Wet meadows were drained through a series of canals, ditches,
and dikes largely developed between 1911 and 1914, and remain today.
The five creeks that flow into this wetland complex and the Cold
Springs ditch are entirely channelized within the wetland complex.
Ditching, filling, and other habitat alterations have resulted in
little or no retention of surface water in the late-season lakebeds
(Conboy Lake and Camas Prairie), reducing the amount of aquatic habitat
available for the Oregon spotted frog. The historical Conboy lakebed is
believed to have retained water for 10 to 12 months in most years.
Currently, it retains water only during wet years and is purposefully
drained annually to control bullfrogs (Ludwig 2012, pers. comm.). The
Camas Prairie portion of Glenwood Valley retains water year-round over
a small area and only in wet years. Typically, aquatic habitat is
reduced to about 1,000 ac (400 ha) during the late summer and early
fall (Hayes et al. 2000), and once the seasonal lakebeds dry, the
network of ditches and channels provide the only aquatic habitat for
Oregon spotted frogs. In order to maintain sufficient flow through the
system, a small area of Bird Creek must be excavated every 2 to 3 years
to remove the high level of sand and gravel that is deposited annually
from upstream. Most of the other ditches have been cleaned on a much
less frequent basis (intervals of up to 20 years), although in the
future, the Conboy Lake NWR plans to clean select reaches on a 5-10
year cycle (Ludwig 2012, pers. comm.).
Oregon--Historical losses of wetland in Oregon are estimated at 38
percent between pre-settlement times and the 1980s with 57 and 91
percent of these losses concentrated in the Willamette Valley and
Klamath Basin, respectively (Dahl 1990). Wetland loss continues in the
Willamette Valley (Daggett et al. 1998; Morlan et al. 2005). Between
1982 and 1994, a net loss of 6,877 ac (2783 ha) of wetlands (2.5
percent of the 1982 wetland area) occurred, primarily due to conversion
to agriculture (Daggett et al. 1998 p. 23), and between 1994 and 2005,
an estimated additional net loss of 3,932 ac (1591 ha) (1.25 percent of
the 1994 wetland area) took place, primarily due to development (Morlan
et. al. 2010. pp. 26-27). Oregon spotted frogs are believed to be
extirpated from the Willamette Valley.
Human alteration of wetlands in the central Oregon Cascades has
been a less severe threat since many of the sites inhabited by the
Oregon spotted frog are located at high elevation and within lakes and
wetlands located on Federal lands managed by the USFS. However, damming
and diverting water for irrigation needs has resulted in the loss of
wetlands within the Upper Deschutes sub-basin beginning in the early
1900s (see hydrology section below). Wetland loss is also an ongoing
threat to Oregon spotted frogs within the Little Deschutes River sub-
basin in south Deschutes County, where land development has increased
since the 1960s.
A substantial amount of wetland habitat in the Klamath Basin has
been drained and converted to other uses, primarily for grazing and
row-crop production, although the extent of this loss is difficult to
estimate due to a lack of accurate historical data (Larson and Brush
2010). The majority of wetland degradation and alteration took place in
the southern part of the upper basin, where extensive drainage occurred
at Tule and Lower Klamath Lakes in the early 20th Century (Larson and
Brush 2010, p. 4). Wetlands at the north end of the basin, including
Sycan Marsh, Klamath Marsh, Upper Klamath Lake, and in the Wood River
Valley, have also suffered extensive hydrologic alteration. Ongoing
losses are currently minimized due to strict regulations governing
wetlands, and there are no known ongoing losses of wetlands in the
[[Page 53594]]
Klamath Basin. In addition, restoration efforts are under way in the
Klamath Basin (see Conservation Efforts to Reduce Habitat Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Range), reversing wetland losses to
some degree. However, because of subsidence, reconnection of former
wetlands to Upper Klamath Lake resulted in these areas being too deep
to support marsh vegetation and many of these areas do not support the
variety of wildlife that they did formerly when they were marshes.
Therefore, these wetlands are unlikely to provide all of their former
functions.
Loss of Wetlands Conclusion--Historical loss of wetlands has been
extensive throughout the range of the species, and is the primary
reason for the absence of the species from as much as, or more than, 90
percent of its former range (also see Historical Distribution). Land
conversions that result in loss of wetlands are continuing throughout
the range. Wetlands continue to be lost or degraded in at least 10 of
the 15 occupied sub-basins. Even though these losses are occurring at
much lower rates than in the past because of Federal and State
regulations that pertain to wetlands (see Factor D), the ongoing loss
of wetlands continues to pose a threat to the Oregon spotted frog.
Hydrological Changes
Changing water levels at critical periods in the Oregon spotted
frog's life cycle, whether natural or human-induced, has negatively
affected the species. Lowered water levels have exposed individuals to
predation by reducing cover and confining them to smaller areas where
they are more vulnerable to predators (see also Factor C). Water level
reduction during the breeding season, due to both natural and
anthropogenic causes, has resulted in the loss of the entire
reproductive effort for the year due to stranding and desiccation of
the egg masses in British Columbia (Licht 1971, p. 122; COSFRT 2012, p.
18), Washington (Lewis et al. 2001, p. 8; Hayes et al. 2000, pp. 6-7),
and Oregon (Pearl and Hayes 2004, p. 24). Excessive seasonal flooding
at critical periods has also resulted in the loss of shallow wetlands
needed for egg-laying and development.
Most of the currently occupied Oregon spotted frog sites are
threatened by changes in hydrology. Twenty-one of twenty-eight (75
percent) sites surveyed in Washington and Oregon have had some human-
related hydrological alterations, ranging from minor changes (for
example, local ditching around springs) to substantial changes,
including major modifications of historical flow patterns (Hayes 1997,
p. 43; Hayes et al. 1997, p. 6). Oregon spotted frogs in four of the
occupied sub-basins (Lower Fraser River, Middle Klickitat River, Little
Deschutes River, and Upper Klamath) are experiencing high to very high
impacts due to ongoing hydrological changes based on the unified
threats classification system ranking, described above. The altered
hydrology has affected both breeding and wintering habitat, as
discussed below.
Water Diversions/Manipulations--Dams in the upper watersheds of the
Puget Trough, Willamette Valley, and the Deschutes River have
significantly reduced the amount of shallow overflow wetland habitat
that was historically created by natural flooding (Cushman and Pearl
2007, pp. 16-17). The inundation of large marsh complexes, and habitat
fragmentation by the construction of reservoirs in the Cascades, has
also eliminated and degraded Oregon spotted frog habitat. We are not
aware of proposals for construction of new dams or reservoirs that
would pose a threat to the existing Oregon spotted frog populations in
British Columbia, Washington, or Oregon. However, the operation of
existing dams/diversions/water control structures in Washington and
Oregon continues to affect populations of Oregon spotted frogs due to
extreme water fluctuations between and within years. These operations
inundate and desiccate Oregon spotted frog habitat, while creating and
maintaining habitat suitable for nonnative predaceous species.
Water management in the Glenwood Valley, Washington (Middle
Klickitat River sub-basin), appears to be playing a significant role in
the decline of the Oregon spotted frog in this sub-basin. Water
management in this area is complex due to the juxtaposition of
landowners and water diversion structures. The need to retain water on
the Conboy Lake NWR for resources, including the Oregon spotted frog,
conflicts with needs of the intermingled and adjacent private
landowners who want water drawn down in order to grow reed canarygrass
for haying or to graze cattle. In addition, water management on the NWR
is constrained by failing dikes, plugged ditches, undersized culverts,
and lack of water control structures (USFWS 2012, p. 27). Dewatering by
Conboy Lake NWR generally begins June 1, but begins as early as April
on privately held lands, which also results in the dewatering of some
refuge lands (USFWS 2012, p. 28). The Camas Prairie area of the valley
is drained annually to facilitate production of hay and grazing
opportunities (USFWS 2012, p. 28).
Dewatering breeding areas during the egg stage results in
desiccation of Oregon spotted frog egg masses. Dewatering during the
rearing stage results in tadpole mortality if water is not retained
through metamorphosis. Physical barriers created by the dike system
hinders young frogs (recently metamorphed) from moving into permanent
waters, especially when water is drawn down too quickly or a surface
water connection to permanent water is not retained. Disconnection from
permanent water occurs in some places in the valley, which results in
young frogs becoming stranded and dying. In the areas where a
connection to permanent water is retained and frogs are able to move
with the water, the frogs become concentrated in smaller areas with
predators such as fish and bullfrogs or become easy targets for
terrestrial predators (Engler 2003; 2006, pers. comm.). This issue is
complex, because the nonnative bullfrog is fairly common on the refuge,
and studies indicate they can prey heavily on native frog species,
including Oregon spotted frog.
Water management can be used as a method to reduce bullfrog tadpole
survival by drying up seasonal wetlands completely by early fall.
However, widespread drawdowns for bullfrog tadpole control can conflict
with the need to provide rearing, movement, and summertime water for
Oregon spotted frogs (USFWS 2010b, pp. 36, 63, 67). Surveys since 1998
have documented extensive annual declines in Oregon spotted frog egg
mass numbers due to early water drawdowns and perennially low water;
therefore, inadequate water or poorly timed water management activities
continue to be a threat to Oregon spotted frog that has a significant
negative impact on recruitment (the addition of young individuals to
the adult population) and survival in the Middle Klickitat River sub-
basin.
In the Upper Deschutes River sub-basin in Oregon, regulated water
releases from Crane Prairie and Wickiup Reservoirs result in extreme
seasonal fluctuations in stream flows that have affected the amount of
overwintering and breeding habitat available for Oregon spotted frogs.
Prior to the construction of Wickiup Dam in 1947, the Deschutes River
below the current dam site exhibited stable flows averaging
approximately 730 cubic feet per second (cfs) (20.7 cubic meters per
second (cms)) and 660 cfs (18.7 cms) during summer and winter,
respectively (Hardin-Davis 1991). Water storage in
[[Page 53595]]
the reservoirs during winter, water releases in the spring, and water
diversions for irrigation result in extremely low winter flows (October
through March) in the Deschutes River below Wickiup Dam of
approximately 20-30 cfs, 0.6-0.8 cms, and high summer flows (July and
August) of approximately 1,400 cfs (39.6 cms). Because water releases
from Wickiup Reservoir typically occur in early to mid-April, potential
breeding habitats downstream of Wickiup Dam on the mainstem Deschutes
River may not have sufficient water during the breeding season to
facilitate frog movement and breeding.
Currently, Oregon spotted frog breeding is known to occur in only
three areas downstream of Wickiup Reservoir: Sunriver, Slough Camp, and
Old Mill Pond (including adjacent Les Schwab Amphitheater marsh on the
Deschutes River). Oregon spotted frog habitat at Sunriver Resort has
been managed and maintained by Sunriver Nature Center by using weirs to
stabilize the water levels from the beginning of the breeding season
through metamorphosis, which has resulted in a large and fairly stable
population of Oregon spotted frogs, despite the low river flows during
the breeding season. Breeding and dispersal of metamorphosing frogs at
the Slough Camp site is likely affected by the seasonal timing of
storage and release of water from the reservoir each year. Adults have
been observed at the inlet to Slough Camp (east side) prior to the flow
releases from the reservoir in early April, indicating that frogs may
be staging to access breeding habitat that becomes accessible when
flows are released for the irrigation season (Higgins 2012, pers.
comm.). At the onset of the storage season in October, the east side of
Slough Camp drains rapidly of water, which could result in stranding of
frogs that have bred and reared in this location. In August 2012,
Oregon spotted frogs were discovered in a water retention pond at The
Old Mill District shops in downtown Bend, Oregon. The shallow pond
holds water year round and is approximately 20 ft (6 m) from the
Deschutes River channel. The hydrological relationship between the pond
and flow manipulation within the river has not been determined.
However, there is an outflow from the pond, and the detection of
numerous juvenile Oregon spotted frogs in a large marsh on the
Deschutes River across from the pond at The Old Mill (Bowerman 2012,
pers. comm.) indicates there is a connection to the river. The impacts
of regulated river flows to Oregon spotted frogs within the large marsh
area remain to be evaluated.
Oregon spotted frog habitat in the Little Deschutes River sub-basin
in Oregon may also be affected by regulated water management downstream
of Crescent Lake Dam in Crescent Creek and the Little Deschutes River
below the confluence with Crescent Creek. Regulated water releases from
Crescent Lake typically occur in June, just after the breeding season.
Egg mass stranding has been observed on three separate occasions along
the Little Deschutes River, downstream of the confluence with Crescent
Creek, prior to the release of irrigation water (Demmer 2012, pers.
comm.). Overwintering habitats may be limited when flows from Crescent
Lake typically cease in October at the onset of the storage season.
Groundwater may be ameliorating the impacts from the regulated water
management in Crescent Creek in locations where groundwater discharges
to the stream (Gannett et al. 2001), but a full analysis has not yet
been conducted.
In the Klamath Basin, the Upper Klamath sub-basin populations are
particularly vulnerable to water diversion and manipulation. Water from
Hyatt (30 cfs; 0.8 cms) and Howard Prairie Reservoirs (50 cfs; 1.4 cms)
are diverted to Keene Creek Reservoir (Ferrari 2000, p. 1; Bear Creek
Watershed Council 2001, p. 139) upstream of Parsnip Lakes (Jackson
County), known occupied habitat for the Oregon spotted frog.
Approximately 190 cfs (5.4 cms) of water is diverted from Keene Creek
Reservoir and used for municipal consumptive and hydroelectric energy
purposes (BOR 2009 Web site; BOR 2011 Web site). In addition, water
from Buck Lake (Klamath County) can be manipulated, depending on water
needs, in such a way that water is moved quickly across the landscape.
Water flow in the Upper Klamath Lake and Williamson River sub-basins is
highly manipulated (modified) to improve forage production for cattle
grazing (see Livestock Grazing Klamath Basin discussion) (NRCS 2010, p.
60). The water is diverted (removed) after egg masses have been laid,
but prior to their hatching, thus resulting in both stranding and
desiccation of upstream egg masses while, at the same time, inundating
downstream egg masses.
Development--Other hydrological changes result from the development
of homes and roads adjacent to wetlands with Oregon spotted frogs.
Development introduces new impervious surfaces which increase the
amplitude and frequencies of peak highs and lows in water levels, a
hydrologic characteristic that has been implicated in reduced amphibian
species diversity in wetlands in King County, Washington (Richter and
Azous 1995, p. 308). (See Development section below for further
discussion).
Drought--Changes in water levels due to drought, and exacerbated by
human modification, has caused seasonal loss of habitat and degradation
of essential shoreline vegetation that has resulted in reduced
recruitment regionally (Licht 1971, p. 122; Licht 1974, p. 623). In
1997, Hayes identified 14 of 24 (58 percent) Oregon spotted frog
breeding locations across the extant range as having a moderate to high
risk from drought (1997, pp. 43-45). Drought risk was based on the
potential for a drop in water level that could reduce or eliminate the
species' habitat. Sites with the greatest risk included those sites
with low precipitation levels and sites dependent upon surface flow
rather than flow from springs. Sites with the greatest risk from
drought are in the Klamath and Deschutes River basins of Oregon (Hayes
1997, p. 44; Hayes et al. 1997, p. 6). The impact of a drought on an
Oregon spotted frog population depends on the amount of complex marsh
habitat at a site, the availability of alternative breeding and rearing
areas, and the abundance of aquatic predators (Pearl 1999, p. 15).
Both Hayes (1997, p. 43) and Pearl (1999, pp. 17-18) hypothesized
that low water conditions will increase the overlap between Oregon
spotted frogs and nonnative predators, such as brook trout and
bullfrogs, by concentrating tadpoles and froglets in the only available
habitat. Such increased overlap is expected to increase predation
losses of Oregon spotted frogs (Pearl et al. 2004, pp. 17-18). Several
seasons of low water are expected to cause local population
extirpations of Oregon spotted frogs, particularly where a small
isolated population occupies a limited marsh habitat that has a high
abundance of aquatic predators (Pearl 1999, p. 15). Low water in
breeding habitat will also expose eggs to increased ultraviolet
radiation and higher mortality associated with pathogens (Kiesecker et
al. 2001a, p. 682) (see Factor C Disease section). Since 1960, the
Klamath Basin has had 8 of the 10 lowest inflows for Upper Klamath Lake
between 1991 and 2009 (USFWS 2011a, p. 25). This has resulted in poor
water quality and reduced Oregon spotted frog reproduction due to
desiccation of egg masses (BLM and USFS multiple data sources). In
addition, 5 of the 10 sites in the Klamath Basin are vulnerable to
water
[[Page 53596]]
management practices that are timed such that the seasonal life-history
needs of the Oregon spotted frog are not met.
Although the Chemult Ranger District, Fremont-Winema National
Forest, in Klamath County, Oregon, documented high numbers of egg
masses at Jack Creek in 1999 and 2000 (335 and 320 respectively)
(Forbes and Peterson 1999, p. 6), drought conditions impacted the
Oregon spotted frog populations in subsequent years. The drought
occurred during the time period in which the Oregon spotted frog
population dramatically declined at Jack Creek (Gervais 2011, p. 15).
In 2001, those conditions restricted Oregon spotted frog breeding to
three small, disjunct areas representing less than 25 percent of their
typical habitat. Although there were sufficient water depths in the
breeding pools in 2002, only 17 percent of historical egg mass numbers
were detected, and 50 percent of the eggs did not hatch compared to the
68 to 74 percent hatch rates documented by Licht (1974, p 618). The
impacts of the drought were further complicated when Oregon spotted
frog habitat was impacted by algal blooms, poor water quality, loss of
protective habitat, and alteration of the bank condition (USDA 2009a,
pp. 31, 33-34). By 2011, only 1 percent of historical egg mass numbers
were documented at this site.
Loss of Beaver--American beaver (Castor canadensis) create a
complex mosaic of aquatic habitat types that provides the seasonal
habitat needs of the Oregon spotted frog. Water impoundments created
and engineered by beavers result in a water storage reservoir that
raises the water table, reduces downstream erosion, lessens flood
events (unless the dam is breached), holds water year round and
maintains stream flow during dry periods. Specifically, silt-filled
abandoned ponds become shallow wetlands and beaver meadows, which have
characteristics ideal for egg-laying. Beaver-maintained ponds retain
deeper waters important for summer foraging and growth of metamorphosed
frogs, and these ponds also provide overwintering habitat. When hypoxic
conditions occur in the wetlands and ponds, the frogs can move to the
more oxygenated waters of the associated creek, where they use
microhabitat features created by beavers such as large woody debris and
bank tunnels (Hallock and Pearson 2001, pp. 9-12; Shovlain 2005, p.
10).
Comparisons of beaver-occupied and not occupied watersheds in
Montana in relation to Columbia spotted frog populations found: (a)
Beaver watersheds had four times as many lentic and breeding sites than
non-beaver watersheds; (b) frog breeding sites were dispersed within
beaver drainages, while non-beaver watersheds often had only one frog
breeding site; (c) frog breeding sites were evenly distributed across
the elevational gradient in beaver watersheds, while they were centered
above the watershed midpoint in non-beaver watersheds; (d) frog
breeding sites were more dispersed within drainages with evidence of
beaver presence than would be expected given the configuration of the
underlying lentic habitat and have persisted despite being separated by
distances larger than the frog's dispersal ability; (e) beaver
watersheds with an average distance of less than 5 km between breeding
sites showed higher levels of connectivity than did non-beaver
watersheds with an average distance of more than 5 km between breeding
sites; and (f) short beaver watersheds had lower levels of genetic
divergence between breeding sites than those in long non-beaver
watersheds separated by the same distance, even when distances were
within the commonly observed dispersal ability of the frogs (Amish
2006, entire). Columbia and Oregon spotted frogs were separated into
two separate species (Rana pretiosa (Oregon spotted frog) and Rana
luteiventris (Columbia spotted frog)), based on genetic analysis (Green
et al. 1996, 1997). They are closely related species and likely evolved
in a similar way, with beavers playing a vital role in how frogs are
distributed within a watershed.
By 1900, beaver had been nearly extirpated in the continental
United States (Baker and Hill 2003, p. 288). Beavers have made a
remarkable comeback in many areas through natural recolonization and
relocation efforts (ODFW 2012, p. 1); however, their role as ecological
engineers is still severely curtailed region-wide, particularly within
human-populated areas, because they are often considered a pest species
because they can flood roads and property and destroy trees that are
valued by landowners (Baker and Hill 2003, p. 301). In at least one
site, a significant Oregon spotted frog decline was attributed to the
removal of a series of beaver dams that resulted in water loss within
some of the breeding areas leading to high embryo mortality attributed
to stranding (Hayes et al. 2000, p. 2). In Trout Lake Creek in
Washington, the loss of a beaver dam to a natural flood event resulted
in a significant decline (117 egg masses in 2001 to 0 in 2012) in
Oregon spotted frog reproduction (Hallock 2012, p. 33). Lack of beavers
within a watershed has been determined by USFS and BLM to be a threat
to maintenance of Oregon spotted frog habitat, and these agencies have
identified the Williamson, Upper Klamath Lake, and Upper Klamath sub-
basins for reintroduction of beaver.
The States of Washington and Oregon allow lethal removal of beavers
and their dams. Under Washington State law, the beaver is classified as
a furbearer (WAC 232-12-007). The owner, the owner's immediate family,
an employee, or a tenant of property may shoot or trap a beaver on that
property if a threat to crops exists (RCW 77.36.030). In such cases, no
special trapping permit is necessary for the use of live traps.
However, a special trapping permit is required for the use of all traps
other than live traps (RCW 77.15.192, 77.15.194; WAC 232-12-142). It is
unlawful to release a beaver anywhere within Washington, other than on
the property where it was legally trapped, without a permit to do so
(RCW 77.15.250; WAC 232-12-271). To remove or modify a beaver dam, one
must have a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)--a permit issued by WDFW
for work that will use, obstruct, change, or divert the bed or flow of
State waters (RCW 77.55). Beavers are present to a varying degree
within all Oregon spotted frog occupied sub-basins in Washington and
are maintaining breeding habitats in some areas within the S.F.
Nooksack River, Black River, White Salmon River, and Middle Klickitat
River sub-basins. Active removal of beavers or their dams is occurring
in at least the S.F. Nooksack River, Black River, and Middle Klickitat
River sub-basins and may be occurring in the other occupied sub-basins
in Washington.
Beavers on public lands in Oregon are classified as Protected
Furbearers by Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 496.004 and Oregon
Administrative Rule (OAR) 635-050-0050. A trapping license and open
season are required to trap beavers on public lands. Beavers on private
lands are defined as a Predatory Animal (ORS 610.002) and private
landowners or their agents may lethally remove beavers without a permit
from ODFW. Currently, the presence of beavers results in active
maintenance of Oregon spotted frog habitat in the Little Deschutes
River, Upper Deschutes River, Middle Fork Willamette River, Williamson
River, and Upper Klamath Lake sub-basins. Active removal of beavers and
their dams can occur in the Oregon spotted frog habitat in all of these
occupied sub-basins in Oregon. Under State laws in both Washington and
Oregon, it is lawful to kill beavers
[[Page 53597]]
or to remove or modify beaver dams, and those lawful actions reduce or
degrade wetland habitats used by all life stages of Oregon spotted
frogs.
Hydrologic Changes Conclusion--A variety of factors affecting the
hydrology of wetlands and riverine systems cause the loss or
detrimental modification of habitats necessary for the survival and
reproduction of Oregon spotted frogs. Within 11 of the 15 sub-basins
occupied by the species, water diversions/manipulations, development,
drought, and loss of beavers are resulting in hydrological changes that
pose a threat to all life stages of the Oregon spotted frog, including
loss of or disconnections between breeding, rearing, and overwintering
habitat, as well as desiccation or flooding of egg masses. The impact
to Oregon spotted frogs of these hydrological changes has been
determined--based on our unified threats classification system
(Rangewide Threats Synthesis)--to be moderate to very high in five of
the occupied sub-basins: Middle Klickitat River, Upper Deschutes River,
Little Deschutes River, Williamson River, and Upper Klamath.
Changes in Vegetation
Oregon spotted frog egg-laying sites are generally characterized by
low vegetation canopy coverage and a substrate at least partially
covered with the previous year's emergent herbaceous vegetation
(Leonard 1997, p. 3; Hayes et al. 2000, p. 8; Pearl and Bury 2000, p.
6; Pearl 1999, p. 15). Egg masses are generally found in shallow water
over vegetation and are rarely found above open soil or rocky
substrates (Hayes et al. 2000, p. 8, Pearl and Bury 2000, p. 8). Watson
et al. (2003, p. 296) found that habitat selection by Oregon spotted
frogs during the breeding season was strongly correlated with sedge
habitat in Washington. In Oregon, Pearl et al. (2009a, p.141) found the
dominant vegetation at egg-laying areas to be sedge-rush habitat.
Loss of natural wetland and riverine disturbance processes as a
result of human activities has and continues to result in degradation
of Oregon spotted frog habitat. Historically, a number of natural
forces created early successional wetlands favorable to Oregon spotted
frogs. These forces included rivers meandering over their floodplains,
removing trees and shrubs and baring patches of mineral soil; beavers
felling trees and woody shrubs, trampling vegetation, and dragging
limbs and logs through shallows; and summer fires burning areas that
would be shallow water wetlands during the Oregon spotted frog breeding
season the following spring. Today, all of these forces are greatly
reduced, impaired, or have been permanently altered as a result of
human activities. In addition, the current wetland management paradigm
is generally a no-management approach that often results in continued
invasion by invasive plants or succession to a tree- and shrub-
dominated community, both of which are unsuitable for Oregon spotted
frog breeding.
Invasive plants such as reed canarygrass may completely change the
structure of wetland environments, and can create dense areas of
vegetation unsuitable as Oregon spotted frog habitat (McAllister and
Leonard 1997, p. 23). Reed canarygrass competitively excludes other
native plant species and limits the biological and habitat diversity of
host wetland and riparian habitats (Antieau 1998, p. 2). Reed
canarygrass also removes large quantities of water through
evapotranspiration, potentially affecting shallow groundwater
hydrologic characteristics (Antieau 1998, p. 2). Reed canarygrass
dominates large areas of Oregon spotted frog habitat at lower
elevations (Hayes 1997, p. 44; Hayes et al. 1997, p. 6) and is
broadening its range to high-elevation (i.e., above 4,500 feet (>1,371
m)) Oregon spotted frog habitat in the Little Deschutes and Upper
Deschutes River sub-basins in Oregon (USDA 2008, USDA 2009b; USDA
2009c; and USDA 2011b). Watson et al. (2003, p. 296) compared the types
and amount of habitat used by Oregon spotted frogs and found the frogs
used areas of reed canarygrass less frequently than other habitats
based on availability. Given this apparent avoidance of reed
canarygrass, vegetation shifts to reed canarygrass dominance in
wetlands occupied by Oregon spotted frogs are likely affecting Oregon
spotted frog breeding behavior.
Studies conducted in Washington (White 2002, pp. 45-46; Pearl and
Hayes 2004, pp. 22-23) demonstrated that the quality of breeding
habitats for Oregon spotted frogs is improved by reducing the height of
the previous years' emergent vegetation (i.e., reed canarygrass in
these cases). However, improvement in breeding habitat for Oregon
spotted frogs was retained only if vegetation management was
maintained. For example, in all occupied sub-basins in Washington and
in the Klamath subbasin in Oregon, an indirect effect of the removal of
cattle grazing has been the reduction in the amount and quality of
breeding and rearing habitat due to encroachment by vegetation, such as
reed canarygrass and shrubs. The effects of grazing vary among sites
and likely depend on a suite of factors including, but not limited to,
timing, intensity, duration, and how these factors interact with
seasonal habitat use patterns of Oregon spotted frog.
Reed canarygrass is present at three of the British Columbia
breeding areas and is the dominant vegetation at most of the breeding
areas in Washington. In Oregon, reed canarygrass is colonizing portions
of Big Marsh and Little Lava Lake, both of which are headwaters to the
Little Deschutes and Upper Deschutes River sub-basins, respectively.
Reed canarygrass also is present in Oregon spotted frog habitat at Lava
Lake, Davis Lake, Wickiup Reservoir, multiple sites along the Little
Deschutes River (i.e., 7 out of 13 surveyed sites), Slough Camp, Wood
River Wetland, the Klamath Marsh NWR, Fourmile Creek, and the
Williamson River. The impact to Oregon spotted frogs due to habitat
loss from reed canarygrass invasion has been determined through our
threat analyses to be high to very high in seven sub-basins: Lower
Fraser River in British Columbia and all sub-basins in Washington. The
threat to Oregon spotted frog habitat from reed canarygrass is
considered to be moderate in two sub-basins in Oregon: Little Deschutes
River and Upper Deschutes River.
Vegetation succession was indicated as a negative factor at almost
all remaining Oregon spotted frog sites analyzed by Hayes, who noted
that some sites were particularly vulnerable to habitat loss where
marsh-to-meadow changes were occurring (Hayes 1997, p. 45). Pearl
(1999, p. 15) suggested that the aquatic habitat types necessary for
Oregon spotted frog reproductive sites in lake basins exist only within
a narrow successional window. As marsh size decreases due to plant
succession, shallow warm water sites required by Oregon spotted frogs
are lost to increased shading by woody vegetation (Pearl 1999, pp. 15-
16). Investigations by Hayes (1997, p. 45) and Pearl (1999, p. 16)
ranked 22 of 28 Oregon spotted frog sites as having a moderate or high
threat from vegetation succession. Encroachment around and into marshes
by lodgepole pine and other woody vegetation is occurring at Conboy
Lake in Washington (Ludwig 2011, p. 3) and at multiple breeding
locations in Oregon, and is likely facilitated by ditching and draining
of wetter sites to improve grazing (Cushman and Pearl 2007, p. 17). The
highest impact to Oregon spotted frogs resulting from lodgepole pine
encroachment is taking place in the Upper Deschutes River sub-basin and
in the upper elevations of the
[[Page 53598]]
Little Deschutes River sub-basin in Oregon, where these breeding
habitats (i.e., those within the riparian lodgepole plant association
group), evolved with fire as a natural disturbance process. The loss of
natural fire cycles in forests of the eastern Cascade Mountains due to
suppression on National Forest land since 1910 (Agee 1993, p. 58) has
allowed succession to continue without disturbance. Plot data suggest
that historical fire return intervals for riparian lodgepole pine
vegetation types in central Oregon ranged 12-36 years and averaged 24
years (Simpson 2007, p. 9-6), indicating that this disturbance process
was more frequent historically in this forest type.
The United States Department of Agriculture's National Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) and Farm Service Agency have several
voluntary programs, including the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), CREP,
and Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP). The WRP and CREP are
voluntary programs designed to help landowners address concerns
regarding the use of natural resources and promote landowner
conservation. Under the WRP, landowners enter into a voluntary
agreement with NRCS to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands on their
property. Various enrollment options are available to landowners,
including Permanent Easements, 30-Year Easements, Restoration Cost-
Share Agreements, or 30-Year Contracts (USDA NRCS 2013). Under the
CREP, the Farm Service Agency provides payments to landowners who sign
a contract committing to keeping lands out of agricultural production
for a period of 10 to 15 years. NRCS produces technical guidelines
generally aimed at improving soil conditions, agricultural
productivity, and water quality, which generally do not result in
specific conservation measures for the protection of the Oregon spotted
frog. Rather, restoration actions funded or carried out by NRCS include
planting trees and shrubs in riparian areas.
These activities have had unforeseen consequences to Oregon spotted
frog habitat by degrading breeding habitat because, as discussed above,
tree- and shrub-dominated communities are unsuitable for Oregon spotted
frog breeding. This is known to have occurred within the last 10 years
at breeding locations in Black, Samish, and South Fork Nooksack Rivers
in Washington (USFWS Nisqually NWR; Bohannon et al. 2012) and may be
happening elsewhere. Currently, one known occupied private land parcel
has entered into a WRP agreement in the Klamath Basin in Oregon. The
WRP agreement for this particular parcel allows no grazing in
perpetuity, which in the long term, may result in reduced quality of
Oregon spotted frog habitat. We are aware of at least one CREP contract
in the South Fork Nooksack River sub-basin that resulted in conifer
tree plantings in Oregon spotted frog breeding locations which resulted
in the wetted areas becoming drier and mostly shaded. The Service has
had preliminary discussions with NRCS and is working with the agency to
address this management issue.
Changes in vegetation conclusion--Expansion of reed canarygrass
into Oregon spotted frog habitat poses a threat to the continued
existence of these habitats given the invasive nature of the plant and
its ability to outcompete native vegetation in wetland habitats.
Shallow water wetlands inhabited by Oregon spotted frog are threatened
through rapid encroachment of the grass and increased
evapotranspiration of water. Loss of habitat at breeding sites due to
reed canarygrass is high to very high in seven occupied sub-basins in
British Columbia and Washington. Reed canarygrass poses a threat in the
Little Deschutes and Upper Deschutes River sub-basins in Oregon, and is
present at varying abundances in many locations occupied by Oregon
spotted frog.
Vegetation succession, particularly where natural disturbance
processes are lacking, is a negative factor at almost all Oregon
spotted frog sites. Structural changes to vegetation that occur through
succession, whether from native or nonnative grasses, shrubs, or trees,
results in decreased wetland size and amount of open water area
available to frogs. Furthermore, shrub and tree encroachment increases
shading of shallow warm water sites required by Oregon spotted frogs
for breeding and rearing. Encroachment by lodgepole pine and other
woody vegetation is occurring at multiple breeding locations in
Washington and Oregon and is considered a threat in at least seven sub-
basins: Lower Deschutes River, Upper Deschutes River, McKenzie River,
Middle Fork Willamette River, Williamson River, Upper Klamath Lake, and
Upper Klamath. Unintended loss of habitat is taking place as a result
of riparian restoration activities that remove grazing and plant shrubs
and trees within sub-basins occupied by Oregon spotted frogs in
Washington and Oregon. Therefore, based on the best scientific
information available, changes in vegetation pose a threat to Oregon
spotted frogs throughout the range of the species.
Development
Removal or alteration of natural riparian vegetation around
watercourses or wetlands for urban or agricultural development
compromises aquatic ecosystem function via reductions in biodiversity
and water quality and quantity. Residential and commercial encroachment
often destroy or disturb natural vegetation, alter water flows and
seasonal flooding, or result in the loss of entire wetland complexes.
Agricultural practices, including grazing, can result in the rapid
removal of water across the landscape for stimulation of early grass
production. All of these factors have been shown to reduce the survival
and reproductive capacity of Oregon spotted frogs, as discussed
previously.
Although the historical impact of development has significantly
reduced the abundance and geographic distributions of Oregon spotted
frogs (for example, the Fraser River Valley in British Columbia, Puget
Trough in Washington, and Willamette Valley in Oregon), development is
currently an ongoing threat at only a few specific locations. In
British Columbia, housing and residential developments continue to
remove or alter habitat at Mountain and Maria Sloughs, and there are
new commercial developments at Mountain Slough (COSFRT 2012, p. 26).
In Washington, some counties prohibit draining of wetlands and some
counties require setbacks from wetlands (see Factor D for further
information), but this is not consistent, nor consistently implemented.
In addition, a large proportion of the breeding areas for Oregon
spotted frogs in Washington are not technically classified as a wetland
under the county definitions because these areas are seasonally flooded
pastures. The private lands surrounding breeding areas for Oregon
spotted frog in most of the occupied sub-basins are presently zoned as
rural or rural residential, which is designed only to allow low-density
housing and maintain the rural and agricultural uses. However, the
human populations of all counties in the Puget Sound area are growing
and Thurston, Whatcom, and Skagit Counties have the 6th, 9th, and 10th
largest populations, respectively, among Washington State's 39 counties
(U.S. Census Bureau data downloaded August 29, 2012). Between 1990 and
2011, the populations in these three counties have doubled. This
population increase is expected to continue, resulting in new
residential and commercial developments that will alter vegetation,
water flow, and the seasonal
[[Page 53599]]
flooding that creates and maintains habitat for Oregon spotted frogs.
Development of land along the Little Deschutes River and its
tributaries in Oregon is a continued threat to Oregon spotted frogs.
The rural character of the Little Deschutes River watershed, the
attractive location of private property on the Little Deschutes River,
and relatively inexpensive land prices have contributed to a rapidly
growing population (UDWC 2002, p. 12). In the 1960s and 1970s before
Oregon statewide planning regulated growth and development, 15,000 one-
and two-acre lots were created in subdivisions in the vicinity of the
Little Deschutes River. Since 1989, Deschutes County has been the
fastest growing county in Oregon on a percentage basis. The
unincorporated areas of Deschutes County, including the lower portions
of the Little Deschutes River, are projected to increase in population
size by as much as 56 percent above the 2000 level over the next 20
years (UDWC 2002, p. 12). This rapid population growth rate is expected
to continue into the future (UDWC 2002, p. 12), thereby increasing
risks to wetland habitats that support Oregon spotted frogs in the
vicinity of the Little Deschutes River.
Development in the Klamath Basin is also increasing in Oregon. The
population of Klamath County increased 10.5 percent from 1990 to 2000
(U.S. Census Bureau 2008) and annual housing starts have increased by
13 percent since 2000 (Portland State University 2011 Web site). Much
of the growth is outside of city boundaries, and several large
residential developments are within or adjacent to wetlands that
historically had the ability to support Oregon spotted frog habitat. In
addition, agricultural practices, including grazing, occur extensively
within all three occupied sub-basins. This has the potential to result
in the desiccation or inundation of Oregon spotted frog habitat (See
Livestock Grazing Klamath Basin discussion). While it is unknown to
what extent urban development has impacted Oregon spotted frog habitat,
agricultural development is ongoing and continues to impact Oregon
spotted frog habitat.
Development conclusion--Development of residential, commercial, and
agricultural properties is continuing in at least 10 of the sub-basins
occupied by the Oregon spotted frog. In some areas, the human
population is expected to continue to grow. Development activities
directly and indirectly have removed or altered habitat necessary to
support all life stages of Oregon spotted frogs. Therefore, we consider
development--both at the present time and in the future--to be a threat
to Oregon spotted frogs.
Livestock Grazing
In several riparian zones and wetland complexes in British
Columbia, Washington, and Oregon, livestock grazing occurs within
Oregon spotted frog habitat, although its effects vary with the site
conditions, livestock numbers, timing, and intensity. Livestock
(primarily horses and cows) can cause direct mortality by trampling
adult frogs (Ross et al. 1999, p. 163) and egg masses when livestock
are allowed in shallow water habitat when frogs are present. Livestock
graze and trample emergent and riparian vegetation, compact soil in
riparian and upland areas, and reduce bank stability, which results in
increased sedimentation and water pollution via urine and feces (Hayes
1997, p. 44; Hayes 1998b, p. 8; 61 FR 25813). The resulting increases
in temperature and sediment production, alterations to stream
morphology, effects on prey organisms, and changes in water quality
negatively affect Oregon spotted frog habitat. Livestock also act as
vectors for the introduction of weed seeds that alter riparian
vegetation characteristics (Belsky and Gelbard 2000, p. 9), and they
are a source of introduced parasites and pathogens (See Factor C).
Fourteen of twenty-eight (50 percent) sites surveyed in British
Columbia, Washington, and Oregon were directly or indirectly influenced
(negatively and positively) by livestock grazing (Hayes 1997, p. 44;
Hayes et al. 1997, p. 6; Pearl 1999, p. 16). Severe habitat
modification has been caused by cattle at several Oregon spotted frog
localities in Oregon. Large numbers of cattle at a site negatively
affect habitat for Oregon spotted frogs, particularly at springs used
by frogs as overwintering sites (Hayes 1997, p. 44). The most recent
work monitoring the effects of livestock grazing on Oregon spotted
frogs involved grazed and ungrazed treatments at Jack Creek on the
Fremont Winema National Forests in Oregon (Shovlain 2005 entire).
Shovlain's (2005, p. 11) work suggested that livestock grazing
displaced Oregon spotted frogs to ungrazed exclosures as grazing
pressure outside the enclosures increased. Livestock trampling and
consumption likely affects the microhabitat preferred by Oregon spotted
frogs by reducing emergent and riparian vegetation, which could explain
Shovlain's findings. However, the frogs in Shovlain's study did not
show a preference for exclosures or controls under lower grazing
pressure. Therefore, a moderate degree of grazing does not appear to
affect frog behavior, suggesting an intermediate level of disturbance
may be conducive to Oregon spotted frog habitat use (Hayes et al. 1997,
p. 6, Hayes 1998b, pp. 8-9, McAllister and Leonard 1997, p. 25, Watson
et al. 2003, p. 299).
Moderate livestock grazing can, in some instances (for example,
Dempsey Creek in Washington), benefit Oregon spotted frogs by
maintaining openings in the vegetation in highly altered wetland
communities (Hayes 1997, p. 44; Hayes et al. 1997, p. 6; McAllister and
Leonard 1997, p. 25). Watson et al. (2003, p. 299) found that habitat
at 78 percent of the Oregon spotted frog locations surveyed at the
Dempsey Creek site had signs of grazing, which created penetrable, open
habitat that was otherwise too dense for frog use.
British Columbia--Only one known breeding location (Morris Valley)
in the Lower Fraser River sub-basin is grazed (by horses) (COSEWIC
2011, p. 33), and grazing is identified as a specific concern for
Oregon spotted frogs at this location because of the potential for
trampling of egg masses, bank erosion, and input of feces (COSEWIC
2011, p. 33).
Washington--In the recent past, it appears that grazing was
beneficial to Oregon spotted frogs at all remaining breeding areas in
Washington; however, grazing no longer occurs in the breeding areas in
four of the six sub-basins due to land manager preferences and/or water
quality regulations that prohibit grazing within certain distances from
rivers and wetlands. Active management is required to maintain the
Oregon spotted frog habitat at these locations due to heavy reed
canarygrass infestations, but funding is limited and grazing had been
the least expensive/easiest management option. In the Black River,
grazing ceased along Dempsey Creek when the privately owned dairy
operation was sold. Cows were reintroduced to the Port Blakely Tree
Farm and Musgrove (Nisqually NWR) parcels in 2008 (USFWS 2011b) as part
of a reed canarygrass control experiment; however, Oregon spotted frog
egg mass numbers have not increased as was expected (WDFW 2011
database; USFWS 2011b). Grazing occurs at the only known breeding
location in the Lower Chilliwack River sub-basin. This site has likely
persisted as a result of dairy cows maintaining the site in a state of
early seral habitat (Bohannon et al. 2012, p. 17).
Oregon--Overgrazing of the Camas Prairie in Oregon was considered a
threat to Oregon spotted frog prior to 2008, after which grazing was
restricted (Corkran 2012). Overgrazing by cattle
[[Page 53600]]
reduced the vegetative hiding cover for frogs, making them more
susceptible to predation. Livestock-induced fertilization resulted in
an increased density of the aquatic vegetation, which inhibited the
ability of frogs to drop below the water's surface when threatened by
predation while basking (C. Corkran pers. comm. 2012). However, grazing
may be considered as a management tool to maintain early seral habitat
for Oregon spotted frogs in the future if necessary (C. Corkran pers.
comm. 2012).
None of the central Oregon Cascade breeding locations within the
Deschutes and Willamette National Forests are within grazing
allotments. Known breeding locations occur within allotments on the
U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Prineville District lands along
Crescent Creek, Long Prairie Creek, and the Little Deschutes River.
Currently, only the Crescent Creek area is affected by active grazing
on BLM lands, although there is potential for grazing to occur on BLM
lands along the Little Deschutes River. Grazing has been cited as an
impact to riparian and wetland habitats on private lands along the
Little Deschutes River (The Wetlands Conservancy, 2004, p. 22). Wetland
habitats in the Little Deschutes River sub-basin have been negatively
impacted by grazing through removal of riparian vegetation, which
destabilizes banks and increases channel incision, resulting in less
water retention in riparian wetlands and conifer encroachment (UDWC
2002, pp. 21 and 53).
Six sites in the Klamath Basin are associated with grazing: Jack
Creek, Buck Lake, Parsnip Lakes, and on private lands on the Wood
River, Williamson River, and adjacent to Klamath Marsh NWR. These sites
are potentially vulnerable to both the direct impacts of grazing
sedimentation, trampling, as well as the indirect effect of egg mass
desiccation resulting from water management techniques that drain water
early in frog breeding season to stimulate grass production. Livestock
grazing is cited as a specific concern for Oregon spotted frogs at Jack
Creek, Fremont-Winema National Forest, Chemult Ranger District, in
Oregon (USDA 2004, pp. 56-57). Since 1999, the population has reduced
from 670 breeding adults (335 egg masses) to 34 breeding adults (17 egg
masses) in 2011. The two primary breeding sites in Jack Creek occur on
private land that is heavily grazed in combination with USFS
allotments. This intensity of grazing is expected to have degraded the
quality of the Oregon spotted frog breeding habitat and reduced
reproduction (Shovlain 2005).
Since 2008, current USFS management at the Jack Creek site has not
permitted cattle grazing on lands occupied by Oregon spotted frogs
(Markus 2012, pers. comm.). However, 419 cow/calf pairs specifically
permitted for grazing have access to 61 acres (25 ha) of potential, but
not currently supporting, Oregon spotted frog habitat on this 68,349 ac
(27,660 ha) combination of USFS and private pasture. Within this
pasture, however, there are several riparian areas accessible to
grazing cattle as well as one offsite watering source installed on
adjacent private land. The permittee for this pasture has grazed their
private lands where Oregon spotted frogs are known to occur, although
the number of cattle and timing are not known. However, the permittee
has also partnered with the USFWS to complete multiple conservation
actions to benefit Oregon spotted frogs and their habitats on their
private lands including--but not limited to--the installation of 2 to 3
offsite watering sources, protection of frog ponds, thinning of
encroaching lodgepole pine trees, and installation of a wattle for
water retention (Markus 2012, pers. comm.).
Conflicts between cattle and frogs increase when stream flows are
limited, especially when cattle are using the creek for drinking
(Gervais 2011, p. 15). Between 2001 and 2005, and again in 2007,
drought conditions affected habitat for Oregon spotted frogs in the
Chemult Ranger District, Fremont-Winema National Forest in Oregon.
However, until 2008 when grazing was restricted, 419 cow/calf pairs had
access to the habitat areas associated with Oregon spotted frogs
(Gervais 2011, p. 11). Cattle were observed congregating in Oregon
spotted frog habitat because nearly every other water source in the
allotment went dry (Simpson 2002, pers. comm.). Trampling of frogs by
cattle and alterations in water quality, bank structure, and loss of
protective vegetation compounded the impacts of the reduction of
available habitat due to drought conditions on Oregon spotted frog
reproduction (USDA 2009a, pp. 31, 33-34).
Livestock Grazing Conclusion--Where livestock grazing coincides
with Oregon spotted frog habitat, impacts to the species include
trampling of frogs and changes in habitat quality due to increased
sedimentation, increased water temperatures, water management
techniques, and reduced water quality. The effects of livestock grazing
vary with site conditions, livestock numbers, and timing and intensity
of grazing. In Washington, all of the known occupied areas have been
grazed in the recent past, but where grazing has been removed, heavy
infestations by invasive reed canarygrass have reduced or eliminated
habitat for Oregon spotted frogs unless other management techniques
were applied. In controlled circumstances, moderate grazing can be
beneficial if it is the only practical method for controlling invasive,
nonnative vegetation and sustaining early seral stage vegetation needed
for egg laying. Grazing is ongoing in 10 of the occupied sub-basins and
is considered to be a threat to Oregon spotted frogs at these
locations.
Conservation Efforts to Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Range
British Columbia--Past and ongoing habitat conservation activities
in British Columbia include habitat creation at MD Aldergrove, Maria
Slough, and Mountain Slough; habitat rehabilitation at Maria and
Mountain Sloughs; and invasive grass species management at MD
Aldergrove, Maria Slough, and Mountain Slough. There is also a
landowner stewardship contact program that encourages stewardship
activities at Mountain Slough. However, the Service concluded that
these measures are not sufficient to ameliorate threats to Oregon
spotted frogs in the Lower Fraser River.
Washington--In Washington, some reed canarygrass management is
taking place at most of the breeding locations in the Black River, on
the Trout Lake NAP, and at Conboy Lake NWR. These management techniques
include mowing, burning, cattle grazing, and shade cloth. However,
these management techniques are not widespread at any one location or
adequate to prevent loss of egg-laying habitat.
Conboy Lake NWR in Washington has completed several wetland
restoration projects to restore natural hydrological processes to
portions of the refuge. This enabled the NWR to maintain independent
water management of several wetlands, regardless of the water-related
impacts of local landowners. However, under current management, water
is not retained throughout the year on most of the NWR and adjacent
private wetlands, and many of these areas that had Oregon spotted frogs
in the late 1990s no longer have Oregon spotted frogs.
Cattle grazing ceased at Trout Lake NAP in Washington after a
monitoring study showed no apparent positive effect on the Oregon
spotted frog population trends (Wilderman and
[[Page 53601]]
Hallock 2004, p. 10), indicating that either grazing was not an
effective tool for reed canarygrass management at this location, or
that perhaps reed canarygrass was not as threatening to breeding frogs
at this location as previously thought. This may be because winter snow
pack compresses the reed canarygrass, leaving none of the previous
season's vertical stems available to Oregon spotted frogs during the
breeding season. The observed negative consequences of grazing, while
perhaps acceptable if there was clear benefit to the Oregon spotted
frog populations, were not compatible with other site management goals
and posed a limitation to future restoration on the site (Wilderman and
Hallock 2004, p. 14). Instead, problematic areas of reed canarygrass
are being managed using ground barriers and occasional fall mowing
(Hallock 2012, p. 31).
Under the Washington State Forest Practices Act, WDNR must approve
certain activities related to growing, harvesting, or processing timber
on all local government, State, and privately owned forest lands.
WDNR's mission is to protect public resources while maintaining a
viable timber industry. The primary goal of the forest practices rules
is to achieve protection of water quality, fish and wildlife habitat,
and capital improvements while ensuring that harvested areas are
reforested. Presently, the Washington State Forest Practices Rules do
not specifically protect Oregon spotted frogs; however, they do include
protection measures for surface waters and wetlands. The intent of the
protection measures, such as buffers on wetlands, is to limit excess
coarse and fine sediment delivery and to maintain hydrologic regimes.
Tree harvest is limited in wetland buffers, which may in turn
facilitate vegetation encroachment. Landowners have the option to
develop a management plan for the species if it resides on their
property, or if landowners choose not to develop a management plan for
the species with WDFW, their forest practices application will be
conditioned to protect this public resource. While the Washington State
Forest Practices Rules provide some protections for the Oregon spotted
frog and its habitat, the direct and indirect consequences of limiting
tree harvest within the wetland buffer is vegetation encroachment that
is resulting in loss of wetlands (i.e., reduced size) and shading.
USDA NRCS is overseeing the restoration at two Samish River
locations and is incorporating Oregon spotted frog breeding habitat
requirements into its planned restoration (that originally included de-
leveling and tree and shrub plantings in the breeding areas) (Bohannan
et al. 2012, p. 17).
Oregon--In Oregon, several conservation actions have been and
continue to be implemented for Oregon spotted frogs in the Deschutes
River Basin. Sunriver Nature Center has been monitoring the frog
population at the Sunriver Resort since 2000. Although this area is
affected by the fluctuating flows out of Wickiup Reservoir, Sunriver
Nature Center has constructed weirs that allow the water level to be
steady or rising from the time of egg-laying through hatching, thus
assisting the persistence of this large and stable population. The
Deschutes National Forest has closed perimeter ditches at Big Marsh,
where past drainage and grazing had led to degradation of the marsh.
The Mt. Hood National Forest has fenced sections of Camas Prairie and
restricted excessive grazing of the meadow. Implementation of these
conservation actions is assumed to have resulted in increased breeding
success of Oregon spotted frogs at these locations. In addition, BLM's
Prineville District Office recently completed encroachment removal
projects and repairs to headcuts in systems that have had historically
or currently have Oregon spotted frogs. Headcutting is a process of
active erosion in a channel caused by an abrupt change in slope.
Turbulence in the water undercuts substrate material resulting in
collapse of the upper level. This under-cut-collapse process advances
up the stream channel. The results of BLM's efforts are unknown at this
time; however, they were completed specifically to ameliorate threats
to Oregon spotted frog habitat.
Since 1994, in the Oregon portion of the Klamath Basin, the
Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, in collaboration with
private landowners, has restored approximately 8,832 ac (3,568 ha) of
wetlands adjacent to Upper Klamath Lake. Several habitat restoration
projects are under way in known occupied areas including Crane Creek,
Sevenmile Creek, Jack Creek, and the Upper Williamson River.
Restoration projects include re-channelizing creeks and rivers to
provide breeding and rearing habitat, construction of breeding ponds,
construction of riparian fences to exclude cattle, and the installation
of alternate water sources. To date, Oregon spotted frogs have been
detected in only one restored, previously unoccupied wetland area,
although survey efforts in restored habitats have not yet been
completed.
The BLM's Klamath Falls Field Office has initiated several habitat
restoration projects within their Wood River Wetland property,
including installation of water control structures, construction of
breeding ponds, and canal restructuring for additional breeding areas.
To date, 3,000 ac (1,214 ha) of wetland habitats associated with the
Wood River Canal have been restored. However, for reasons unknown,
Oregon spotted frogs have not been detected in the restored wetlands,
but rather, have only been associated with the canal system (BLM
multiple data sources). BLM actively manages the water in the canal
during the breeding season to prevent stranding and inundating Oregon
spotted frog egg masses.
The Fremont-Winema National Forest, Chemult Ranger District, in the
Oregon portion of the Klamath Basin has initiated a project to restore
habitat along Jack Creek, which as of 2008, includes the removal of
cattle from a portion of the lands owned by the USFS (Gervais 2011 p.
9). In addition, encroaching lodgepole pine (Gervais 2011 pp. 11-12)
has been thinned on both USFS and private lands as a result of this
project. In cooperation with adjacent private landowners, the USFS
recently released seven beavers into the Jack Creek watershed (Simpson
2012, pers. comm.), which is intended to increase the open water and
breeding habitat for Oregon spotted frogs. One of the private
landowners has also installed log fences to protect three Oregon
spotted frog pools, and two off-stream water sources to exclude cattle
from riparian areas, and wattle installment (a fabrication of poles
interwoven with slender branches) for water retention (Markus 2012,
pers. comm.). In addition, in 2009, the USFS installed fences at Buck
Meadow to control grazing on the USFS lands (Lerum 2012, p. 18). The
long-term benefits of the USFS efforts are unknown at this time;
however, these actions were completed to specifically ameliorate
threats to the Oregon spotted frog's habitat.
The USFS has completed and continues to work on Oregon spotted frog
Site Management Plans that identify threats and management actions to
reduce threats at each of the following sites: Sevenmile, Jack Creek,
Buck Lake, Dilman Meadow, Hosmer Lake, Lava and Little Lava Lake, Big
Marsh, Odell/Davis Lake, Little Cultus Lake, Mink Lake Basin and Gold
Lake. Implementation of management actions is voluntary and dependent
upon funding and will likely occur at the District level.
[[Page 53602]]
The Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Klamath Marsh NWR
includes conservation actions for maintaining or improving local
habitat conditions for the benefit of Oregon spotted frogs on NWR
property. These include: restoring or maintaining hydrologic regimes,
protecting and restoring ephemeral and permanent wetlands, restoring or
maintaining open water and early seral vegetation communities,
reevaluating or discontinuing fish stocking practices, development of
comprehensive grazing strategies or adaptive management plans where
livestock occur in habitat, and working locally and cooperatively to
maintain and restore habitat conditions and to monitor the outcomes of
management actions for Oregon spotted frog (USFWS 2010, p. 72). The
CCPs detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially
above current budget allocations and are primarily used for strategic
planning and priority setting, thus inclusion of a project in a CCP
does not guarantee that the project will be implemented. However,
implementation of the above conservation actions within the CCP could
benefit a minimum of 338 breeding individuals. These actions are
expected to improve the status of the Oregon spotted frog on the
Klamath Marsh NWR if adequate budget allocations are provided and the
projects are implemented. Existing wetland restoration activities at
Klamath Marsh NWR have been limited to invasive weed management (Mauser
2012, pers. comm.).
Summary of habitat or range destruction, modification, or
curtailment--Past human actions have destroyed, modified, and curtailed
the range and habitat available for the Oregon spotted frog, which is
now absent from an estimated 76 to 90 percent of its former range. The
loss of wetlands is continuing at certain locations in at least 10 of
the 15 remaining occupied sub-basins, particularly on private lands.
The historical and ongoing alteration of hydrological processes
resulting from the operation of existing water diversions/manipulation
structures, existing and new roads, residential development,
agricultural areas, and the removal of beavers continues to impact
Oregon spotted frogs and their habitat. The changes in hydrology result
in the loss of breeding through inundation or desiccation of egg
masses, loss or degradation of habitat necessary for all Oregon spotted
frog life stages, and the creation of habitat conditions that support
nonnative predaceous species.
Reed canarygrass invasions, plant succession, and restoration
plantings continue to modify and reduce the amount and quality of
habitat necessary for all Oregon spotted frog life stages. The timing
and intensity of livestock grazing, or lack thereof, continues to
change the quality of Oregon spotted frog habitat in British Columbia,
Washington, and Oregon due to increased sedimentation, increased water
temperatures, and reduced water quality. Oregon spotted frogs in all
currently occupied sub-basins are subject to one or more of these
threats to their habitat. Eleven of the 15 occupied sub-basins are
currently experiencing a high to very high level of impact, primarily
due to hydrological changes/manipulations, vegetation encroachment, and
reed canarygrass invasions. These impacts are ongoing, are expected to
continue into the future, and affect habitat that supports all life
stages of the Oregon spotted frog.
The benefits of the conservation actions to Oregon spotted frogs
are site-specific, but are not sufficient to ameliorate the habitat
threats at a sub-basin scale. Wetland restoration efforts have been
implemented, but rarely are these specifically designed for Oregon
spotted frogs, and may inadvertently reduce habitat quality for this
early-seral species. Further, post-restoration monitoring has not been
accomplished to evaluate whether these efforts are benefiting Oregon
spotted frogs. Therefore, based on the best information available, the
threats to Oregon spotted frogs from habitat destruction, modification,
or curtailment are occurring throughout the entire range of the
species, and are expected to continue into the future.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes has been documented for a wide range of
amphibians. During the egg-laying period, Oregon spotted frogs occur in
relatively easy-to-access locations that could make them easy to
collect. However, we are not aware of collection of Oregon spotted
frogs for commercial, recreational, or educational purposes.
Oregon spotted frog populations may be negatively impacted by
scientific studies. In all Washington breeding locations and some of
the breeding locations in British Columbia and Oregon, surveys are
conducted annually during the egg-laying period. While these surveys
are conducted in a manner to avoid trampling of frogs and egg masses
(protocol example Pearl et al. 2010), such impacts may still occur. The
extent to which any population is impacted by these surveys is unknown,
but expected to be low. Eggs were collected each year beginning in 2002
from at least two of the extant locations in British Columbia for a
headstart rearing program, which released metamorphic Oregon spotted
frogs back into those sites (COSFRT 2012, pp. 30-31). This effort has
ceased because it was deemed unsuccessful at bolstering the extant
populations; however, captive husbandry for potential release into new
locations continues.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has collected 7,870
eggs (through 2011) from various breeding locations on the Black River
and Conboy NWRs for their captive-rearing program (Tirhi and Schmidt
2011, pp. 51-55). During this period, the population has continued to
decline at Conboy Lake, but the source of the decline is unclear and
cannot specifically be attributed to the egg collection. USGS and
Colorado State University have been collecting eggs in the Deschutes
and Klamath Basins for genetic studies since 2007, resulting in the
collection of at least 3,000 eggs (Robertson and Funk 2012 pp. 8-11; C.
Pearl 2012, pers. comm.). However, we have no evidence to indicate that
Oregon spotted frogs are being overutilized for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes such that this
activity poses a threat to the species.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
Disease
Amphibians are affected by a variety of diseases, and some diseases
are known to negatively affect declining amphibian species. Diseases
that are currently known to occur in Oregon spotted frogs and have the
potential to affect populations are briefly discussed below. The
specific effects of disease and parasitism on Oregon spotted frogs are
not well documented.
Red-Leg Syndrome--Red-leg syndrome has been identified in several
declining amphibian species but is not known to be a significant
problem for the Oregon spotted frog (Blaustein 1999, pers. comm.). Red-
leg syndrome refers to a common condition in which there is a reddening
of the lower body, usually the legs and sometimes the abdomen, due to a
dilation of capillaries under the skin. This disease is presumed to be
widespread, having been reported for > 100 years in many different
species of frogs and salamanders in captivity and in the wild (Densmore
and Green 2007, p. 236).
[[Page 53603]]
Chytrid Fungus--Chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis
(Bd)) has been implicated in the decline and extinction of numerous
amphibian species in multiple locations around the world (Speare and
Berger 2004). In the United States, 7 families including 18 amphibian
species have been diagnosed as infected with Bd (Speare and Berger
2004). Bd infection has been documented in at least seven ranid frogs
from the Pacific Northwest, including Oregon spotted frogs (Adams et
al. 2010, p. 295; Pearl et al. 2009b, p. 212; Hayes et al. 2009, p.
149). Chytridiomycosis is a cutaneous infection that ``results in a
severe diffuse dermatitis characterized by epidermal hyperplasia,
hyperkeratosis, and variable degrees of cutaneous ulceration and
hyperemia'' (Bradley et al. 2002, p. 206). Clinical signs can include
lethargy, abnormal posture, loss of the righting reflex (ability to
turn over), and death (Daszak et al. 1999, p. 737). The fungal
organism, Bd, is likely transmitted by release of zoospores into the
water that eventually contact a susceptible animal, penetrating the
skin, and establishing an infection (Pessier et al. 1999, p. 198;
Bradley et al. 2002, p. 206). Dermal infections by Bd are thought to
cause mortality by interfering with skin functions, including
maintaining fluid and electrolyte homeostasis (balance), respiration,
and the skin's role as a barrier to toxic and infectious agents
(Pessier et al. 1999, p. 198; Bradley et al. 2002, p. 206). Unlike most
other vertebrates, amphibians drink water and absorb important salts
(electrolytes) through the skin rather than the mouth. In diseased
individuals, electrolyte transport across the epidermis was inhibited
by >50 percent, resulting in cardiac arrest and death (Voyles et al.
2009, pp. 582, 585).
In 2007 and 2008, USGS sampled Oregon spotted frogs at sites across
Washington and Oregon; Bd was confirmed at all locations sampled (Pearl
et al. 2009b, p. 212). Even though Pearl et al. (2009b, p. 216)
detected Bd at 100 percent of the sites sampled, they did not observe
morbidity or mortality that could be attributed to chytridiomycosis. In
addition to confirmation at USGS-sampled sites, Bd has been confirmed
in Oregon spotted frogs near Sunriver in central Oregon (Bowerman 2005,
pers. comm.) and Conboy Lake NWR (Hayes et al. 2009, p. 149) in
Washington. Pearl et al. (2007, p. 147) detected Bd more frequently in
highly aquatic species, such as Oregon spotted frogs, than in species
with more terrestrial adult stages and shorter larval periods,
suggesting that Oregon spotted frogs may be experiencing elevated
exposure and infection due to their highly aquatic life-history. In
addition, modeling done by Pearl et al. (2009b, p. 213) indicates that
juvenile Oregon spotted frogs that test positive for Bd infection are
more likely to have a poorer body condition after overwintering than
individuals that test negative for Bd infection.
Alone, Bd may not be a concern for some healthy amphibian
populations; however, most of the Oregon spotted frog populations in
Oregon and Washington are already exposed to several stressors, such as
predation, competition from nonnative species, and water quality
degradation, and the effects of Bd are likely to be exacerbated and
potentially compounded by these interactions (for example, see Parris
and Baud 2004, pp. 346-347; Parris and Cornelius 2004, pp. 3388-3390;
Parris and Beaudoin 2004, p. 628). In addition, Bd has been found in
nonnative species that co-occur with Oregon spotted frogs in central
Oregon (Pearl et al. 2007, p. 147); in particular, bullfrogs may serve
as a Bd host while experiencing limited negative effects from the
pathogen.
Laboratory studies have shown that infecting Oregon spotted frogs
with Bd inhibits growth without necessarily showing any direct clinical
signs (Padgett-Flohr and Hayes 2011). Recently metamorphosed frogs
exposed to one of two strains of Bd tested positive for the pathogen
within 11 days after exposure; however, no frogs died or displayed
clinical signs of disease and most (83 percent) tested negative for the
pathogen within 90 days of exposure. However, infected frogs gained
significantly less weight than control animals, suggesting the
infection carried an energetic cost. The detection of Bd at all Oregon
spotted frog sites sampled, combined with the lack of observed
mortality (in the wild and laboratory testing), indicates Oregon
spotted frogs may be able to persist with Bd infections (Pearl et al.
2009b, p. 216) but growth and presumed long-term survival (e.g.,
avoidance of predators) are inhibited. Consequently, in light of the
numerous amphibian extinctions attributed to Bd, and in conjunction
with the other stressors that impact Oregon spotted frogs, we conclude
that Bd poses a risk to individual Oregon spotted frog populations,
particularly those most susceptible to climate changes (see Factor E),
but additional studies are necessary to determine whether Bd is a
threat rangewide to the Oregon spotted frog.
Other pathogens, such as iridoviruses (specifically Ranavirus),
have been documented to cause mortality in North American amphibians
(Dasak et al. 1999, pp. 741-743). While not yet documented in wild
Oregon spotted frog populations, iridovirus outbreaks have been
identified as a major source of mortality in British Columbia captive-
rearing programs for Oregon spotted frogs (COSEWIC 2011, p. 35).
Saprolegnia--The oomycete water mold Saprolegnia has been suggested
as one of the causes of amphibian declines in the Pacific Northwest
(Kiesecker and Blaustein 1997, p. 218). Genetic analysis confirmed
oomycetes of multiple genera on amphibian eggs in the Pacific
Northwest, including Oregon spotted frogs (Petrisko et al. 2008, pp.
174-178). McAllister and Leonard (1997, p. 25) reported destruction of
developing Oregon spotted frog egg masses by this fungus, but not to
the extent observed in other amphibian eggs. The threat of Saprolegnia
to Oregon spotted frog populations is unclear, but this fungus has been
shown to destroy Oregon spotted frog egg masses and could pose a threat
to individual Oregon spotted frog breeding areas in the future.
Ultraviolet-B Radiation--Impacts resulting from exposure to
ultraviolet-B radiation (UV-B) appear to vary greatly between amphibian
species. Ambient levels of UV-B radiation in the atmosphere have risen
significantly over the past few decades due to decreases in
stratospheric ozone, climate warming, and lake acidification. Because
amphibian eggs lack shells and adults and tadpoles have thin, delicate
skin, they are extremely vulnerable to increased levels of UV-B
radiation. However, the harmful effects of UV-B radiation on amphibians
depend upon a number of variables (Blaustein et al. 2003, pp. 123-128).
Studies summarized in Blaustein et al. (2003) indicate UV-B exposure
can result in mortality, as well as a variety of sublethal effects,
including behavior alteration, slow growth and development, and
developmental and physiological malformations. The type and severity of
effect varies by life stage exposed and dosage of UV-B. Experimental
tests conducted by Blaustein et al. (1999, p. 1102) found the hatching
success of Oregon spotted frogs was unaffected by UV-B, indicating
their eggs may be UV-resistant. However, a meta-analysis of available
published literature conducted by Bancroft et al. (2008) found that
exposure to UV-B resulted in a 1.9-fold reduction in amphibian survival
and that larvae (tadpoles) were more susceptible than embryos. In
addition, Bancroft et al. (2008) determined that UV-B interacted
synergistically with other environmental stressors, such as
[[Page 53604]]
contaminants, resulting in greater than additive effects on survival.
For example, Kiesecker and Blaustein (1997, pp. 217-218) found
increased mortality associated with the fungus identified as
Saprolegnia ferax in amphibian embryos exposed to UV-B; especially
susceptible were amphibians that lay eggs in communal egg masses, like
Oregon spotted frogs. At present, the extent of population-level
impacts from UV-B exposure is unknown.
Malformations--The North American Reporting Center for Amphibian
Malformations (NBII 2005) documents amphibian malformations throughout
the United States. Malformations of several Rana species, including the
Cascades frog (Rana cascadae), red-legged frog (Rana aurora), foothill
yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii), and bullfrog, have been reported
within the current and historical range of the Oregon spotted frog in
Washington, Oregon, and California. We are aware of one report from
Thurston County, Washington, of an Oregon spotted frog with an extra
forelimb (NBII 2005) and reports of malformations from Deschutes
(Johnson et al. 2002a, p. 157; Bowerman and Johnson 2003, pp. 142-144),
Douglas, and Lane (NBII 2005) Counties in Oregon. Growing evidence
suggests that the high frequencies of severe limb malformations may be
caused by a parasitic infection (Ribeiroia ondatrae) in amphibian
larvae (Johnson et al. 2002a, p. 162). Recent investigations also
indicate small fish and certain libellulid and corduliid dragonfly
larvae attack developing tadpoles and can cause high incidences of
missing-limb deformities, including complete amputation (Ballengee and
Sessions 2009; Bowerman et al. 2010). At present, the extent of
population-level impacts from malformations is unknown.
Parasitic infection--Aquatic snails (Planorbella spp.) are the
exclusive intermediate host for the trematode Ribeiroia ondatrae
(Johnson and Chase 2004, p. 523) and are found in a diversity of
habitats, including ephemeral ponds, montane lakes, stock ponds,
oxbows, drainage canals, and reservoirs (Johnson et al. 2002a, p. 164).
Trematodes are parasitic flatworms that have a thick outer cuticle and
one or more suckers or hooks for attaching to host tissue. Johnson et
al. (2002, p. 165) postulate that the dramatic and widespread
alterations of aquatic ecosystems, particularly the construction of
small impoundments or farm ponds, may have created environments that
facilitate high densities of Planorbella snails and the resulting
infections from R. ondatrae. Many of the sites with high frequencies of
malformations were impacted heavily by cattle and supported dense
Planorbella snail populations. Malformations in multiple amphibian
species were found in Washington ponds that had a history of grazing
that extended back at least 50 years (Johnson et al. 2002a, p. 165).
Johnson et al. (2002, p. 166) found the frequency of malformations
in larval amphibians was significantly higher than in transformed
amphibians from the same system, suggesting that malformed larvae
experience greater mortality prior to and during metamorphosis.
However, sensitivity to and severity (mortality versus no malformation)
of infection varies by amphibian species (Johnson and Hartson 2009, p.
195) and tadpole stage exposed (Schotthoefer et al. 2003, p. 1148).
High levels of R. ondatrae infection and the resulting
malformations may increase mortality in wild amphibian populations and
may represent a threat to amphibian populations already in decline.
Johnson et al. (2002a, p. 157) and Bowerman and Johnson (2003, pp. 142-
144) have found deformities in Oregon spotted frogs caused by this
parasite at the Sunriver Nature Center Pond, which had a high
population of large planorbid snails. Three additional ponds within 6
mi (10 km) were also investigated, each of which supported planorbid
snails, but at lower infestation levels. None of these ponds yielded
malformed Oregon spotted frogs (Bowerman et al. 2003, pp. 142-143).
Most of the malformations found in anuran frogs were around the hind
limbs, where they are more likely to be debilitating (hinder mobility)
and expose the frog to increased risk of predation (reduced escape/
evade ability). (Johnson et al. 2002a, p. 162). In a study on wood
frogs (Rana sylvatica), Michel and Burke (2011) reported malformed
tadpoles were twice as vulnerable to predators because they could not
escape or evade.
Human manipulation of upland areas adjacent to amphibian breeding
areas and direct manipulation of the breeding areas can affect the
prevalence of Planorbella snails and the infection rate of R. ondatrae.
Complex habitats reduce transmission rates of larval trematodes because
these habitats provide more refugia for tadpoles. Alternatively,
simplified habitats, such as agricultural landscapes, have been shown
to reduce parasite prevalence by limiting access of vertebrate hosts,
particularly in birds (King et al. 2007, p. 2074). However, when
simplified habitats are subject to water runoff associated with
agricultural, cattle, or urban sources and eutrophication, the
abundance of snails can increase, thereby increasing the prevalence of
trematodes and parasitic risks to frogs (Johnson and Chase 2004, pp.
522-523; Johnson et al. 2007 p. 15782). While the effects of these
parasite-induced malformations are clear at the individual scale,
population-level effects remain largely uninvestigated. However, Biek
et al. (2002, p. 731) found that the viabilities of pond-breeding
amphibians were most vulnerable to reductions in juvenile or adult
survival relative to other portions of the life cycles. Therefore, it
is reasonable to infer that where Planorbella snails coincide with
Oregon spotted frogs, malformations will occur resulting in mortality
of juvenile frogs and a population decline at that location. At
present, it is not known where these co-occurrences take place, nor how
extensive infections levels may be, but 11 of the occupied sub-basins
have agricultural, cattle, or urban sources that produce runoff that
can increase the snail populations, and negative effects have been
demonstrated at the Sunriver Nature Center Pond population.
Predation
Predation is a process of major importance in influencing the
distribution, abundance, and diversity of species in ecological
communities. Generally, predation leads to changes in both the
population size of the predator and that of the prey. In unfavorable
environments, prey species are stressed or living at low population
densities such that predation is likely to have negative effects on all
prey species, thus lowering species richness. In addition, when a
nonnative predator is introduced to the ecosystem, negative effects on
the prey population may be higher than those from co-evolved native
predators. The effects of predation may be magnified when populations
are small, and the disproportionate effect of predation on declining
populations has been shown to drive rare species even further toward
extinction (Woodworth 1999, pp. 74-75).
Introduced fish species within the historical range of the Oregon
spotted frog may have contributed to losses of populations. Oregon
spotted frogs, which are palatable to fish, did not evolve with these
introduced species and may not have the mechanisms to avoid the
predatory fish that prey on the tadpoles. The warm water microhabitat
requirement of the Oregon spotted frog, unique among native ranids of
the Pacific Northwest, exposes it to a
[[Page 53605]]
number of introduced fish species (Hayes 1994, p. 25), such as
smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), yellow perch (Perca
flavescens), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), brown bullhead (Ameriurus
nebulosus), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), warmouth (Lepomis
gulosus), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss), and fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) (Hayes
and Jennings 1986, pp. 494-496; Hayes 1997, pp. 42-43; Hayes et al.
1997; McAllister and Leonard 1997, p. 14; Engler 1999, pers. comm.).
Surveys from 1993 to 1997 in British Columbia, Washington, and
Oregon documented at least one introduced predator in 20 of 24 sites
(Hayes et al. 1997, p. 5). Brook trout was the most frequently recorded
introduced predator, which was recorded at 18 of 24 sites. Although
differences in temperature requirements between the two species may
limit their interactions, brook trout apparently occur with the Oregon
spotted frog at coldwater springs, where the latter species probably
overwinters and where cooler water is favorable to brook trout (Hayes
et al. 1997, p. 5). During drought years, dropping water levels result
in overlap in habitat use between these two species. As wetland refuges
are reduced, Oregon spotted frogs become concentrated and the larval
stages are exposed to brook trout predation (Hayes et al. 1997, p. 5;
Hayes 1998a, p. 15), resulting in lower Oregon spotted frog recruitment
(Pearl 1999, p. 18). In addition to effects in breeding habitat, Pearl
et al. (2009a, p. 143) found substantial evidence for a negative effect
on overwintering Oregon spotted frogs from nonnative fish with access
to spring and channel habitats. In these latter situations, predation
is believed to be more pronounced in spatially constrained
overwintering habitats where frogs and fish may both seek flowing water
with dissolved oxygen. Their findings suggest that these negative
effects are mediated by habitat complexity and the seasonal use of
microhabitats, and Oregon spotted frogs can benefit from fish-free
overwintering sites, even if fish are present in other local habitats.
Demographic data indicate that sites with significant numbers of
brook trout and/or fathead minnow have a skewed ratio of older spotted
frogs to juvenile frogs, suggesting poor reproductive success or
juvenile recruitment (Hayes 1997, pp. 42-43, 1998a). While experimental
data are sparse, field surveys involving other western amphibians
(e.g., Adams 1999, p. 1168; Monello and Wright 1999, pp. 299-300; Bull
and Marx 2002, pp. 245-247; Vredenberg 2004; Knapp 2005, pp. 275-276;
Pearl et al. 2005b, pp. 82-83) and other closely related frog species
strongly suggest that introduced fish represent a threat to Oregon
spotted frogs that has significant impacts (Pearl 1999, pp. 17-18). A
study of the impacts of introduced trout on Columbia spotted frog
populations in Idaho revealed that, although fish and adult frogs
coexisted at many of the stocked lakes, most stocked lakes contained
significantly lower densities of all amphibian life stages (Pilliod and
Peterson 2001, p. 326). On the other hand, preliminary results from the
Willamette Valley in Oregon suggest that nonnative, warm water fishes
actually benefit introduced populations of bullfrogs because of fish
predation on macroinvertebrates that would otherwise prey on bullfrog
larvae (Adams and Pearl 2003).
The presence of these nonnative species has been shown to increase
the time for metamorphosis and decrease the mass of native red-legged
frogs (Kiesecker and Blaustein 1997). A recent study documented
nonnative fish negatively influencing the survival and growth of
Pacific treefrogs while bullfrog larvae reduced the growth but had no
effect on survival (Preston et al. 2012, p. 1257). In addition, the
predation effects of nonnative fish and bullfrogs on Pacific tree frogs
were additive, but those species had little impact on each other
(Preston et al. 2012, p. 1259). Many of the sub-basins occupied by
Oregon spotted frogs also have introduced warm- and/or cold-water fish,
and 5 of the 15 sub-basins are subject to high to very high impacts due
to predation of larvae and reduced winter survival.
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) stocks fish in
most of the Cascades Lakes and two reservoirs in the Upper Deschutes
River sub-basin occupied by Oregon spotted frogs (Hodgson 2012, pers.
comm.). In addition to stocking, there is natural production of various
fish species, both native and introduced, in the lakes and reservoirs
in the Upper Deschutes River sub-basin and in lakes in the McKenzie
River and Middle Fork Willamette sub-basins where spotted frogs occur
(Hodgson 2012, pers. comm.; Ziller 2013, pers. comm.; USFS 2011). ODFW
no longer stocks fish in any of the moving waters associated with
Oregon spotted frog locations within the Klamath Basin (Tinniswood
2012, pers. comm.).
Bullfrogs introduced from eastern North America into the historical
range of the Oregon spotted frog may have contributed to losses of
populations. The introduction of bullfrogs may have played a role in
the disappearance of Oregon spotted frogs from the Willamette Valley in
Oregon and the Puget Sound area in Washington (Nussbaum et al. 1983, p.
187). Bullfrogs share similar habitat and temperature requirements with
the Oregon spotted frog, and the overlap in time and space between the
two species is believed to be extensive (Hayes 1994, p. 25; Hayes et
al. 1997, p. 5). Bullfrogs can reach high densities due to the
production of large numbers of eggs per breeding female and
unpalatability (and high survivorship) of tadpoles to predatory fish
(Kruse and Francis 1977, pp. 250-251). Bullfrog tadpoles outcompete or
displace tadpoles of native frog species from their habitat or optimal
conditions (Kupferberg 1997, pp. 1741-1746, Kiesecker and Blaustein
1998, pp. 783-784, Kiesecker et al. 2001b, pp. 1966-1967).
Bullfrog adults achieve larger size than native western ranids and
even juvenile bullfrogs can consume native frogs (Hayes and Jennings
1986, p. 492; Pearl et al. 2004, p. 16). The digestive tracts of a
sample of 25 adult bullfrogs from Conboy Lake in Washington contained
nine Oregon spotted frogs, including seven adults (McAllister and
Leonard 1997, p. 13). A later examination of the stomachs of two large
bullfrogs revealed two adult or subadult Oregon spotted frogs in one
stomach and four in the second (Hayes 1999, pers. comm.). Bullfrogs
were recorded consuming hatchling Oregon spotted frogs at British
Columbia's Maintenance Detachment Aldergrove site (Haycock and Woods
2001, unpubl. data cited in COSFRT 2012, p. 19). In addition, USGS has
observed Oregon spotted frogs within dissected bullfrogs at multiple
sites throughout the Deschutes and Klamath Basins (Pearl 2012, pers
comm.).
Oregon spotted frogs are more susceptible to predation by bullfrogs
than are northern red-legged frogs (Pearl et al. 2004, p. 16). Oregon
spotted frogs and northern red-legged frogs historically coexisted in
areas of the Pacific Northwest that are now invaded by bullfrogs.
However, the Oregon spotted frog has declined more severely than the
northern red-legged frog. Pearl et al. (2004, p. 16) demonstrated in
laboratory experiments that the more aquatic Oregon spotted frog
juveniles are consumed by bullfrogs at a higher rate than are northern
red-legged frog juveniles. Oregon spotted frogs and
[[Page 53606]]
northern red-legged frogs also differ in their ability to escape
bullfrogs, with Oregon spotted frogs having shorter mean and maximum
jump distances than northern red-legged frogs of equal size. Bullfrogs,
therefore, pose a greater threat to Oregon spotted frogs than to red-
legged frogs. Oregon spotted frog's microhabitat use and escape
abilities may be limiting their distributions in historical lowland
habitats where bullfrogs are present, whereas red-legged frog
populations are more stable (Pearl et al. 2004, pp. 17-18).
The ability of bullfrogs and Oregon spotted frogs to coexist may be
related to differences in seasonal and permanent wetland use. However,
a substantial bullfrog population has likely coexisted with Oregon
spotted frogs for nearly 50 years in Conboy Lake in Washington
(Rombough et al. 2006, p. 210). This long-term overlap has been
hypothesized to be the evolutionary driver for larger body size of
Oregon spotted frogs at Conboy Lake (Rombough et al. 2006, p. 210). On
the other hand, Oregon spotted frogs at Trout Lake NAP in Washington
also exhibit body sizes that exceed the general mean and range for the
species elsewhere but do not co-occur with bullfrogs. Winterkill could
be a factor in controlling the bullfrog population at Conboy Lake and,
hence, facilitating co-existence with Oregon spotted frogs (Engler and
Hayes 1998, p. 2); however, the Oregon spotted frog population at
Conboy Lake has declined over the last decade, some of which is likely
due to bullfrog predation. Bullfrogs have been actively controlled in
the Sunriver area in Oregon for more than 40 years, and despite efforts
to eradicate them, they have been expanding in distribution (Bowerman
2012, pers. comm.). Bullfrogs have been documented up to 4,300 feet
(1,311 m) elevation in the Little Deschutes River sub-basin in habitat
occupied by Oregon spotted frog. Bullfrogs have been found in 10 of the
15 sub-basins occupied by Oregon spotted frogs, but are relatively rare
at most of the locations where they co-occur. However, based on our
threats analysis, the impacts due to predation and/or competition with
bullfrogs within the Lower Fraser River, Middle Klickitat sub-basins in
Washington, and the Upper Klamath Lake sub-basin in Oregon are
considered to be high to very high because of the more extensive
overlap between these two species in these areas.
Green frogs (Lithobates clamitans) are native to the eastern United
States but have been introduced to the western United States and
Canada. This introduced species occurs at a few lakes in Whatcom
County, Washington (McAllister 1995; WDFW WSDM database), but Oregon
spotted frogs are not known to occur in these lakes. Green frogs do co-
occur with Oregon spotted frogs at Maria and Mountain Sloughs in
British Columbia (COSEWIC 2011, p. 36). Adult green frogs may eat young
Oregon spotted frogs, but adult Oregon spotted frogs may reach a size
that is too large to be prey for the species. Whether green frogs are
significant competitors of Oregon spotted frogs is currently unknown.
High population densities of green frogs possibly attract and maintain
higher than normal population densities of native predators, which in
turn increases predation pressure on Oregon spotted frogs (Canadian
Recovery Team 2012, p. 19).
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Disease or Predation
Despite considerable knowledge about the habitat and management
requirements for Oregon spotted frog, refuge management at the Conboy
Lakes National Wildlife Refuge remains complex as habitat needs and the
abatement of other stressors often conflict with the conventional
intensive wetland management that occurs on the refuge (USFWS, 2010b,
p. 64). The historical Conboy Lake basin in Washington likely retained
water for 10 to 12 months in most years. Currently, it retains water
only during wet years and is drained annually by the Conboy Lake NWR to
control bullfrogs for the benefit of Oregon spotted frogs. However, the
draining of the lakebed forces all surviving bullfrogs, fish, and
Oregon spotted frogs into the canal system for the fall and winter,
increasing potential predation for Oregon spotted frogs.
In the Upper and Little Deschutes River sub-basins in Oregon, there
has been little effort to control invasive predators. Bullfrog
eradication has been attempted at two sites within the Upper and Little
Deschutes sub-basins: Sunriver and Crosswater, respectively. However,
it appears that bullfrogs may be increasing in the Sunriver area
(Bowerman 2012, pers. comm.).
Current predator or disease conservation efforts in the Klamath
Basin in Oregon are limited to bullfrog control or eradication. U.S.
Geological Survey has conducted a bullfrog eradication program on Crane
Creek since bullfrogs appeared in 2010. In addition, the BLM has been
controlling and reducing bullfrogs and analyzing the gut contents of
bullfrogs at all life stages on their Wood River property in Oregon for
6 years. Bullfrog detections and collection have decreased in different
areas of the canal in recent years (Roninger 2012, pers. comm.). The
number of bullfrogs removed and seen at this site has decreased, and in
the last few years, the bulk of the bullfrog removal has been from the
north canal and Seven-mile canal areas (outside the Oregon spotted frog
site), which is considered to be the strongest source areas for
movement into the Oregon spotted frog site (Roninger 2012, pers. comm).
However, despite these efforts, bullfrogs continue to persist in these
Oregon spotted frog habitats.
Summary of disease and predation--Saprolegnia, Bd, and Ribeiroia
ondatrae have been found in Oregon spotted frogs and compounded with
other stressors, such as UV-B exposure, degradation of habitat quality,
or increased predation pressure, may contribute to population declines.
Bd and R. ondatrae, in particular, infect post-metamorphic frogs and
reductions in these life stages are more likely to lead to population
declines in pond-breeding amphibians; however, these are not currently
known to be causing population declines in Oregon spotted frogs.
Disease continues to be a concern, but more information is needed to
determine the severity of impact that diseases may have on Oregon
spotted frogs. Therefore, based on the best available scientific
evidence, we have no information to indicate that disease is a known
threat to the Oregon spotted frog.
Introduced fish species prey on tadpoles, negatively affect
overwintering habitat, and can significantly threaten Oregon spotted
frog populations, especially during droughts, as aquatic habitat areas
become smaller and escape cover is reduced. Cushman et al. 2007 (p. 22)
states that both Hayes (1997) and Pearl (1999) hypothesized that low
water conditions have the potential to increase overlap between Oregon
spotted frog and nonnative predators such as brook trout and bullfrogs.
Increased overlap in habitat use between Oregon spotted frog and
nonnative predators is likely to result in greater loss to predation.
Bullfrogs (and likely green frogs) prey on juvenile and adult Oregon
spotted frogs and bullfrog larvae can outcompete or displace Oregon
spotted frog larvae, effectively reducing all Oregon spotted frog life
stages and posing a significant threat to Oregon spotted frogs. At
least one nonnative predaceous species occurs within each of the sub-
basins currently occupied by Oregon spotted frogs, and most sub-basins
have multiple predators. Nine of the 15 occupied sub-basins are
currently experiencing moderate to very high impacts due to
[[Page 53607]]
predation, and threats from predators are more concentrated in summer/
rearing and overwintering habitat. While some predator control occurs
in a few sub-basins, this work is not sufficient to ameliorate the
threat from predators. Therefore, the threats to Oregon spotted frogs
from predation are occurring throughout the entire range of the species
and are expected to continue into the future.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Under this factor, we examine whether existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to address the threats to the species
discussed under the other factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act
requires the Service to take into account ``those efforts, if any,
being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision
of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species . . . .'' In
relation to Factor D under the Act, we interpret this language to
require the Service to consider relevant Federal, State, and tribal
laws, regulations, and other such mechanisms that may minimize any of
the threats we describe in threat analyses under the other four
factors, or otherwise enhance conservation of the species. We give
strongest weight to statutes and their implementing regulations and to
management direction that stems from those laws and regulations. An
example would be State governmental actions enforced under a State
statute or constitution, or Federal action under statute.
Having evaluated the significance of the threat as mitigated by any
such conservation efforts, we analyze under Factor D the extent to
which existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to address the
specific threats to the species. Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist,
may reduce or eliminate the impacts from one or more identified
threats. In this section, we review existing State and Federal
regulatory mechanisms to determine whether they effectively reduce or
remove threats to the Oregon spotted frog.
Canadian Laws and Regulations
In Canada, few regulatory mechanisms protect or conserve Oregon
spotted frogs. In British Columbia, Oregon spotted frogs are on the
Conservation Data Centre's Red List. The Red List includes ecological
communities, indigenous species and subspecies that are extirpated,
endangered, or threatened in British Columbia; placing taxa on the Red
List flags them as being at risk and requiring investigation, but does
not confer any protection (British Columbia Ministry of Environment
2012, p. 1).
The Oregon spotted frog was determined to be endangered by the
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada in 1999, with
status reexamined and confirmed in 2000 and 2011, and it received an
endangered determination under the Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA)
in 2003 (COSFRT 2012, p. 1). SARA makes it an offense to kill, harm,
harass, capture or take an individual of a listed species that is
extirpated, endangered or threatened; or to possess, collect, buy, sell
or trade an individual of a listed species that is extirpated,
endangered or threatened, or any part or derivative of such an
individual (S.C. ch 29 section 32); or damage or destroy the residence
of one or more individuals of a listed endangered or threatened species
or of a listed extirpated species if a recovery strategy has
recommended its reintroduction (S.C. ch 29 sections 33, 58). The
prohibitions on harm to individuals and destruction of residences are
limited to Federal lands. Three of the four breeding locations in
Canada occur wholly or partially on private lands, which are not
subject to SARA prohibitions (COSEWIC 2011, p. 38).
Habitat protection in British Columbia is limited to the Federal
Fisheries Act, British Columbia Water Act, and the provincial Riparian
Areas Regulation (COSEWIC 2011, p. 38). The Fisheries Act limits
activities that can cause harmful alteration, disruption, or
destruction of fish habitat, with the primary goal being no net loss of
fish habitat. The Water Act is the principal law for managing the
diversion and use of provincial water resources. License holders are
entitled to divert and use water; store water; construct, maintain, and
operate anything capable of or used for the proper diversion, storage,
carriage, distribution, and use of the water or the power produced from
it; alter or improve a stream or channel for any purpose; and construct
fences, screens, and fish or game guards across streams for the purpose
of conserving fish and wildlife (Water Act Part 2, section 5). The
Riparian Areas Regulation was enacted under Section 12 of the Fish
Protection Act and calls on local governments to protect riparian fish
habitat during residential, commercial, and industrial development. The
habitat protections under these Acts are designed to benefit fish
species. As discussed under Factor A, riparian protection and
restoration actions designed specifically to benefit fish can be
detrimental to Oregon spotted frogs and their habitat.
United States Federal Laws and Regulations
No Federal laws specifically protect the Oregon spotted frog.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is the primary Federal law that is
relevant to the Oregon spotted frog's aquatic habitat. Through a permit
process under section 404, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the
United States, including navigable waters and wetlands that may contain
Oregon spotted frogs. However, many actions highly detrimental to
Oregon spotted frogs and their habitats, such as irrigation diversion
structure construction and maintenance and other activities associated
with ongoing farming operations in existing cropped wetlands, are
exempt from Clean Water Act requirements.
In Washington and Oregon, current section 404 regulations provide
for the issuance of nationwide permits for at least 15 of the 52
categories of activities identified under the nationwide permit program
(USACOE 2012a, pp. 1-46), which, for example, could result in the
permanent loss of up to 500 ft (150 m) of streambank and 1 ac (0.4 ha)
of wetlands (USACOE 2012a, 2012b, 2012c). Projects authorized under a
nationwide permit receive minimal public and agency review, and in many
cases, agency notification is not required. Individual permits are
subject to a more rigorous review, and may be required for nationwide
permit activities with more than minimal impacts. Under both the
individual and nationwide permit programs, no activities can be
authorized if they are likely to directly or indirectly (1) jeopardize
the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species, or a
species proposed for designation, or (2) destroy or adversely modify
the critical habitat of such species, unless section 7 consultation
addressing the effects of the proposed activity has been completed.
During section 7 consultation, effects to the species itself and
aquatic habitat/wetlands would be considered.
For nationwide permits, Corps notification may not be required
depending upon the project type and the amount of wetland to be
impacted. Impacts to wetlands may be authorized with no compensatory
mitigation in some cases. In other cases, wetland impacts may be
authorized if the permittee demonstrates the project footprint has been
designed to avoid most wetland impacts and unavoidable impacts can be
adequately mitigated through wetland creation, restoration, or
[[Page 53608]]
enhancement. For example, nationwide permits authorize the discharge of
fill material into 0.25 ac (0.1 ha) of wetlands with no requirement for
compensatory mitigation. In situations where compensatory wetland
mitigation is required, in kind mitigation is preferred but not
required.
A Washington State wetland mitigation evaluation study (Johnson et
al. (2002b, entire) found a resulting net loss of wetlands with or
without compensatory mitigation, because wetland creation and
enhancement projects were minimally successful or not successful in
implementation nor in achieving their ecologically relevant measures.
In Washington, mitigation sites within the South Fork Nooksack, Samish,
and Black River sub-basins have been designed to improve water quality
by planting trees and shrubs. Some of these activities have been
conducted in Oregon spotted frog breeding habitat. Therefore, an
activity that fills Oregon spotted frog habitat could be mitigated by
restoring and or creating riparian habitat suitable for fish, but which
is not suitable for frogs. In general, most riparian habitat
restoration in Washington is targeted toward salmon species and does
not include floodplain depression wetlands.
State Laws and Regulations
Washington--Although there is no State Endangered Species Act in
Washington, the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission has the
authority to list species (RCW 77.12.020). State-listed species are
protected from direct take, but their habitat is not protected (RCW
77.15.120). The Oregon spotted frog was listed as a State endangered
species in Washington in August 1997 (Watson et al. 1998, p. 1; 2003,
p. 292; WAC 232-12-014). State listings generally consider only the
status of the species within the State's borders, and do not depend
upon the same considerations as a potential Federal listing. Unoccupied
or unsurveyed habitat is not protected unless by County ordinances or
other similar rules or laws.
Oregon spotted frogs are a Priority Species under Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife's (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species
Program (WDFW 2008, pp. 68). As a Priority Species, the Oregon spotted
frog may receive some protection of its habitat under environmental
reviews of applications for county or municipal development permits and
through implementation of Priority Habitats and Species management
recommendations. Priority Habitat and Species Management
Recommendations for this species include maintaining stable water
levels and natural flow rates; maintaining vegetation along stream
banks or pond edges; avoidance of introducing nonnative amphibians,
reptiles, or fish; avoidance of removing algae from rearing areas;
avoiding alteration of muddy substrates; controlling stormwater runoff
away from frog habitat; avoiding application of pesticides in or
adjacent to water bodies used by Oregon spotted frogs; and surveying
within the historical range of the species (Nordstrom and Milner 1997,
pp. 6-5-6-6).
The Clean Water Act of 1972 requires States to set water quality
standards to protect beneficial uses, identify sources of pollution in
waters that fail to meet State water quality standards (Section
303(d)), and to develop water quality plans to address those
pollutants. Although the Clean Water Act is a Federal law, authority
for implementing this law has been delegated to the State. Washington
State adopted revised water quality standards for temperature and
intergravel dissolved oxygen in December 2006, and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) approved these revised standards in February
2008 (EPA 2008). Although candidate species were not the focus,
proponents believed that the proposed standards would likely protect
native aquatic species. The temperature standards are intended to
restore thermal regimes to protect sensitive native salmonids, and, if
temperature is not a limiting factor in sustaining viable salmonid
populations, other native species would likely be protected (EPA 2007,
p. 14).
The State has developed water quality plans for the Lower Nooksack,
Samish, and Upper Chehalis Rivers; however, as of 2008 (most recent
freshwater listing), portions of the Sumas River; Black Slough in the
S.F. Nooksack River sub-basin; portions of the Samish River; segments
of the Black River; segments of Dempsey, Allen, and Beaver Creeks in
the Black River drainage, and a segment in the upper portion of Trout
Lake Creek were listed by the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE)
as not meeting water quality standards for a variety of parameters,
including temperature, fecal coliform, pH, and dissolved oxygen (see
Factor E). In addition, for the streams/rivers where the temperature or
fecal coliform standard is exceeded, the water quality plans call for
planting trees and shrubs and excluding cattle, which would not be
conducive to the creation and maintenance of early seral stage
conditions (i.e., emergent vegetation) necessary for Oregon spotted
frog egg-laying habitat (see Factor A).
Oregon--Oregon has a State Endangered Species Act, but the Oregon
spotted frog is not State listed. Although this species is on the
Oregon sensitive species list and is considered critically sensitive,
this designation provides little protection (ODFW 1996, OAR 635-100-
0040). Once an Oregon ``native wildlife'' species is federally listed
as threatened or endangered, it is included as a State-listed species
and receives some protection and management, primarily on State owned
or managed lands (OAR 635-100-0100 to OAR 635-100-0180; ORS 496.171 to
ORS 496.192).
Although the Clean Water Act is a Federal law, authority for
implementing this law has been delegated to the State. Oregon adopted
revised water quality standards for temperature, intergravel dissolved
oxygen, and anti-degradation in December 2003, and EPA approved these
revised standards in March 2004 (EPA 2004). Although candidate species
were not the focus, it was believed that the proposed standards would
likely protect native aquatic species. The proposed temperature
standards are intended to restore thermal regimes to protect sensitive
native salmonids and, if temperature is not a limiting factor in
sustaining viable salmonid populations, other native species would
likely be protected (EPA 2004). In December 2012, EPA approved
additions to Oregon's 303(d) list, which includes waterbodies that do
not meet water quality standards for multiple parameters (ODEQ 2012).
Many of the streams associated with Oregon spotted frog habitat are
303(d) listed by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (see
Factor E).
Oregon's Removal-Fill Law (ORS 196.795-990) requires people who
plan to remove or fill material in waters of the State to obtain a
permit from the Department of State Lands. Wetlands and waterways in
Oregon are protected by both State and Federal laws. Projects impacting
waters often require both a State removal-fill permit, issued by the
Department of State Lands (DSL), and a Federal permit issued by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). A permit is required only if 50
cubic yards (cy) or more of fill or removal will occur. The removal
fill law does not regulate the draining of wetlands (see Local Laws and
Regulations below).
Local Laws and Regulations
Washington--The Washington Shoreline Management Act's purpose is
``to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal
development of the State's shorelines.'' Shorelines are defined as: all
marine waters; streams and rivers with greater
[[Page 53609]]
than 20 cfs (0.6 cms) mean annual flow; lakes 20 ac or larger; upland
areas called shorelands that extend 200 ft (61 m) landward from the
edge of these waters; and the following areas when they are associated
with one of the previous shorelines: biological wetlands and river
deltas, and some or all of the 100-year floodplain, including all
wetlands within the 100-year floodplain. Each city and county with
``shorelines of the state'' must prepare and adopt a Shoreline Master
Program (SMP) that is based on State laws and rules but is tailored to
the specific geographic, economic, and environmental needs of the
community. The local SMP is essentially a shoreline-specific combined
comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and development permit system.
The Washington State Growth Management Act of 1990 requires all
jurisdictions in the State to designate and protect critical areas. The
State defines five broad categories of critical areas, including (a)
wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used
for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas;
(d) frequently flooded areas; and (e) geologically hazardous areas. The
County Area Ordinance (CAO) is the county regulation that most directly
addresses protection of the critical areas mapped by each county.
Frequently, local government will have adopted zoning regulations
and comprehensive land use plans that apply both within and outside
shoreline areas. When these codes are applied within the shoreline
area, there may be differences in the zoning regulations and the plan
policies as compared with the regulations and policies of the SMP.
Because the SMP is technically a State law (i.e., WAC), the
requirements of the SMP will prevail in the event of a conflict with
the local zoning or plan. Generally, however, a conflict will not exist
if the zoning or plan requirements are more protective of the shoreline
environment than the SMP. For example, if the zoning district allows a
density of one unit per acre, and the SMP allows a density of two units
per, the requirements of the more restrictive code would prevail.
Within each county in Washington, the SMP and CAO are the
regulations that most directly address protection of Oregon spotted
frog habitat. A brief discussion of the current SMPs and CAOs for the
five counties where Oregon spotted frogs are known to occur follows.
Whatcom County: Whatcom County updated its Shoreline Management
Program in 2008. Based on interpretation of the 2008 SMP, the known
Oregon spotted frog occupied locations in the Lower Chilliwack or South
Fork Nooksack River sub-basins are not ``shorelines.'' Samish River
within Whatcom County is designated as Conservancy Shoreline that
provides specific allowed uses and setbacks. Presently, the two primary
uses of this area are agricultural and residential, both of which are
allowed under the SMP, with some restrictions. Restrictions include
shoreline setbacks of 15-20 ft (4.5-6.1 m) and allowance of no more
than 10 percent impervious surface (although it is uncertain whether
this is applicable on a per-project, per-acre, or per-basin basis). One
of the allowed uses is restoration, which is focused on recovery of
salmon and bull trout. Many of the restoration actions targeting salmon
and bull trout recovery are not conducive to maintaining early seral
vegetation stages necessary to maintain Oregon spotted frog egg-laying
habitat. Some activities would require a permit that must be reviewed
and approved by Whatcom County and the Washington Department of Ecology
for consistency.
The Whatcom County CAO that is the most relevant to Oregon spotted
frogs applies to wetland areas, which are present in the three sub-
basins where Oregon spotted frogs occur in this county. Activities in
all wetlands are regulated unless the wetland is \1/10\ ac or smaller
in size; however, activities that can destroy or modify Oregon spotted
frog habitat can still occur under the existing CAO. Activities that
are conditionally allowed include surface water discharge; storm water
management facilities; storm water conveyance or discharge facilities;
public roads, bridges, and trails; single-family developments; and
onsite sewage disposal systems. Buffers and mitigation are required,
but can be adjusted by the county. In general, wetlands and the
associated wetland buffer CAOs target an avoidance strategy, which may
not be beneficial to the maintenance of Oregon spotted frog early seral
stage habitat on a long-term basis in areas where reed canarygrass is
present. Within the areas occupied by Oregon spotted frogs in the three
sub-basins, all egg-laying habitat is within seasonally flooded areas,
which may or may not be defined as wetlands. Rather than an avoidance
strategy, these areas may require management actions to remove reed
canarygrass in order to maintain egg-laying habitat and provide for
Oregon spotted frog persistence. Within Whatcom County, protective
measures for Oregon spotted frogs are afforded under both the SMP and
the CAOs, although no measures are specifically directed toward this
species.
Skagit County: Skagit County's revisions to its SMP are under
review and anticipated to be adopted by June 2013
(www.skagitcounty.net). Until the revised SMP is approved by WDOE, the
1976 SMP remains in effect. The portion of the Samish River in Skagit
County is designated as Rural Shoreline Area, and typified by low
overall structural density, and low to moderate intensity of
agriculture, residential development, outdoor recreation, and forestry
operations uses. This designation is intended to maintain open spaces
and opportunities for recreational activities and a variety of uses
compatible with agriculture and the shoreline environment. Presently,
the two primary uses of the Samish River where Oregon spotted frog
occur are agricultural and residential. With some restrictions, almost
all activities are allowed within this designation, and the draining of
wetlands is not prohibited. Agricultural users are encouraged to retain
vegetation along stream banks. Developments and sand and gravel
extractions are allowed provided they are compatible with agricultural
uses. These types of activities can be detrimental to Oregon spotted
frog egg-laying habitat.
The Skagit County CAO designates lands adjacent to the Samish River
where Oregon spotted frogs are known to occur as Rural Resource or
Agricultural. These land designations and the associated allowed
activities are intended to provide some protection of hydrological
functions, but they are primarily designed to retain a rural setting
(low residential density) or to ensure the stability and productivity
of agriculture and forestry in the county, which has some benefits to
the Oregon spotted frog.
Thurston County: Thurston County's revision of its SMP is currently
under way, and until the revised SMP is completed and approved, the
1990 SMP remains in effect. The majority of the areas within the Black
River that are known to be occupied by Oregon spotted frogs are either
undesignated (primarily the tributaries) or designated as Natural or
Conservancy Environments. Two small areas are designated as Urban at
the town of Littlerock and along Beaver Creek. Fish Pond Creek, a known
Oregon spotted frog breeding location, is within the designated Urban
Growth Area. Within the Natural Environment designation areas, most
activity types are prohibited, although livestock grazing, low-
intensity recreation, low-density (\1/10\ ac)
[[Page 53610]]
residences, and conditional shoreline alterations are allowed. Within
Conservancy Environments, most activities are conditionally allowed,
and would require a permit that must be reviewed and approved by
Thurston County and WDOE for consistency with the SMP.
Thurston County approved a revision to the CAO in July 2012. The
Thurston County CAO that is the most relevant to Oregon spotted frogs
addresses Wetlands, although the 100-year floodplain and Channel
Migration Zone designations are also applicable. Activities in most
wetlands are regulated, other than those less than or equal to 1,000
square feet in size. As a result, activities that can destroy or modify
Oregon spotted frog habitat may still occur, such as asphalt batch
plant construction, new agricultural uses, boat ramps, docks, piers,
floats, bridge or culvert projects, clearing-grading-excavation
activities, and dredging/removal operations. Buffers and mitigation are
required, but can be adjusted by the county. In general, wetlands and
the associated wetland buffer CAOs strive toward a no-management
approach, which may not be beneficial to the maintenance of Oregon
spotted frog early seral stage habitat on a long-term basis. Within the
areas occupied by Oregon spotted frogs in the Black River, all egg-
laying habitat is within seasonally flooded areas, which may or may not
be defined as wetlands. Rather than an avoidance strategy, these areas
may require management actions to remove reed canarygrass in order to
maintain egg-laying habitat. Within Thurston County, protective
measures for Oregon spotted frogs are afforded under both the SMP and
CAOs, although no measures are specifically directed toward this
species.
Skamania County: Skamania County's revision to its SMP is under
way, and until revised, the 1980 SMP is in effect. According to the
1980 SMP, Trout Lake Creek is not a shoreline of Skamania County. The
portions of Trout Lake Creek that are in Skamania County have no
designated critical areas. Therefore, the SMP and CAO are not
applicable to Oregon spotted frog habitat in Skamania County.
Klickitat County: Klickitat County's SMP was adopted in 1998 and
revised in 2007. Based on the 2007 SMP, only Trout Lake Creek is
considered a ``shoreline,'' and within the area occupied by Oregon
spotted frogs, regulations for both Natural and Conservancy
Environments apply. Within the Natural Environments, most activity
types are prohibited, except for nonintensive pasturing or grazing,
recreation (access trails/passive uses), bulkheads (conditional uses),
and shoreline alterations (conditional). Within Conservancy
Environments, most activities are conditionally allowed, and require a
permit that must be reviewed and approved by Klickitat County and WDOE
for consistency.
Klickitat County's CAO was adopted in 2001 and amended in 2004.
Mapping of critical areas was not available, so our analysis includes
only wetlands provisions. Activities in all wetlands greater than 2,500
square ft (232 square m) in size are regulated; however, some
activities are exempted, including agricultural uses and maintenance of
surface water systems (for example, irrigation and drainage ditches).
These types of activities can destroy or modify Oregon spotted frog
habitat. Buffers and mitigation are required, but can be adjusted by
the county. In general, wetlands and the associated wetland buffer CAOs
strive toward a no-management approach, which may result in the loss of
Oregon spotted frog early seral stage habitat on a long-term basis.
Within the areas occupied by Oregon spotted frogs in Klickitat County,
all egg-laying habitat is within seasonally flooded areas, which may or
may not be defined as wetlands. Rather than an avoidance strategy,
these areas may require management actions to remove reed canarygrass
in order to maintain egg-laying habitat. Within Klickitat County,
protective measures for Oregon spotted frogs are afforded under both
the SMP and CAOs, although no measures are specifically directed toward
this species.
Oregon--In Oregon, the Land Conservation and Development Commission
in 1974 adopted Goal 5 as a broad statewide planning goal that covers
more than a dozen resources, including wildlife habitats and natural
areas. Goal 5 and related Oregon Administrative Rules (Chapter 660,
Divisions 16 and 23) describe how cities and counties are to plan and
zone land to conserve resources listed in the goal. Goal 5 is a
required planning process that allows local governments to make
decisions about land use regulations and whether to protect the
individual resources based upon potential conflicts involving economic,
social, environmental, and energy consequences. It does not require
minimum levels of protections for natural resources, but does require
weighing the various impacts to resources from land use.
Counties in Oregon within the range of Oregon spotted frog may have
zoning ordinances that reflect protections set forth during the Goal 5
planning process. The following will briefly discuss these within each
county where Oregon spotted frogs are currently known to occur.
Deschutes County: In accordance with the State-wide planning
process discussed above (State Regulations and Laws--Oregon), Deschutes
County completed a Comprehensive Plan in 1979, which was updated in
2011, although Oregon spotted frog habitat is not included within the
Comprehensive Plan as a Goal 5 resource site. The Comprehensive Plan is
implemented primarily through zoning. Deschutes County zoning
ordinances that regulate the removal and fill of wetlands (18.128.270),
development within the floodplain (18.96.100) and siting of structures
within 100 ft (30 m) of streams may provide indirect protections to
Oregon spotted frog habitat on private lands along the Upper and Little
Deschutes Rivers. The Deschutes County zoning regulations do not
regulate the draining of wetlands or hydrologic modifications, and the
Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL) regulates only actions that
involve more than 50 cubic yards (cy) (38 m\3\) of wetland removal.
Therefore, development associated with small wetland removals is
neither regulated under the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan nor
Oregon DSL (See DSL discussion above), which could negatively impact
Oregon spotted frog habitat.
Klamath County: Article 57 of the Klamath County Comprehensive Plan
Policy (KCCPP) and associated Klamath County Development Code mandates
provisions to preserve significant natural and cultural resources;
address the economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences of
conflicting uses upon significant natural and cultural resources; and
permit development in a manner that does not adversely impact
identified resource values (KCDC 2005, p. 197). This plan identifies
significant wetlands, riparian areas, Class I streams, and fish habitat
as a significant resource and identifies potentially conflicting uses
including shoreline development or alteration, removal of riparian
vegetation, filling or removing material, in-stream modification,
introduction of pollutants, water impoundments, and drainage or
channelization (KCCPP 2005, pp. 33-34, KCDC 2005, p. 199). All land
uses that represent these conflicting uses are reviewed and applicants
must clearly demonstrate that the proposed use will not negatively
impact the resource (KCDC 2005, p. 200; KCCPP 2005, p. 25). However,
all accepted farm
[[Page 53611]]
practices or forest practices are exempt from this provision (KCDC
2005, p. 198), including (but not limited to) buildings, wineries,
mineral exploration, and under certain circumstances, the establishment
of golf courses and agricultural and commercial industries (KCDC 2005,
pp. 160-163; 176-177). If any of these practices disturb less than 50
cy (38.2 m\3\) of wetlands, they are not regulated by either KC CPP or
Oregon DSL (See DSL discussion above). Therefore, the development
associated with small wetland removals could negatively impact Oregon
spotted frog habitat.
Jackson County: No specific county regulations pertain to wetlands
within Jackson County ordinances. This county relies on the Oregon DSL
to regulate the development and protection of wetlands (see DSL
discussion above) (Skyles 2012, pers. comm.).
Summary of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The existing regulatory mechanisms described above are not
sufficient to reduce or remove threats to the Oregon spotted frog
habitat, particularly habitat loss and degradation. The lack of
essential habitat protection under Federal, State, Provincial, and
local laws leaves this species at continued risk of habitat loss and
degradation in British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon. The review of
impacts to wetlands under the Clean Water Act is minimal, and several
occupied sub-basins in Washington and Oregon do not meet water quality
standards. In many cases, laws and regulations that pertain to
retention and restoration of wetland and riverine areas are designed to
be beneficial to fish species, specifically salmonids, resulting in the
unintentional elimination or degradation of Oregon spotted frog
habitat. For example, CAOs in some Washington counties prohibit grazing
within the riparian corridor, which is an active management technique
used to control invasive reed canarygrass.
Additional regulatory flexibility would be desirable for actively
maintaining habitat in those areas essential for the conservation of
Oregon spotted frog. We note that the area where these potential
incompatibilities apply are limited in scope (i.e., approximately 5,000
ac (2,000 ha) and 20 mi (33 km) along the Black Slough and Sumas,
Samish, and Black Rivers in Washington), because the area inhabited by
Oregon spotted frogs is quite small relative to the extensive range of
salmonids. In other cases, no regulations address threats related to
the draining or development of wetlands or hydrologic modifications,
which can eliminate or degrade Oregon spotted frog habitat. In summary,
degradation of habitat for the Oregon spotted frog is ongoing despite
existing regulatory mechanisms. These regulatory mechanisms have been
insufficient to significantly reduce or remove the threats to the
Oregon spotted frog.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Site Size and Isolation/Population Turnover Rates/Breeding Effort
Concentrations and Site Fidelity
Most species' populations fluctuate naturally in response to
weather events, disease, predation, or other factors. These factors,
however, have less impact on a species with a wide and continuous
distribution. In addition, smaller, isolated populations are generally
more likely to be extirpated by stochastic events and genetic drift
(Lande 1988, pp. 1456-1458). Many of the Oregon spotted frog breeding
locations comprise less than 50 adult frogs, are isolated from other
breeding locations, and may already be stressed by other factors, such
as drought or predation, and are then more vulnerable to random,
naturally occurring events. Where Oregon spotted frog locations have
small population sizes and are isolated, their vulnerability to
extirpation from factors such as fluctuating water levels, disease, and
predation increases.
Funk et al. (2008, p. 205) found low genetic variation in Oregon
spotted frogs, which likely reflects small effective population sizes,
historical or current genetic bottlenecks, and/or low gene flow among
populations. Genetic work by Blouin et al. (2010) indicates low genetic
diversity within and high genetic differentiation among each of the six
Oregon spotted frog groups (British Columbia, Chehalis and Columbia
drainages, Camas Prairie, central Oregon Cascades, and the Klamath
Basin). This pattern of genetic fragmentation is likely caused by low
connectivity between sites and naturally small populations sizes. Gene
flow is very limited between locations, especially if separated by 6 mi
(10 km) or more, and at the larger scale, genetic groups have the
signature of complete isolation (Blouin et al. 2010, p. 2187). At least
two of the locations sampled by Blouin et al. (2010) (Camas Prairie and
Trout Lake) show indications of recent genetic drift.
Modeling across a variety of amphibian taxa suggests that pond-
breeding frogs have high temporal variances of population abundances
and high local extinction rates relative to other groups of amphibians,
with smaller frog populations undergoing disproportionately large
fluctuations in abundance (Green 2003, pp. 339-341). The vulnerability
of Oregon spotted frog egg masses to fluctuating water levels (Hayes et
al. 2000, pp. 10-12; Pearl and Bury 2000, p. 10), the vulnerability of
post-metamorphic stages to predation (Hayes 1994, p. 25), and low
overwintering survival (Hallock and Pearson 2001, p. 8) can contribute
to relatively rapid population turnovers, suggesting Oregon spotted
frogs are particularly vulnerable to local extirpations from stochastic
events and chronic sources of mortality (Pearl and Hayes 2004, p. 11).
The term ``rapid population turnovers'' refers to disproportionately
large fluctuations in abundance.
Oregon spotted frogs concentrate their breeding efforts in
relatively few locations (Hayes et al. 2000, pp. 5-6; McAllister and
White 2001, p. 11). For example, Hayes et al. (2000, pp. 5-6) found
that 2 percent of breeding sites accounted for 19 percent of the egg
masses at the Conboy Lake NWR. Similar breeding concentrations have
been found elsewhere in Washington and in Oregon. Moreover, Oregon
spotted frogs exhibit relatively high fidelity to breeding locations,
using the same seasonal pools every year and often using the same egg-
laying sites. In years of extremely high or low water, the frogs may
use alternative sites. For example, the Trout Lake Creek and Conboy
Lake frogs return to traditional breeding areas every year, but the
egg-laying sites change based on water depth at the time of breeding. A
stochastic event that impacts any one of these breeding locations could
significantly reduce the Oregon spotted frog population associated with
that sub-basin.
Egg mass count data suggests a positive correlation and significant
link between site size and Oregon spotted frog breeding population size
(Pearl and Hayes 2004, p. 12). Larger sites are more likely to provide
the seasonal microhabitats required by Oregon spotted frogs, have a
more reliable prey base, and include overwintering habitat. The minimum
amount of habitat thought to be required to maintain an Oregon spotted
frog population is about 10 ac (4 ha) (Hayes 1994, Part II pp. 5 and
7). Smaller sites generally have a small number of frogs and, as
described above, are more vulnerable to extirpation. Some sites in
Oregon are at or below the 10-ac (4-ha) threshold; however, Pearl and
Hayes (2004, p. 14)
[[Page 53612]]
believe that these sites were historically subpopulations within a
larger breeding complex and Oregon spotted frogs may only be persisting
in these small sites because the sites exchange migrants or seasonal
habitat needs are provided nearby.
Movement studies suggest Oregon spotted frogs are limited in their
overland dispersal and potential to recolonize sites. Most Oregon
spotted frog movements are associated with aquatic connections (Watson
et al. 2003, p. 295; Pearl and Hayes 2004, p. 15). However, within 10
of the 15 occupied sub-basins, one or more of the known breeding
locations are isolated and separated by at least 3.1 mi (5 km) (see
Life History) and within 9 of the 15 sub-basins, one or more of the
known breeding locations are isolated and separated by at least 6 mi
(10 km), the distance over which gene flow is extremely low (see
Taxonomy). In many instances the intervening habitat lacks the
substantial hydrological connections that would allow Oregon spotted
frog movement. In addition, widespread predaceous fish introductions
within these corridors pose a very high risk to frogs that do try to
move between known locations. Therefore, should a stochastic event
occur that results in the extirpation of an area, natural
recolonization is unlikely unless another known location is
hydrologically connected and within 3.1 mi (5 km).
In British Columbia, the distance between the Morris Valley,
Mountain Slough, and Maria Slough locations is about 8 km and each of
these locations is 50-60 km from Maintenance Detachment Aldergrove,
making all of the known populations isolated from one another (COSFRT
2012, p. 15). In addition, suitable wetland habitat between any two of
these locations is highly fragmented, and movement between populations
is unlikely to occur. Based on this information and the small number of
breeding individuals (less than 350), the Canadian Oregon spotted frog
recovery team found that the risk from demographic and environmental
stochastic events is high and could result in further local
extirpations (COSFRT 2012, p. v).
In five of the six extant sub-basins in Washington, Oregon spotted
frogs are restricted to one watershed within the sub-basin. Within four
of these sub-basins (South Fork Nooksack, Samish, White Salmon, and
Middle Klickitat Rivers), the known egg-laying locations are
aquatically connected, such that movements could occur and facilitate
genetic exchange. In the Lower Chilliwack, Oregon spotted frogs are
currently known to occur from only one egg-laying location in one
watershed (Sumas River). There may be additional locations within 3.1
mi (5 km) that are aquatically connected, but further surveys would be
needed in order to make this determination. In the Black River, known
egg-laying locations occur along the mainstem, as well as in six
tributaries. Oregon spotted frogs in Fish Pond Creek are likely
isolated from Oregon spotted frogs in the rest of the Black River
system due to changes in the outflow of Black Lake. Black Lake Ditch
was constructed in 1922, and a pipeline at the outlet of the Black Lake
to Black River was constructed in the 1960s; both of these structures
changed the flow such that Black Lake drains to the north, except
during high flows rather than down the Black River as it did
historically (Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation 2003, pp. 2, 3,
5, 24). Oregon spotted frogs in the other five tributaries may also be
isolated from each other because there is little evidence that the
frogs use the Black River to move between tributaries, although egg-
laying locations in these tributaries are aquatically connected via the
Black River.
In Oregon, two of the eight extant sub-basins contain single,
isolated populations of Oregon spotted frogs: Lower Deschutes River
(i.e., Camas Prairie) and Middle Fork Willamette River (i.e., Gold
Lake). The McKenzie River sub-basin contains two populations of Oregon
spotted frogs that are in close proximity but have no apparent
hydrologic connection to each other or to populations in other sub-
basins. In the Deschutes River Basin, Oregon spotted frog egg-laying
sites are found throughout two sub-basins: the Upper Deschutes River
and the Little Deschutes River. These two sub-basins are aquatically
connected at the confluence of the Little Deschutes River and the
mainstem Deschutes River below Wickiup Reservoir. Genetic exchange
likely occurs between Oregon spotted frogs on the lower reach of the
Little Deschutes River and those along the Deschutes River at Sunriver
where breeding occurs within 3.1 mi (5 km). The Wickiup dam and
regulated flows out of the reservoir limit connectivity for Oregon
spotted frogs to move within the Upper Deschutes River sub-basin, such
that connectivity between the populations above and below the dam are
unlikely. Only four egg-laying locations occur below Wickiup Reservoir,
two of which are within 6 mi (10 km) but separated by a waterfall along
the Deschutes River. Above Wickiup Reservoir, there are approximately
six clusters of egg-laying sites that may be isolated from each other
by lack of hydrologic connectivity (i.e., lakes without outlets) or
distances greater than 6 mi (10 km).
In the Little Deschutes River sub-basin, approximately 23 known
egg-laying locations are within five watersheds: Upper, Middle and
Lower Little Deschutes River; Crescent Creek; and Long Prairie. Most
egg-laying locations throughout the Little Deschutes River sub-basin
are within 6 mi (10 km) of each other, and, given that much of the
private land is unsurveyed, the distance between breeding areas is
likely smaller. In the lower reach of the Little Deschutes River near
the confluence with the Deschutes River where more extensive surveys
have been conducted, egg-laying sites are within 3.1 mi (5 km). Wetland
complexes are extensive and continuous along the Little Deschutes River
and its tributaries, which likely provides connectivity between
breeding areas. Regulated flows out of Crescent Lake may affect the
aquatic connectivity between egg-laying locations, although the impacts
to Oregon spotted frog connectivity are not fully understood. The Long
Prairie watershed also has been hydrologically altered by the
historical draining of wetlands and ditching to supply irrigation
water. Connectivity between three known egg-laying locations within
this watershed is likely affected by the timing and duration of
regulated flows, and historic ditching for irrigation.
Oregon spotted frogs are found in six watersheds within three sub-
basins of the Klamath River Basin in Oregon (Williamson River, Upper
Klamath Lake, and Upper Klamath). Within the Williamson River sub-
basin, individuals in the Jack Creek watershed are isolated from other
populations due to lack of hydrologic connectivity. The Klamath Marsh
and Upper Williamson populations are aquatically connected such that
movements could occur and facilitate genetic exchange, although this
presumed gene flow has not been demonstrated by recent genetic work
(Robertson and Funk 2012, p. 10).
The Upper Klamath Lake sub-basin populations are found in two
watersheds: Wood River and Klamath Lake. Populations within and
adjacent to the Wood River are aquatically connected and genetically
similar (Robertson and Funk 2012, p. 10). However, while the Wood River
populations and the Klamath Lake populations have genetic similarities
(Robertson and Funk 2012, p. 10, 11), altered hydrologic connections,
[[Page 53613]]
distances (>6 mi (terrestrial) (10km)), and invasive species, have
created inhospitable habitat. These conditions make it unlikely that
individual frogs are able to move between watersheds or establish
additional breeding complexes along the current hydrologic system. The
only potential for hydrologic connectivity and movement between
populations in the Klamath Lake populations is between Sevenmile Creek
and Crane Creek, and between the individual breeding complexes on the
Wood River in the Wood River watershed. The Upper Klamath sub-basin's
Parsnip Lakes and Buck Lake populations are isolated from each other
and the other Klamath Basin populations (Robertson and Funk 2012, p. 5)
due to great hydrological distances (> 20 mi (32 km)) and barriers
(inhospitable habitat and dams).
Site size and isolation/population turnover rates/breeding effort
concentrations and site fidelity conclusion-- Historically, Oregon
spotted frogs were likely distributed throughout a watershed, occurred
in multiple watersheds within a sub-basin, and adjusted their breeding
areas as natural disturbances, such as flood events and beaver
activity, shifted the location and amount of appropriate habitat.
Currently, Oregon spotted frogs are restricted in their range within
most occupied sub-basins (in some cases only occurring in one
watershed), and breeding areas are isolated (greater than dispersal
distance apart). Many of the Oregon spotted frog breeding locations
across the range comprise less than 50 adult frogs and are isolated
from other breeding locations. Genetic work indicates low genetic
diversity within and high genetic differentiation among the six Oregon
spotted frog groups. Each of these groups have the signature of
complete isolation, and two show indications of recent genetic drift (a
change in the gene pool of a small population that takes place strictly
by chance). Oregon spotted frogs can experience rapid population
turnovers because of their breeding location fidelity and vulnerability
to fluctuating water levels, predation, and low overwinter survival. A
stochastic event at any one of these small, isolated breeding locations
could significantly reduce the Oregon spotted frog population
associated with that sub-basin. Therefore, based on the best
information available, we consider small site size and isolation and
small population sizes to be a threat to the Oregon spotted frog.
Water Quality and Contamination
Poor water quality and water contamination are playing a role in
the decline of Oregon spotted frogs, and water quality concerns have
been specifically noted within six of the occupied sub-basins (see
Table 2 and Factor D), although data specific to this species are
limited. Because of this limitation, we have examined responses by
similar amphibians as a surrogate for impacts on Oregon spotted frogs.
Studies comparing responses of amphibians to other aquatic species have
demonstrated that amphibians are as sensitive as, and often more
sensitive than, other species when exposed to aquatic contaminants
(Boyer and Grue 1995, p. 353). Immature amphibians absorb contaminants
during respiration through the skin and gills. They may also ingest
contaminated prey. Pesticides, heavy metals, nitrates and nitrites, and
other contaminants introduced into the aquatic environment from urban
and agricultural areas are known to negatively affect various life
stages of a wide range of amphibian species, including ranid frogs
(Hayes and Jennings 1986, p. 497; Boyer and Grue 1995, pp. 353-354;
Hecnar 1995, pp. 2133-2135; Materna et al. 1995, pp. 616-618; NBII
2005, Mann et al. 2009, p. 2904). Exposure to pesticides can lower an
individual's immune function, which increases the risk of disease or
possible malformation (Stark 2005, p. 21; Mann et al. 2009 pp. 2905,
2909). In addition, it has been demonstrated that some chemicals reduce
growth and delay development.
A reduction of growth or development would prolong an individual's
larval period, thus making it more susceptible to predators for a
longer period of time or resulting in immobility during periods of time
when movement between habitats may be necessary (Mann et al. 2009, p.
2906). Many of the described effects from pesticides described are
sublethal but ultimately may result in the mortality of the exposed
individuals as described above. Furthermore, the results of several
studies have suggested that, while the impacts of individual chemicals
on amphibians are sublethal, a combination or cocktail of a variety of
chemicals may be lethal (Mann et al. 2009, p. 2913; Bishop et al. 2010,
p. 1602). The use of pesticides may be occurring throughout the range
of the Oregon spotted frog due to the species' overlap with
agricultural and urban environments; however, information regarding the
extent, methods of application, and amounts applied are not available.
Therefore, we are unable to make an affirmative determination at this
time that pesticides are a threat.
Methoprene, a chemical widely applied to wetlands for mosquito
control, was historically linked to abnormalities in southern leopard
frogs (Lithobates utricularia), including completely or partially
missing hind limbs, discoloration, and missing eyes. Missing eyes and
delayed development in northern cricket frogs (Acris crepitans) have
also been linked to methoprene (Stark 2005, p. 20). However, a recent
scientific literature review suggests that methoprene is not ultimately
responsible for frog malformations (Mann et al. 2009, pp. 2906-2907).
The findings of this review suggest that, in order for malformations to
occur, the concentration of chemical in the water would induce
mortality (Mann et al. 2009, p. 2906). Therefore, based on the best
available information, we do not consider methoprene to be a threat to
Oregon spotted frogs.
Although the effects on amphibians of rotenone, which is used to
remove undesirable fish from lakes, are poorly understood, mortality
likely occurs at treatment levels used on fish (McAllister et al. 1999,
p. 21). The role of rotenone treatments in the disappearance of Oregon
spotted frogs from historical sites is unknown; however, some studies
indicate that amphibians might be less sensitive than fish and might be
capable of recovering from exposure to rotenone (Mullin et al. 2004,
pp. 305-306; Walston and Mullin 2007, p. 65). However, these studies
did not measure the effects on highly aquatic amphibians, like the
Oregon spotted frog. In fall of 2011, ODFW used rotenone to remove
goldfish from a small pond adjacent to Crane Prairie Reservoir. In
April 2012, approximately 40 spotted frog egg masses were located in
the pond, where there had been no prior record of Oregon spotted frog
occupancy in the past (Wray 2012, pers. comm.). No rotenone treatments
in Cascade lakes occupied by Oregon spotted frog are planned in the
near future (Hodgson 2012, pers. comm.), and to date, in the Upper
Klamath Lake sub-basin, no fish killing agents have been applied within
Oregon spotted frog habitat (Banish 2012, pers. comm.). Therefore,
based on the best available information, we do not consider rotenone to
be a threat to Oregon spotted frogs.
Water acidity (low pH) can inhibit fertilization and embryonic
development in amphibians, reduce their growth and survival through
physiological alterations, and produce developmental anomalies (Hayes
and Jennings 1986, pp. 498-499; Boyer and
[[Page 53614]]
Grue 1995, p. 353). A low pH may enhance the effects of other factors,
such as activating heavy metals in sediments. An elevated pH, acting
singly or in combination with other factors such as low dissolved
oxygen, high water temperatures, and elevated un-ionized ammonia
levels, may have detrimental effects on developing frog embryos (Boyer
and Grue 1995, p. 354).
Marco et al. (1999, p. 2838) demonstrated the strong sensitivity of
Oregon spotted frog tadpoles to nitrate and nitrite ions, and suggested
that nitrogen-based chemical fertilizers may have contributed to the
species' decline in the lowland areas of its distribution. Recommended
levels of nitrates and nitrites in drinking water are moderately to
highly toxic for Oregon spotted frogs, indicating that EPA water
quality standards do not protect sensitive amphibian species (Marco et
al. 1999, p. 2838). In the Marco et al. study, Oregon spotted frog
tadpoles did not show a rapid adverse effect to nitrate ions, but at
day 15 of exposure they reflected high sensitivity followed by
synchronous death. Many public water supplies in the United States
contain levels of nitrate that routinely exceed concentrations of 10
milligrams of nitrate per liter (mg/L); the median lethal
concentrations for aquatic larvae of the Oregon spotted frog is less
than 10 mg/L (Marco et al. 1999, p. 2838).
In Washington, portions of the Sumas River; Black Slough in the
S.F. Nooksack sub-basin; portions of the Samish River; segments of the
Black River; segments of Dempsey, Allen, and Beaver Creeks in the Black
River sub-basin; and a segment in the upper portion of Trout Lake Creek
are listed by the Washington Department of Ecology as not meeting water
quality standards for a variety of parameters, including temperature,
fecal coliform, pH, and dissolved oxygen. In Oregon, many of the
streams associated with Oregon spotted frog habitat are listed by the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality as not meeting water quality
standards for multiple parameters: (1) Little Deschutes River--
temperature, dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll A, pH, aquatic weeds or
algae; (2) Deschutes River--temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity,
sedimentation; (3) Middle Fork Willamette River--sedimentation; (4)
Upper Klamath--temperature; and (5) Williamson River--sedimentation.
Johnson and Chase (2004, p. 522) point to elevated levels of
nutrients (particularly phosphorus) from agricultural fertilizers and
cattle grazing in freshwater ecosystems as causing shifts in the
composition of aquatic snails from small species to larger species.
These larger species serve as intermediate hosts for a parasite
(Ribeiroia ondatrae), which causes malformations in amphibians (see
Disease above). Elevated sources of nutrient inputs into river and
wetland systems can also result in eutrophic (nutrient-rich)
conditions, characterized by blooms of algae that can produce a high pH
and low dissolved oxygen. Increased eutrophic conditions in the Upper
Klamath Lake sub-basin may have contributed to the absence of Oregon
spotted frogs. Beginning in 2002, algal blooms, poor water quality, and
low dissolved oxygen were documented in Jack Creek, during which a
decline in Oregon spotted frog reproduction was also documented
(Oertley 2005, pers. comm.). Although more research is needed, Johnson
et al. (2002a; Johnson and Chase 2004) state that eutrophication
associated with elevated nitrogen (and phosphorus) has been linked with
increased snail populations, which in turn can be linked to parasites
that use frogs such as the Oregon spotted frog as alternate hosts (see
discussion under ``Disease and Predation'' above for additional
information).
In British Columbia, Oregon spotted frogs at Morris Valley,
Mountain Slough, and Maria Slough are in largely agricultural areas.
Agricultural runoff includes fertilizers (including manure), and runoff
or percolation into the ground water from manure piles (Rouse et al.
1999), and spraying of agricultural chemicals such as pesticides or
insecticides (including Btk, or Bacillus thuringiensis bacterium) or
fungicides (used by blueberry producers), including wind-borne
chemicals. Water-borne sewage and non-point source runoff from housing
and urban areas that include nutrients, toxic chemicals, and/or
sediments may also be increasing in intensity. Additional sources of
contaminants may include chemical spraying during forestry activities,
maintenance of power line corridors, or disruption of normal movements
of nutrients by forestry activities (Canadian Recovery Strategy
(COSFRS) 2012, p. 21). The COSFRS (2012, p. 17) identifies pollution
associated with agricultural and forestry effluents as being (1) high
impact; (2) large in scope; (3) serious in severity; (4) high in
timing, and (5) a stress that has direct and indirect mortality
results. One of the recovery objectives is to coordinate with the
Minister of Agriculture to implement supporting farming practices and
environmental farm plans options to decrease agrochemical and nutrient
pollution into Oregon spotted frog habitat and work with all levels of
government, land managers, and private landowners to inform and
encourage best practices and ensure compliance in relation to water
quality, hydrology, and land use practice (COSFRS 2012, p. 34).
Water quality and contamination conclusion--Although pesticides
could be a threat to the Oregon spotted frog, those threats are
undetermined at this time. Oregon spotted frogs are highly aquatic
throughout their life cycle, and are thus likely to experience extended
exposure to waterborne contaminants. Poor water quality parameters and
contaminants may act singly or in combination with other factors to
result in inhibited fertilization and embryonic development,
developmental anomalies, or reduced growth and survival. Many public
water supplies in the United States contain levels of nitrates that
routinely exceed lethal concentrations for aquatic larvae of the Oregon
spotted frog, and reduced water quality is documented in a number of
occupied sub-basins. Although more work on the species' ecotoxicology
is warranted, based on the best information available, we consider
water quality and contamination to be a threat to the Oregon spotted
frog across the range.
Hybridization
Hybridization between Oregon spotted frogs and closely related frog
species is unlikely to affect the survival of the Oregon spotted frog.
Natural hybridization between Oregon spotted frogs and Cascade frogs
has been demonstrated experimentally and verified in nature (Haertel
and Storm 1970, pp. 436-444; Green 1985, p. 263). However, the
offspring are infertile, and the two species seldom occur together.
Hybridization between Oregon spotted frogs and red-legged frogs has
also been confirmed (I.C. Phillipsen, K. McAllister, and M. Hayes
unpublished data), but it is unknown if the hybrids are fertile.
Because, Oregon spotted frog and Columbia spotted frog populations are
not known to occur together, based on the best available information,
we do not consider hybridization to be a threat to Oregon spotted
frogs.
Climate Change
Our analyses under the Endangered Species Act include consideration
of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and
``climate change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). The term ``climate'' refers to the mean and
variability of different types of weather conditions over time, with 30
years being a typical period for such measurements, although
[[Page 53615]]
shorter or longer periods also may be used (IPCC 2007a, p. 78). The
term ``climate change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or
variability of one or more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or
precipitation) that persists for an extended period, typically decades
or longer, whether the change is due to natural variability, human
activity, or both (IPCC 2007a, p. 78).
Scientific measurements spanning several decades demonstrate that
changes in climate are occurring, and that the rate of change has been
faster since the 1950s. Examples include warming of the global climate
system, and substantial increases in precipitation in some regions of
the world and decreases in other regions. (For these and other
examples, see IPCC 2007a, p. 30; and Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 35-54,
82-85). Results of scientific analyses presented by the IPCC show that
most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the
mid-20th century cannot be explained by natural variability in climate,
and is ``very likely'' (defined by the IPCC as 90 percent or higher
probability) due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas (GHG)
concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of human activities,
particularly carbon dioxide emissions from use of fossil fuels (IPCC
2007a, pp. 5-6 and figures SPM.3 and SPM.4; Solomon et al. 2007, pp.
21-35). Further confirmation of the role of GHGs comes from analyses by
Huber and Knutti (2011, p. 4), who concluded it is extremely likely
that approximately 75 percent of global warming since 1950 has been
caused by human activities.
Scientists use a variety of climate models, which include
consideration of natural processes and variability, as well as various
scenarios of potential levels and timing of GHG emissions, to evaluate
the causes of changes already observed and to project future changes in
temperature and other climate conditions (e.g., Meehl et al. 2007,
entire; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 11555, 15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp.
527, 529). All combinations of models and emissions scenarios yield
very similar projections of increases in the most common measure of
climate change, average global surface temperature (commonly known as
global warming), until about 2030. Although projections of the
magnitude and rate of warming differ after about 2030, the overall
trajectory of all the projections is one of increased global warming
through the end of this century, even for the projections based on
scenarios that assume that GHG emissions will stabilize or decline.
Thus, strong scientific data support projections that warming will
continue through the 21st century, and that the magnitude and rate of
change will be influenced substantially by the extent of GHG emissions
(IPCC 2007a, pp. 44-45; Meehl et al. 2007, pp. 760-764 and 797-811;
Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 15555-15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529).
(See IPCC 2007b, p. 8, for a summary of other global projections of
climate-related changes, such as frequency of heat waves and changes in
precipitation. Also see IPCC 2012 (entire) for a summary of
observations and projections of extreme climate events.)
Various changes in climate may have direct or indirect effects on
species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they
may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant
considerations, such as interactions of climate with other variables
(e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8-14, 18-19). Identifying
likely effects often involves aspects of climate change vulnerability
analysis. Vulnerability refers to the degree to which a species (or
system) is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse effects of
climate change, including climate variability and extremes.
Vulnerability is a function of the type, magnitude, and rate of climate
change and variation to which a species is exposed, its sensitivity,
and its adaptive capacity (IPCC 2007a, p. 89; see also Glick et al.
2011, pp. 19-22). No single method for conducting such analyses applies
to all situations (Glick et al. 2011, p. 3). We use our expert judgment
and appropriate analytical approaches to weigh relevant information,
including uncertainty, in our consideration of various aspects of
climate change.
As is the case with all stressors that we assess, even if we
conclude that a species is currently affected or is likely to be
affected in a negative way by one or more climate-related impacts, the
species does not necessarily meet the definition of an ``endangered
species'' or a ``threatened species'' under the Act. If a species is
listed as an endangered or threatened species, knowledge regarding the
vulnerability of the species to, and known or anticipated impacts from,
climate-associated changes in environmental conditions can be used to
help devise appropriate strategies for its recovery.
Global climate projections are informative, and, in some cases, the
only or the best scientific information available for us to use.
However, projected changes in climate and related impacts can vary
substantially across and within different regions of the world (e.g.,
IPCC 2007a, pp. 8-12). Therefore, we use ``downscaled'' projections
when they are available and have been developed through appropriate
scientific procedures, because such projections provide higher
resolution information that is more relevant to spatial scales used for
analyses of a given species (see Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58-61, for a
discussion of downscaling). With regard to our analysis for the Oregon
spotted frog, downscaled projections are available.
The climate in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) has already experienced
a warming of 0.8 degrees Celsius (C) (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (F))
during the 20th century (Mote et al. 2008, p.3). Using output from
eight climate models the PNW is projected to warm further by 0.6 to 1.9
degrees C (1.1 to 3.4 degrees F) by the 2020s, and 0.9 to 2.9 degrees C
(1.6 to 5.2 degrees F) by the 2040s (Mote et al. 2008, pp. 5-6).
Additionally, the majority of models project wetter winters and drier
summers (Mote et al. 2008, p.7), and of greatest consequence, a
reduction in regional snowpack, which supplies water for ecosystems
during the dry summer (Mote et al. 2003). The small summertime
precipitation increases projected by a minority of models do not change
the fundamentally dry summers of the PNW and do not lessen the
increased drying of the soil column brought by higher temperatures
(Mote et al. 2003, p. 8).
Watersheds that are rain dominated (such as the Fraser River in
British Columbia and the Black River in Washington) will likely
experience higher winter streamflow because of increases in average
winter precipitation, but overall will experience relatively little
change with respect to streamflow timing (Elsner et al. 2010, p. 248).
Water temperatures for western Washington are generally cooler than
those in the interior Columbia basin; however, climate change
predictions indicate the summertime stream temperatures exceeding 19.5
degrees C (67.1 degrees F) will increase, although by a smaller
fraction than the increases in the interior Columbia basin (Mantua et
al. 2010, p. 199).
Transient basins (mixed rain- and snowmelt-dominant usually in mid
elevations, such as Lower Chilliwack, SF Nooksack, White Salmon, and
Middle Klickitat Rivers sub-basins in Washington) will likely
experience significant shifts in streamflow and water temperature,
becoming rain dominant as winter precipitation falls more as rain and
less as snow, and undergo more severe summer low-flow periods and more
frequent days with intense winter flooding (Elsner et al.
[[Page 53616]]
2010, pp. 248, 252, 255; Mantua et al. 2010, entire).
Snowmelt-dominated watersheds, such as White Salmon in Washington
and the Upper Deschutes, Little Deschutes, and Klamath River sub-basins
in Oregon, will likely become transient, resulting in reduced peak
spring streamflow, increased winter streamflow, and reduced late summer
flow (Littell et al. 2009, p. 8). In snowmelt-dominated watersheds that
prevail in the higher altitude catchments and in much of the interior
Columbia Basin, flood risk will likely decrease and summer low flows
will decrease in most rivers under most scenarios (Littell et al. 2009,
p. 13).
In Washington, the snow water equivalent measured on April 1 is
projected to decrease by 28 to 30 percent across the State by the
2020s, 38 to 46 percent by the 2040s, and 56 to 70 percent by the
2080s, and the areas with elevations below 3,280 ft (1,000 m) will
experience the largest decreases in snowpack, with reductions of 68 to
80 percent by the 2080s (Elsner et al. 2010, p. 244). In the Puget
Trough sub-basins, summertime soil moisture will decrease as a result
of the warming climate and reduced snowpack. While annual precipitation
is projected to slightly increase across the State, by 3.4 percent by
the 2080s, the seasonality of the precipitation will change more
dramatically with increased winter and decreased summer precipitation,
with most of the precipitation falling between October and March
(Elsner et al. 2010, p. 247).
Climate change models predict that water temperatures will rise
throughout Oregon as air temperatures increase into the 21st century. A
decline in summer stream flow may exacerbate water temperature
increases as the lower volume of water absorbs solar radiation (Chang
and Jones, p. 134).
Analyses of the hydrologic responses of the upper Deschutes basin
(including the Upper and Little Deschutes River sub-basins) and the
Klamath Basin to climate change scenarios indicates that the form of
precipitation will shift from predominately snow to rain and cause
decreasing spring recharge and runoff and increasing winter recharge
and runoff (Waibel 2011, pp., 57-60; Mayer and Naman 2011, p. 3).
However, there is spatial variation within the Deschutes sub-basins as
to where the greatest increases in recharge and runoff will occur
(Waibel 2011, pp., 57-60). Changes in seasonality of stream flows may
be less affected by climate change along the crest of the Cascades in
the upper watersheds of the Deschutes, Klamath, and Willamette River
basins in Oregon, where many rivers receive groundwater recharge from
subterranean aquifers and springs (Chang and Jones 2010, p. 107).
Summer stream flows may thus be sustained in High Cascade basins that
are groundwater fed (Chang and Jones 2010, p. 134). Conversely, Mayer
and Naman (2011 p. 1) indicate that streamflow into Upper Klamath Lake
will display absolute decreases in July-September base flows in
groundwater basins as compared to surface-dominated basins. This
earlier discharge of water in the spring will result in less streamflow
in the summer (Mayer and Naman 2011, p. 12).
Although predictions of climate change impacts do not specifically
address Oregon spotted frogs, short- and long-term changes in
precipitation patterns and temperature regimes will likely affect wet
periods, winter snow pack, and flooding events (Chang and Jones 2010).
These changes are likely to affect amphibians through a variety of
direct and indirect pathways, such as range shifts, breeding success,
survival, dispersal, breeding phenology, aquatic habitats availability
and quality, food webs, competition, spread of diseases, and the
interplay among these factors (Blaustein et al. 2010 entire; Hixon et
al. 2010, p. 274; Corn 2003 entire). Amphibians have species-specific
temperature tolerances, and exceeding these thermal thresholds is
expected to reduce survival (Blaustein et al. 2010, pp. 286-287).
Earlier spring thaws and warmer ambient temperatures may result in
earlier breeding, especially at lower elevations in the mountains where
breeding phenology is driven more by snow pack than by air temperature
(Corn 2003, p. 624). Shifts in breeding phenology may also result in
sharing breeding habitat with species not previously encountered and/or
new competitive interactions and predator/prey dynamics (Blaustein et
al. 2010. pp. 288, 294). Oregon spotted frogs are highly aquatic and
reductions in summer flows may result in summer habitat going dry,
potentially resulting in increased mortality or forcing frogs to seek
shelter in lower quality wetted areas where they are more susceptible
to predation.
Amphibians are susceptible to many types of pathogens including
trematodes, copepods, fungi, oomycetes, bacteria, and viruses. Changes
in temperature and precipitation could alter host-pathogen interactions
and/or result in range shifts resulting in either beneficial or
detrimental impacts on the amphibian host (Blaustein et al. 2010, p.
296). Kiesecker et al. (2001a, p. 682) indicate climate change events,
such as El Nino/Southern Oscillation, that result in less precipitation
and reduced water depths at egg-laying sites results in high mortality
of embryos because their exposure to UV-B and vulnerability to
infection (such as Saprolegnia) is increased. Warmer temperatures and
less freezing in areas occupied by bullfrogs is likely to increase
bullfrog winter survivorship, thereby increasing the threat from
predation. Uncertainty about climate change impacts does not mean that
impacts may or may not occur; it means that the risks of a given impact
are difficult to quantify (Schneider and Kuntz-Duriseti 2002, p. 54;
Congressional Budget Office 2005, entire; Halsnaes et al. 2007, p.
129). Oregon spotted frogs occupy habitats at a wide range of
elevations, and all of the occupied sub-basins are likely to experience
precipitation regime shifts; therefore, the Oregon spotted frog's
response to climate change is likely to vary across the range and the
population-level impacts are uncertain. The interplay between Oregon
spotted frogs and their aquatic habitat will ultimately determine their
population response to climate change. Despite the potential for future
climate change throughout the range of the species, as discussed above,
we have not identified, nor are we aware of any data on, an appropriate
scale to evaluate habitat or population trends for the Oregon spotted
frog or to make predictions about future trends and whether the species
will be significantly impacted.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Its Continued Existence
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS), maintains voluntary agreements with private
landowners to apply pesticides within the United States. Based on their
2010 Operational Procedures, all water bodies (rivers, ponds,
reservoirs, streams, vernal pools, wetlands, etc.) will be avoided by a
minimum of a 50-foot buffer for ground application of bait, a 200-foot
buffer for aerial application of bait, and a 500-foot buffer for the
aerial application of liquids (USDA APHIS 2010 Treatment Guidelines, p.
4). As previously described under other threat factors, conservation
efforts may also help reduce the threat of other natural or manmade
factors affecting the species.
Summary of Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Many of the Oregon spotted frog breeding locations are small and
isolated from other breeding locations. Moreover, due to their fidelity
to breeding locations and vulnerability to
[[Page 53617]]
fluctuating water levels, predation, and low overwinter survival,
Oregon spotted frogs can experience rapid population turnovers that
they may not be able to overcome. Genetic work indicates low genetic
diversity within and high genetic differentiation among the six Oregon
spotted frog groups identified by Blouin, and each of these groups has
the signature of complete isolation with two groups showing indications
of recent genetic drift. Poor water quality parameters and contaminants
may act singly or in combination with other factors to result in
inhibited fertilization and embryonic development, developmental
anomalies, or reduced growth and survival. Oregon spotted frogs in
every occupied sub-basin are subject to more than one stressor, such as
loss or reduced quality of habitat and predation and, therefore, may be
more susceptible to mortality and sublethal effects. The changing
climate may exacerbate these stressors. Therefore, based on the best
information available, we conclude that other natural or manmade
factors are a threat to the Oregon spotted frog, which has significant
population effects occurring throughout the entire (current) range of
the species and expected to continue into the future.
Cumulative Effects From Factors A Through E
The Oregon spotted frog faces several threats, and all occupied
sub-basins are subjected to multiple threats, which cumulatively pose a
risk to individual populations (See Table 2). Many of these threats are
intermingled, and the magnitude of the combined threats to the species
is greater than the individual threats. For example, the small sizes
and isolation of the majority of Oregon spotted frog breeding locations
makes Oregon spotted frogs acutely vulnerable to fluctuating water
levels, disease, predation, poor water quality, and extirpation from
stochastic events. Hydrologic changes, resulting from activities such
as water diversions and removal of beavers, increases the likelihood of
fluctuating water levels and temperatures and may also facilitate
predators. Existing regulatory mechanisms facilitate hydrologic
changes, and restoration actions are specifically designed to benefit
salmonid species, which often results in the reduction of habitat
quality and quantity for Oregon spotted frogs where they overlap.
Habitat management and a warming climate may improve conditions for
pathogens and predators. Saprolegnia, Bd, and Ribeiroia ondatrae have
been found in Oregon spotted frogs, and compounded with other
stressors, such as UV-B exposure, degradation of habitat quality, or
increased predation pressure, may contribute to population declines. Bd
and R. ondatrae, in particular, infect post-metamorphic frogs and
reductions in these life stages are more likely to lead to population
declines. Sub-basins projected to transition from snow-dominant or
transient to rain-dominant will be less susceptible to freezing
temperatures with the expectation of reduced mortality of bullfrogs
during winter and increased predation risk to Oregon spotted frogs.
Amphibian declines may frequently be associated with multiple
correlated factors (Adams 1999, pp. 1167-1169). Two of the greatest
threats to freshwater systems in western North America, exotic species
and hydrological changes, are often correlated. In addition, occurrence
and abundance of bullfrogs may be linked with invasions by nonnative
fish (Adams et al. 2003, p. 349). Adams (1999) examined the
relationships among introduced species, habitat, and the distribution
and abundance of red-legged frogs in western Washington. Red-legged
frog occurrence in the Puget lowlands was more closely associated with
habitat structure and exotic fish than with the presence of bullfrogs
(Adams 1999, pp. 1167-1168), and similar associations were found in a
recent study in Oregon's Willamette Valley (Pearl et al. 2005b, p. 16).
The spread of exotic species is correlated with a shift toward greater
permanence in wetland habitats regionally (for example, Kentula et al.
1992, p. 115). For example, exotic fish and bullfrogs are associated
with permanent wetlands. Conservation of more ephemeral wetland
habitats, which directly benefit native amphibians such as Oregon
spotted frogs, would be expected to reduce predation and competition
threats posed by exotic fish and bullfrogs (Adams 1999, pp. 1169-1170).
Amphibians are affected by complex interactions of abiotic and
biotic factors and are subjected simultaneously to numerous interacting
stressors. For example, contaminants and UV-B radiation may result in
mortality or induce sublethal effects on their own, but they may have
synergistic, interaction effects that exceed the additive effects when
combined. Some stressors, such as contaminants, may hamper the immune
system, making amphibians more susceptible to pathogenic infections
(Kiesecker 2002 p. 9902). Predator presence can alter the behavior of
amphibians, resulting in more or less exposure to UV-B radiation
(Michel and Burke 2011), thereby altering the rate of malformations.
Climate-driven dry events that result in lower water levels may
concentrate contaminants, as well as increase the amount of exposure to
UV-B radiation. While any one of these individual stressors may not be
a concern, a contaminant added to increased UV-B exposure and a
normally healthy population level of Ribeiroia ondatrae may lead to a
higher mortality rate or an increased number of malformed frogs that
exceeds the rate caused by any one factor alone (Blaustein et al. 2003
entire; Szurocksi and Richardson 2009 p. 382). Oregon spotted frogs in
every occupied sub-basin are subject to more than one stressor and,
therefore, may be more susceptible to mortality and sublethal effects.
The historical loss of Oregon spotted frog habitats and lasting
anthropogenic changes in natural disturbance processes are exacerbated
by the introduction of reed canarygrass, nonnative predators, and
potentially climate change. In addition, current regulatory mechanisms
and voluntary incentive programs designed to benefit fish species have
inadvertently led to the continuing decline in quality of Oregon
spotted frog habitats in some locations. The current wetland and stream
vegetation management paradigm is generally a no-management or
restoration approach that often results in succession to a tree- and
shrub-dominated community that unintentionally degrades or eliminates
remaining or potential suitable habitat for Oregon spotted frog
breeding. Furthermore, incremental wetland loss or degradation
continues under the current regulatory mechanisms. If left unmanaged,
these factors are anticipated to result in the eventual elimination of
remaining suitable Oregon spotted frog habitats or populations. The
persistence of habitats required by the species is now largely
management dependent.
Conservation efforts to ameliorate impacts from habitat degradation
and predators are currently under way; however, the benefits of these
conservation actions to Oregon spotted frogs are site-specific and do
not counteract the impacts at a sub-basin scale. The cumulative effects
of these threats are more than additive, and removing one threat does
not ameliorate the others and may actually result in an increase in
another threat. For example, removing livestock grazing to improve
water quality--without continuing to manage the vegetation--allows
invasive reed canarygrass, trees, and shrubs to
[[Page 53618]]
grow and effectively eliminate egg-laying habitat.
Therefore, based on the best information available, we conclude
that the cumulative effects from factors discussed in Factors A, C, D,
and E are a threat to the Oregon spotted frog, and these threats are
significantly affecting populations throughout the entire range of the
species. Moreover, these threats are expected to continue into the
future.
Table 2--Threats Operating Within Each Sub-Basin *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-basin Factor A Factor C Factor E
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Fraser River................... Wetland loss; Introduced warmwater Small population size;
hydrologic changes; fish; bullfrogs. breeding locations
development; grazing, disconnected;
reed canarygrass; contaminants;
water quality. cumulative effects of
other threats; climate
change.
Lower Chilliwack River............... Grazing; reed Introduced warmwater Small population size;
canarygrass; water fish. breeding locations
quality. disconnected;
contaminants;
cumulative effects of
other threats; climate
change.
South Fork Nooksack.................. Grazing; reed Introduced coldwater Small population size;
canarygrass; shrub fish. cumulative effects of
encroachment/planting; other threats;
loss of beavers; water contaminants; climate
quality. change.
Samish River......................... Wetland loss; grazing; Introduced warmwater Breeding locations
reed canarygrass; fish; introduced disconnected;
shrub encroachment/ coldwater fish. contaminants;
planting; water cumulative effects of
quality. other threats; climate
change.
Black River.......................... Wetland loss; reed Introduced warmwater Small population size;
canarygrass; shrub fish; introduced breeding locations
encroachment/planting; coldwater fish; disconnected;
development; loss of bullfrogs. contaminants;
beaver; water quality. cumulative effects of
other threats; climate
change.
White Salmon River................... Wetland loss; reed Introduced coldwater Cumulative effects of
canarygrass; water fish. other threats; climate
quality. change.
Middle Klickitat River............... Wetland loss; Introduced warmwater Cumulative effects of
hydrologic changes; fish; introduced other threats; climate
loss of beaver; coldwater fish, change.
development; grazing; bullfrogs.
reed canarygrass;
shrub encroachment;
water management.
Lower Deschutes...................... Shrub encroachment..... Introduced coldwater Small population size;
fish. single occupied site
within sub-basin;
isolated from frogs in
other sub-basins;
cumulative effects of
other threats; climate
change.
Upper Deschutes...................... Wetland loss; reed Introduced warmwater Breeding locations
canarygrass; shrub fish; introduced disconnected;
encroachment; coldwater fish, cumulative effects of
hydrological changes bullfrogs. other threats; climate
(water management). change.
Little Deschutes..................... Wetland loss; Introduced coldwater Breeding locations
hydrological changes fish, bullfrogs. disconnected;
(water management); cumulative effects of
development; grazing; other threats; climate
reed canarygrass; change.
shrub encroachment.
McKenzie............................. Shrub encroachment..... Introduced coldwater Only two breeding
fish. locations in sub-
basin, which are
disconnected;
cumulative effects of
other threats; climate
change.
Middle Fork Willamette............... Shrub encroachment..... Introduced coldwater Single occupied site in
fish. sub-basin;
disconnected from
other sub-basins;
cumulative effects of
other threats; climate
change.
Williamson........................... Development; grazing; Introduced warmwater Small population size;
shrub encroachment; fish; introduced breeding locations
loss of beaver. coldwater fish. disconnected;
cumulative effects of
other threats; climate
change.
Upper Klamath Lake................... Water management; Introduced warmwater Small population size;
development; shrub and fish; introduced breeding locations
reed canarygrass coldwater fish; disconnected;
encroachment; grazing. bullfrogs. cumulative effects of
other threats; climate
change.
Upper Klamath........................ Wetland loss; water Introduced warmwater Small population size;
management; fish; introduced breeding locations
development; grazing; coldwater fish. disconnected;
shrub encroachment; cumulative effects of
loss of beaver. other threats; climate
change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) have been insufficient to significantly reduce or remove the threats
to the Oregon spotted frog.
* Factors A, C, and E are operative within some to several occupied sites within each sub-basin, to differing
degrees. To clarify, these threats apply to locations within each sub-basin, and do not necessarily apply to
the sub-basin in its entirety. Detailed information is available in a rangewide threats synthesis document,
which is available from Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
[[Page 53619]]
Determination
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to Oregon spotted frog. Past human actions have destroyed, modified,
and curtailed the range and habitat available for the Oregon spotted
frog, which is now absent from 76 to 90 percent of its former range.
The Oregon spotted frog populations within two of the sub-basins are
declining, but the population trend in the other 13 sub-basins is
undetermined. However, the Oregon spotted frog is extant in only 15 of
31 sub-basins where it historically occurred. In addition, the majority
of remaining populations are isolated both between and within sub-
basins, with minimal opportunity for natural recolonization. These
isolated populations are, therefore, vulnerable to ongoing threats and
extirpation, and threats are known to be ongoing or increasing across
the range of the Oregon spotted frog, as summarized below.
Habitat necessary to support all life stages is continuing to be
impacted and/or destroyed by human activities that result in the loss
of wetlands to land conversions; hydrologic changes resulting from
operation of existing water diversions/manipulation structures, new and
existing residential and road developments, drought, and removal of
beavers; changes in water temperature and vegetation structure
resulting from reed canarygrass invasions, plant succession, and
restoration plantings; and increased sedimentation, increased water
temperatures, reduced water quality, and vegetation changes resulting
from the timing, intensity, and location of livestock grazing. Oregon
spotted frogs in all currently occupied sub-basins in British Columbia,
Washington, and Oregon are subject to one or more of these threats to
their habitat. Eleven of the 15 sub-basins are currently experiencing a
high to very high level of habitat impacts, and these impacts are
expected to continue into the future.
Disease continues to be a concern, but more information is needed
to determine if disease is a threat to Oregon spotted frogs. At least
one nonnative predaceous species occurs within each of the sub-basins
currently occupied by Oregon spotted frogs. Introduced fish have been
documented within each sub-basin; these introduced species prey on
tadpoles, negatively affect overwintering habitat, and can
significantly threaten Oregon spotted frog populations, especially
during droughts. Bullfrogs (and likely green frogs) prey on juvenile
and adult Oregon spotted frogs, and bullfrog tadpoles can outcompete or
displace Oregon spotted frog tadpoles. In short, nonnative bullfrogs
effectively reduce the abundance of all Oregon spotted frog life stages
and pose an added threat to a species that has significant negative
impacts rangewide from habitat degradation. Nine of the 15 occupied
sub-basins are currently experiencing moderate to very high impacts due
to predation by introduced species, and these impacts are expected to
continue into the future.
Lack of essential habitat protection under Federal, State,
Provincial, and local laws leaves this species at continued risk of
habitat loss and degradation in British Columbia, Washington, and
Oregon. In many cases, laws and regulations that pertain to retention
and restoration of wetland and riverine areas are a no-management
(i.e., avoidance) approach, or are designed to be beneficial to fish
species (principally salmonids), resulting in the elimination or
degradation of Oregon spotted frog early-seral habitat. In other cases,
no regulations address threats related to the draining or development
of wetlands or hydrologic modifications, which can also eliminate or
degrade Oregon spotted frog habitat. Therefore, degradation of habitat
is ongoing despite regulatory mechanisms, and these mechanisms have
been insufficient to significantly reduce or remove the threats to the
Oregon spotted frog.
Many of the Oregon spotted frog breeding locations are small and
isolated from other breeding locations. Due to their fidelity to
breeding locations and vulnerability to fluctuating water levels,
predation, and low overwinter survival, Oregon spotted frogs can
experience rapid population turnovers that they may not be able to
overcome. Low connectivity among occupied sub-basins and among breeding
locations within a sub-basin, in addition to small population sizes,
contributes to low genetic diversity within genetic groups and high
genetic differentiation among genetic groups. Oregon spotted frogs in
every occupied sub-basin are subject to more than one stressor, such as
loss or reduced quality of habitat and predation. Therefore, the
species may be more susceptible to the synergistic effects of combined
threats, which may be exacerbated by climate change. The threat to
Oregon spotted frogs from other natural or manmade factors is occurring
throughout the entire range of the species, and the population-level
impacts are expected to continue into the future.
All of the known Oregon spotted frog occupied sub-basins are
currently affected by one or more of these threats, which reduce the
amount and quality of available breeding, summer, and overwintering
habitat. While the risk to an individual site from each of these
factors may vary, the cumulative risk of these threats to each site is
high. This scenario is reflected in declining and/or small populations,
which constitute the majority the Oregon spotted frog's remaining
distribution. We find that Oregon spotted frogs are likely to become
endangered throughout all or a significant portion of their range
within the foreseeable future, based on the immediacy, severity, and
scope of the threats described above. We do not, however, have
information at the present time to suggest that the existing threats
are of such a great magnitude that Oregon spotted frogs are in
immediate danger of extinction. Threats are not geographically
concentrated in any portions of the species' range, and the species is
extant and redundant at a number of localities within 13 of 15 sub-
basins within British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon. One extant
population remains in each of the Lower Deschutes River and Middle Fork
Willamette sub-basins in Oregon. Egg mass surveys continue to document
reproducing adults in most areas, although in at least two locations
within the current range, Oregon spotted frogs may no longer be extant
(i.e., the Maintenance Detachment Aldergrove site in British Columbia
and the 110th Avenue site at Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge in
Washington).
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we propose listing the Oregon spotted frog as a
threatened species in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the
Act.
Significant Portion of the Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The Act defines ``endangered
species'' as any species which is ``in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range,'' and ``threatened species''
as any species which is ``likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' The definition of ``species'' is also relevant to this
discussion. The Act defines ``species'' as follows: ``The term
`species' includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and
any distinct population segment [DPS] of any
[[Page 53620]]
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.''
The phrase ``significant portion of its range'' (SPR) is not defined by
the statute, and we have never addressed in our regulations: (1) The
consequences of a determination that a species is either endangered or
likely to become so throughout a significant portion of its range, but
not throughout all of its range; or (2) what qualifies a portion of a
range as ``significant.''
In practice, a key part of the determination that a species is in
danger of extinction in a significant portion of its range is whether
the threats are geographically concentrated in some way. If the threats
to the species are essentially uniform throughout its range, no portion
is likely to warrant further consideration. Moreover, if any
concentration of threats to the species occurs only in portions of the
species' range that clearly would not meet the biologically based
definition of ``significant,'' such portions will not warrant further
consideration.
The best available data suggests that, under current conditions,
Oregon spotted frogs will likely continue to decline toward extinction.
Having already determined that the Oregon spotted frog is a threatened
species throughout its range, we considered whether threats may be so
concentrated in some portion of its range that, if that portion were
lost, the entire species would be in danger of extinction. We reviewed
the entire supporting record for the status review of this species with
respect to the geographic concentrations of threats, and the
significance of portions of the range to the conservation of the
species. Oregon spotted frogs currently occupy 15 sub-basins that are
widely distributed, such that a catastrophic event in one or more of
the sub-basins would not extirpate Oregon spotted frogs throughout
their range. Based on our five-factor analysis of threats throughout
the range of the Oregon spotted frog, we found threats to the survival
of the species occur throughout the species' range and are not
significantly concentrated or substantially greater in any particular
portion of their range. Therefore, we find that there is no significant
portion of the Oregon spotted frog's range that may warrant a different
status. Therefore, the species as a whole is not presently in danger of
extinction, and does not meet the definition of an endangered species
under the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed
species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the
prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that set a trigger for review of the five
factors that control whether a species remains endangered or may be
downlisted or delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress.
Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate
their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of
implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (comprising species
experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and
stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When
completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final
recovery plan will be available on our Web site (https://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribal, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Washington, Oregon, and
California would be eligible for Federal funds to implement management
actions that promote the protection or recovery of the Oregon spotted
frog. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid
species recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the Oregon spotted frog is only proposed for listing under
the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in
participating in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we
invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a
Federal
[[Page 53621]]
action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the
Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include actions to manage or restore habitat; actions that
may negatively affect the species through removal, conversion, or
degradation of habitat; actions that may introduce nonnative predaceous
species; or actions that require collecting or handling the species.
Examples of activities conducted, regulated or funded by Federal
agencies that may affect listed species or their habitat include, but
are not limited to:
(1) Vegetation management such as planting, grazing, burning,
mechanical treatment, and/or application of pesticides adjacent to or
in Oregon spotted frog habitat;
(2) Water manipulation, such as flow management, water diversions,
or canal dredging or piping;
(3) Recreation management actions such as development of
campgrounds or boat launches adjacent to or in Oregon spotted frog
habitat;
(4) River restoration, including channel reconstruction, placement
of large woody debris, vegetation planting, reconnecting riverine
floodplain, or gravel placement adjacent to or in Oregon spotted frog
habitat;
(5) Pond construction;
(6) Issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act permits by the Army
Corps of Engineers; and
(7) Import, export, or trade of the species.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered
wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at
50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any
person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take
(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import, export, ship
in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species.
Under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42-43; 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378), it is also
illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such
wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to
agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.22 for endangered species, and at 17.32 for threatened species. With
regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must be issued for the
following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation
or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities.
Our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34272), is to identify to the maximum extent practicable at the
time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of species
proposed for listing. The following activities could potentially result
in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling,
delivering, carrying, or transporting of the species, including import
or export across State lines and international boundaries, except for
properly documented antique specimens of these taxa at least 100 years
old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act;
(2) Introduction of nonnative species that compete with or prey
upon the Oregon spotted frog, such as bullfrogs, green frogs, or warm
or cold water fishes to the States of Washington, Oregon, or
California;
(3) Unauthorized modification of the wetted area or removal or
destruction of emergent aquatic vegetation in any body of water in
which the Oregon spotted frog is known to occur; and
(4) Unauthorized discharge of chemicals into any waters in which
the Oregon spotted frog is known to occur.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Washington
Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Requests for copies of the regulations concerning listed animals and
general inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may be addressed
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Eastside
Federal Complex, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181
(telephone 503-231-6158; facsimile 503-231-6243).
If the Oregon spotted frog is listed under the Act, the State of
Oregon's Endangered Species Act (O.R.S. sec. 496.171-996; 498.026) is
automatically invoked, which would also prohibit take of this species
and encourage conservation by State government agencies. Further, the
State may enter into agreements with Federal agencies to administer and
manage any area required for the conservation, management, enhancement,
or protection of endangered species. Funds for these activities could
be made available under section 6 of the Act (Cooperation with the
States). Thus, the Federal protection afforded to these species by
listing them as endangered species will be reinforced and supplemented
by protection under State law.
The Oregon spotted frog is currently listed under the State of
Washington's ESA as endangered. The State of California's ESA is not
automatically invoked if the Oregon spotted frog is listed under the
Act. We are unaware of any legal protections afforded to the species in
British Columbia upon listing.
Consideration of a 4(d) Special Rule
The Service may develop specific prohibitions and exceptions that
are tailored to the specific conservation needs of the species. In such
cases, some of the prohibitions and authorizations under 50 CFR 17.31
and 17.32 may be appropriate for the species and incorporated into a
special rule under section 4(d) of the Act, but the 4(d) special rule
will also include provisions that are tailored to the specific
conservation needs of the threatened species and may be more or less
restrictive than the general provisions at 50 CFR 17.31. We are
considering whether it is appropriate to develop a 4(d) rule that would
not prohibit take that is incidental to implementing a State
comprehensive Oregon spotted frog conservation program, implementing
regional or local Oregon spotted frog conservation programs, and
activities or efforts conducted by individual landowners that are
outside of a more structured program but are still consistent with
maintaining or advancing the conservation of Oregon spotted frog.
State, Regional, and Local Conservation Programs
We anticipate that conservation programs covered under such a 4(d)
rule would need to be developed and administered by an entity having
jurisdiction or authority over the activities in the program; would
need to be approved by the Service as adequately protective to provide
a conservation benefit to the Oregon spotted frog; and may need to
include adaptive management, monitoring, and
[[Page 53622]]
reporting components sufficient to demonstrate that the conservation
objectives of the plan are being met. For example, a comprehensive
conservation program that has a clear mechanism for enrollment of
participating landowners that want to manage their lands for the
benefit of the Oregon spotted frog may not be prohibited from taking
Oregon spotted frogs. In making its determination, the Service would
consider:
(i) How the program addresses the threats affecting the Oregon
spotted frog within the program area;
(ii) How the program establishes objective, measurable biological
goals and objectives for population and habitat necessary to ensure a
conservation benefit, and provides the mechanisms by which those goals
and objectives would be achieved;
(iii) How the program administrators demonstrate the capability and
funding mechanisms for effectively implementing all elements of the
conservation program, including enrollment of participating landowners,
monitoring of program activities, and enforcement of program
requirements;
(iv) How the program employs an adaptive management strategy to
ensure future program adaptation as necessary and appropriate; and
(v) How the program includes appropriate monitoring of
effectiveness and compliance.
The considerations presented here are meant to encourage the
development of efforts to improve habitat conditions and the status of
the Oregon spotted frog across its range. For the Service to approve
coverage of a comprehensive or local/regional conservation program
under the 4(d) special rule being considered, the program must provide
a conservation benefit to Oregon spotted frog. Conservation, as defined
in section 3(3) of the Act, means ``to use and the use of all methods
and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or
threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant
to the Act are no longer necessary.'' The program may also be
periodically reviewed by the Service to determine that it continues to
provide the intended conservation benefit to Oregon spotted frog. As a
result of this provision, the Service expects that conservation actions
will be implemented with a high level of certainty that the program
will lead to the long-term conservation of Oregon spotted frog.
Activities Conducted by Individual Private Landowners
The Service is considering whether it is appropriate to develop a
4(d) rule on non-Federal lands when those lands are managed following
technical guidelines that have been developed in coordination with a
State or Federal agency or agencies responsible for the management and
conservation of fish and wildlife, or their agent(s), and that has been
determined by the Service to provide a conservation benefit to the
Oregon spotted frog. For example, a conservation district develops
specific technical guidelines for controlling reed canarygrass that the
Service agrees maintains breeding habitat, hence there is a
conservation benefit to the species. Individual non-Federal landowners
following these specific technical guidelines may be exempted from
take. Guidelines should incorporate procedures, practice standards, and
conservation measures that promote the continued existence of the
Oregon spotted frog.
Ideally, appropriate guidelines would be associated with a program
that would provide financial and technical assistance to participating
landowners to implement specific conservation measures beneficial to
Oregon spotted frog that also contribute to the sustainability of
landowners' activities. Conservation measures encompassed by such a
program should be consistent with management or restoration of emergent
wetland habitats that include vegetation management and appropriate
water management for maintaining habitat for Oregon spotted frog.
We believe including such a provision in a 4(d) special rule for
individual landowner activities will promote conservation of the
species by encouraging landowners with Oregon spotted frog to continue
managing the remaining landscape in ways that meet the needs of their
operations or activities while simultaneously supporting suitable
habitat for the frog and other wetland-dependent species.
We will consider all comments and information received during our
preparation of a final determination on the status of the species and a
4(d) special rule. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from our
original proposal.
Educational and Scientific Activities
Finally, we are considering whether it is appropriate to include a
provision for take of Oregon spotted frog when that take is in
accordance with applicable State law for educational or scientific
purposes, the enhancement of propagation or survival of the species,
zoological exhibition, and other conservation purposes consistent with
the Act. An example of an activity that could be covered under such a
provision includes presence/absence and population monitoring surveys.
Such surveys are typically conducted during the breeding season and may
cause disturbance in the breeding habitat, particularly when egg mass
counts are used to estimate the number of frogs. These surveys entail
walking transects through the shallow-water breeding habitat, which may
cause some disturbance of breeding frogs and a low likelihood of
trampling of egg masses or frogs. However, if surveys are conducted in
accordance with scientifically accepted methodologies, minimal impact
to Oregon spotted frogs, primarily in the form of harassment, should
occur.
Accordingly, we are soliciting public comment as to which
prohibitions, and exceptions to those prohibitions, are necessary and
advisable to provide for the conservation of the Oregon spotted frog
(see Public Comments above). After reviewing the initial public
comments on this topic, we will evaluate whether a 4(d) special rule is
appropriate for the Oregon spotted frog and, if so, publish a proposed
4(d) special rule for public comment. Currently, we have not proposed a
4(d) special rule for Oregon spotted frog. If the Oregon spotted frog
is ultimately listed as a threatened species without a 4(d) special
rule, the general prohibitions (50 CFR 17.31) and exceptions to these
prohibitions (50 CFR 17.32) for threatened species would be applied to
the Oregon spotted frog, as explained above.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our listing determination and critical habitat designation are
based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We have
invited these peer reviewers to comment during this public comment
period.
We will consider all comments and information received during this
comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one public hearing on this
proposal, if
[[Page 53623]]
requested. Requests must be received within 45 days after the date of
publication of this proposed rule in the Federal Register. Such
requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. We will schedule public hearings on this proposal, if any are
requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of those hearings,
as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the Federal
Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the hearing.
Required Determinations
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office--
Bend Field Office, and Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245; unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.11(h) add an entry for ``Frog, Oregon spotted'' to the
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical order under
``Amphibians'' to read as set forth below:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
------------------------------------------------------ Historic range Vertebrate population where Status When Critical Special
Common name Scientific name endangered or threatened listed habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
AMPHIBIANS
* * * * * * *
Frog, Oregon spotted............ Rana pretiosa...... Canada (BC); Entire....................... T .......... NA NA
U.S.A. (WA, OR,
CA).
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Dated: July 18, 2013.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-20986 Filed 8-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
