10 September 2015 Final BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT of LISTED OR PROPOSED for LISTING THREATENED and ENDANGERED WILDLIFE SPECIES Including Critical Habitat

10 September 2015 Final BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING THREATENED AND ENDANGERED WILDLIFE SPECIES Including Critical Habitat

For the MARSH PROJECT

CRESCENT RANGER DISTRICT DESCHUTES NATIONAL FOREST

10 September 2015 Final

10 September 2015 Final Marsh Project Biological Assessment Table of Contents I. Executive Summary 1 II. Action Area 5 III. Listed Species and Critical Habitat in the Action Area. 5 A. Species Considered 5 1. Pacific Fisher 5 2. Oregon Spotted Frog and proposed Critical Habitat 6 B. Species Not Considered 6 1. Northern Spotted Owl and Critical Habitat 6 2. Gray Wolf 6 IV. Consultation History 6 V. Project Description 7 A. Restoration of Natural Water Flow 9 1. User Created Road/Trail Restoration 9 2. Ditch Treatments 9 3. Culvert Removal 13 4. Instream Wood Placement 13 B. Recreation Rehabilitation/Development 13 1. Dispersed Camping 13 2. Trail Maintenance/Reestablishment 13 3. User-created OHV Trail Restoration 13 4. Access Improvements 13 C. Riparian Vegetation Restoration 14 1. Lodgepole Pine Encroachment Overstory Commercial Harvest 14 2. Lodgepole Pine Encroachment Understory Non-commercial Treatment 14 D. Upland Density Management 15 1. Lodgepole Pine Density Management 15 2. Mixed Conifer Density Management Improvement Thin 15 3. Mixed Conifer Density Management Thin from Below 15 E. Upland Fuels Management 15 1. Pile and Burn 15 2. Pruning 15 3. Small Diameter Thin 15 4. Underburn 16 F. Additional Actions for Resource Protection 16 1. Soil and Water Quality 16 2. Wildlife 17 IV. Listed Species in the Action Area 21 A. Pacific Fisher 21 1. ESA Status 21 2. Ecology 22 3. Habitat 22 4. Threats 23 5. Distribution 27 6. Environmental Baseline 27 7. Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects 31 8. Interrelated and Interdependent Effects 35 9. Cumulative Effects 36 10. Rationale for Findings and Determination 36 B. Oregon Spotted Frog 36 1. ESA Status 36 2. Ecology/Habitat 36 i

10 September 2015 Final 3. Threats 37 4. Proposed Critical Habitat 37 5. Distribution 39 6. Environmental Baseline 40 7. Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects 53 8. Interrelated and Interdependent Effects 77 9. Cumulative Effects 77 10. Rationale for Findings and Determination 77 References 80

Appendix A Tables 1. Unit Treatments 2. Riparian Treatments in Wetlands details

Appendix B Maps 1. Figure 2. Marsh Proposed Action 2. Figure 8. Potential Overwinter habitat within Big Marsh 3. Figure 9. USFWS Delineation of Waterbodies and Wetland in the Marsh Project Area 4. Figure 15. Riparian Treatment Units Location Selection based on 1950s photo o 1959 photo o 2012 photo with treatment units 5. Figure 16. Wet land Delineation from USFWS with Proposed Treatments 6. Figure 17. Oregon Spotted Frog Habitat and Riparian Vegetation Restoration Units 7. Figure 18. Juxtaposition of Aquatic Restoration Actions with Oregon spotted frog breeding and potential overwintering sites. 8. Figure 20. East Ditch Restoration Actions and Locations with Oregon Spotted Frog Habitat and Breeding Locations 9. Figure 21. West Ditch Restoration Actions and Locations with Oregon Spotted Frog Habit and Breeding Locations.

10 September 2015 Final BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE MARSH PROJECT

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Biological Assessment (BA) has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2630.3, FSM 2672.4 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Subpart B: 402.12, Section 7 Consultation, as amended) on actions and programs authorized, funded, or carried out by the Forest Service to assess the potential for effects to threatened and endangered species and species proposed for federal listing (FSM 2670.1).

A. Location The Marsh project area is located on the Crescent Ranger District of the Deschutes National Forest in Klamath County, Oregon. It encompasses approximately 30,000 acres of the Upper and Lower Big Marsh Creek subwatersheds within the Crescent Creek watershed. It is located in the southwestern portion of the Crescent Ranger District.

B. Purpose and Need The purpose of this project is to manage for a suite of ecological and cultural benefits expressed by the public and in the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), which are distinctive to the Marsh planning area and can be effectively managed by the Forest Service and its partners. There is a need to both address natural and human threats to this current range of benefits being provided and also enhance the ecosystem’s capacity to provide a similar amount and diverse set of benefits in the future. Threats include, but are not limited to: stand-replacing fire, beetle infestations, and unmanaged recreation impacts. The following ecosystem services were identified as a priority by the public and the agency and thus provide the focus for this project: Provisioning Services  Hydrology: Maintain and enhance a clean, functioning, free-flowing water source that provides habitat connectivity within Big Marsh and contributes to the hydrologic system of the Deschutes River basin.  Matsutake Mushroom Harvesting: Maintain the socially and economically important mushroom harvesting experience through maintenance of high quality mushroom habitat, particularly along the Matsutake Ridge portion of the project area.  Forest Products: Provide opportunities for timber harvest, firewood gathering and post and pole harvest to support the local communities and economies of Crescent Lake Junction, Crescent, Gilchrist, and beyond. Supporting Services  High Quality Plant and Animal Habitat: Maintain and enhance marsh and upland habitats in the project area for an abundance and diversity of plant and animal species, including species classified as threatened, endangered, or sensitive such as the Oregon spotted frog. Cultural Services  High Quality Dispersed Recreation Opportunities: Maintain and enhance the diverse recreation experience unique to the Marsh area (opportunities for hiking, snowmobiling, hunting, fishing, paddling, ATVing, and more), characterized by an accessible, semi-primitive (both motorized and non-motorized) recreation experience that invokes a sense of remoteness.  Scenic Views: Restore and enhance the expansive views of both the upland portions of the project area and Big Marsh, returning it to a pre-grazing viewscape.

C. Proposed Action The proposed action is the preferred alternative from the Marsh Environmental Analysis (EA), Alternative C, as modified in the Draft Decision dated September 8, 2015. Provisioning Services proposals include hydrological restoration and forest products. Actions to restore natural water flows include: creating breaches and filling in portions of the ditches, creating and connecting Oregon spotted frog overwintering habitat with the rest of the marsh; placing wood along Big Marsh Creek and tributaries, removing 7 culverts, removing a stream crossing and replacing a gate.

10 September 2015 Final

Provisioning services include forest products that consist of upland fuels and density management. Upland fuels treatments include a variety of different unit treatments on approximately 1,443 acres. The various treatments include pile creation and burning, mowing, pruning, small diameter thinning with underburning and underburning only treatments. Upland density management would commercially thin approximately 445 acres including upland lodgepole pine (171 acres) and mixed conifer (274 acres). Additional treatment to these harvested areas would include small diameter thinning, slash piling and burning. Where stands are ponderosa pine dominated, additional underburning will take place. Firewood removal is included in post-harvest treatments and prior to fuels treatments. Overlapping Provisioning Services are Supporting Services proposals which include riparian vegetation restoration. Riparian vegetation restoration will restore meadow/shrub/marsh habitat and include a combination of commercial and noncommercial removal of encroaching lodgepole pine on approximately 616 acres in and along the margins of Big Marsh. All vegetation treatments are estimated to provide 3.0 Million Board Feet (MMBF) of timber and make 1,595 acres of upland treatment areas available for potential firewood gathering.

Cultural Services enhancing the recreational experience of remoteness and solitude includes reducing the size of 15 dispersed campsites, closing and rehabilitating 9 sites, obliterating and restoring 0.5 miles of user-created OHV trail and re-establishing the Big Marsh Nature Trail. Cultural Services also include proposals to increase access to Big Marsh. Access management actions will open up the viewpoint overlooking the marsh on the 5825 road and re-open ½ mile of the 5825-540 road to provide access to the east side of the marsh and the Big Marsh Nature Trail.

D. Threatened and Endangered Species 1. Northern Spotted Owl The northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) is federally listed as threatened. While the project area contains habitat there would be no overstory treatment associated with the Marsh project within northern spotted owl nesting, roosting or foraging habitat, known northern spotted owl home ranges, or Critical Habitat. There would be approximately 706 acres of overstory treatment associated with northern spotted owl dispersal habitat. All but 223 acres of dispersal habitat would still be functional post-treatment. Since proposed treatments would decrease dispersal habitat, the determination is that implementation of the proposed action “May Effect, but is not Likely to Adversely Affect” the northern spotted owl. There would be no activity within or adjacent to any 2012 Critical Habitat Unit, therefore there would be “No Effect” to northern spotted owl Critical Habitat. The project meets all Project Design Criteria outlined in the 2014 programmatic Biological Assessment1. The Level 1 team discussed the need to consult and determined further consultation was not necessary, therefore it is not considered in this document.

2. Gray Wolf The gray wolf (Canus lupus) is federally listed as endangered. The project area does not contain known denning or rendezvous sites. There are no known wolf packs on the Deschutes National Forest. The closest known breeding pair occurs on the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest. The use area for this pair is approximately 45 miles south of the project area. Habitat for wolf prey species (elk and mule deer) occurs seasonally in the project area. Project activities would not affect the gray wolf or its habitat. The determination for the gray wolf would be “No Effect” therefore it is not considered in this document.

3. Pacific Fisher Project implementation of one acre of overstory removal and 34 acres of understory treatments would affect a small amount of fisher habitat, 26 percent of potential denning habitat within the project area and three percent on the DNF. Resource protection measures, the retention of snags and down wood, and available potential habitat within and adjacent to treatment units would aid in maintaining potential habitat across the project area.

1 The Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests completed a Joint Terrestrial and Aquatic Programmatic Biological Assessment (BA, USDA and USDI 2014) in May 2014 for Federal Lands within the Deschutes and John Day River Basin’s administered by the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests. A letter of concurrence was received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in June 2014 2

10 September 2015 Final Due to the fore-mentioned affects and measures, along with the reduction in overall potential denning habitat loss from the applicable USFW listed threats there would be an unmeasurable effect to the West Coast DPS of fisher. Therefore, implementation of the Marsh project would have a “May Affect, but is not Likely to Adversely Affect” to the Pacific fisher and its habitat on the Deschutes National Forest.

4. Oregon Spotted Frog Proposed actions alter, remove and create habitat for the Oregon spotted frog. Direct impacts include altering existing habitat and disturbance. During riparian restoration, disturbance of all life stages in nonbreeding/overwintering areas by hand crews would create escape responses in Oregon spotted frogs. Timing and duration of disturbance would vary by amount of wetlands within riparian restoration units needing hand work. Mitigation measures protect ponds and wet areas from equipment by 50’buffers. Within the drier commercially harvested riparian restoration units, disturbance would be limited to approximately a day per unit to complete the hand work. Within wet noncommercial units, disturbance would be greater as all work would be done by hand and include crews cutting/piling and burning. Disturbance in a given unit could be a couple of hours a day to a week depending on tree density and progress of the crews. During high water years, crews could be working in water 3-6 inches deep that provides rearing habitat. However, with high water there would be ample escape habitat. Total time to complete the disturbing hand work in riparian restoration units is estimated to be 38 days, with additional time in subsequent years for burning piles and planting hardwoods.

The greatest harm for individual Oregon spotted frogs would occur during restoration of natural flows with ditch reconfiguration. Anticipated changes would be limited to the southwest and southeast corners of the Marsh, where diversion ditches continue to impede the natural flow paths of water. With equipment working ( e.g. moving and depositing dirt) in occupied Oregon spotted frog habitat, there is a high potential frogs could be harmed or killed. Although resource protection measures include surveys for and moving of Oregon spotted frogs from restoration sites to undisturbed habitat prior to implementation, the potential for missing detection and/or capture of a frog is high.

The Oregon spotted frogs in the southeast and southwest portions of the marsh comprise approximately 26% of the Big Marsh population. All life stages will be affected during the 7-13 day implementation period for all aquatic restoration to be completed. It is estimated only 2% of the population would be in harm’s way and directly impacted either by capture and relocation, the proposed ditch breaching and filling actions or the felling of lodgepole pine located on the berm. A smaller unknown percentage not found and relocated would suffer harm or be killed during the process.

Escape response created by disturbance through interactions with Oregon spotted frog tadpoles and adults along the Big Marsh Nature Trail is expected to increase with the reestablishment of the trail and opening of the 540 road. Approximately 0.5 miles of the trail would traverse through breeding/rearing habitat and have access to life cycle habitats. There would be a decrease in access to frog habitat with the closing of 7 dispersed campsites and reduction of 5 others. These actions would reduce the number of people accessing frog habitat at any one time, thus reducing potential disturbance to Oregon spotted frogs

Changes of habitat occur through reduction of lodgepole pine in wetland habitats and breaching and reconfiguring ditches. LPO and LPU treatments of freshwater forested/shrub wetlands and riverine habitat may create additional breeding habitat on as much as 211 acres during non-drought years. Removing the trees would increase water levels and the duration of standing water, sedge/grass and shrub wetland habitat, and solar exposure. Reducing the expansion of lodgepole pine in the freshwater emergent wetlands would maintain existing breeding/rearing habitat and provide increased solar exposure on approximately 143 acres of where standing water is present into late fall in non-drought years. The 10 acres of overwintering habitat within Vegetation Restoration units would be protected through buffers.

Of the 4 acres of overwintering habitat within the ditch, restoration actions would fill in approximately 0.1 acres and modify an additional 0.4-0.5 acres. Breaching and recontouring side slopes would maintain depth and slope

10 September 2015 Final up to the elevation of the marsh. This configuration would maintain overwintering habitat, create and connect to breeding and rearing habitat.

Rerouting water out of the ditches would result in a decrease in channel efficiency or the rate at which surface and groundwater flows from the Marsh. Decreasing the drainage efficiency may result in water having a longer residence time on the marsh. Anticipated changes in local water surface elevations at the breaches would likely be in the range of three to six inches in localized areas (less than 1 acre) during wet times of the year. With a total of 5-10 breaches on the east ditch and 10-15 breaches on the west side, water would increase over 15 to 25 acres.

Again these changes are expected to occur primarily where ditch restoration work is proposed (southern end of marsh) but possibly also on the northern end of the marsh as well due to instream log placement. This change in water surface elevation would not be expected throughout the marsh but in localized areas that may currently be dry. For example, areas up to one acre adjacent to the drainage ditches and the sidecast berms would be expected to become inundated with water more frequently through each breach in the ditch berms.

Although implementation of the projects puts individual Oregon spotted frogs at risk, the project addresses the major threats to the Oregon spotted frog population within the Marsh project area. Restoration of hydrological conditions, removal of encroaching lodgepole pine, limited reintroduction of fire, adding down wood in and adjacent to the streams to provide refugia and encourage expansion of beaver in the marsh would aid in restoring favorable conditions.

The proposed actions fill or reconfigures overwintering habitat, overall the actions improve the primary constituent elements (PCE) of Oregon spotted frog proposed Critical Habitat Unit 9. Restoration of hydrology would connect overwintering to breeding/rearing and nonbreeding habitat (PCE2), create additional wintering habitat and provide conditions for expansion of beaver into the marsh (PCE 1). Removing encroaching lodgepole pine provides additional breeding habitat (PCE 1) by increased inundation and providing solar heating to areas which currently are inundated in the spring, but do not warm sufficiently for use. The Marsh project would also enhance refugia (PCE 3) with the addition of down wood, revegetation and maintenance of the existing segregation of Oregon spotted frog habitat from non-native fish species. Surveys after past restoration treatments have shown that Oregon spotted frogs move into and utilize these areas and the population of Oregon spotted frog has increased.

While the proposed project activities would not directly restore the natural flow regime and hydrologic conditions to those described by Thompson, Pengra and Odell in 1865, they are expected to improve conditions and allow for that recovery over the longer term, with the assistance of beavers.

While resource protection measures reduce the project risk to Oregon spotted frogs, the potential for harm or death of individuals during implementation of ditch filling and breaching remains. Over the long term formerly aquatically isolated overwintering habitat would be connected to breeding/rearing and additional life cycle habitats would be created. In conjunction, breeding/rearing habitat would be increased and/or maintained by removing encroaching lodgepole pine. The Marsh project “is likely to adversely affect Oregon spotted frog habitat and individual Oregon spotted frogs over the short term with a long term beneficial effect.”

Within proposed CHU 9, modification of overwintering habitat would occur on 4 acres of ditch with approximately 0.1 acre filled in. It would not affect the proposed CHU’s ability to function in the recovery of the Oregon spotted frog. Over the long term the project increases PCE 1 through creation or maintenance of all life cycle habitats, increases connectivity between habitats (PCE2) and increases refugia (PCE 3) through increased down wood as well as increased cover as treatment areas revegetate. The Marsh project is “likely to adversely affect proposed CHU 9 in the short term with a long term beneficial effect.”

10 September 2015 Final

II. ACTION AREA The Marsh project area is located on the Crescent Ranger District of the Deschutes National Forest in Klamath County, Oregon. It encompasses approximately 30,000 acres of the Upper and Lower Big Marsh Creek subwatersheds (within the Crescent Creek watershed), located in the southwestern portion of the Crescent Ranger District, west of the community of Crescent, Oregon (Figure 1). It includes land within the following legal descriptions: T24S R6E, T24S R7E, T25S R5.5E, T25S R6E, T25S R7E, T26S R6.5E, T26.5S R6.5E; Willamette Meridian. Rock sources for restoration/trail work would be local Forest Service rock pits: Black Rock Pit at T24S, R8E Section 6; Telephone Rock Quarry at T26S, R8 E Section 16; and Junction Rock Quarry at T 26S, R8 E Section 16. Travel routes from the rock pits to the project area would include Forest Service roads: 4680, 46, 6020 and/or 5825. The focal point of the planning area is Big Marsh. Over 2,100 acres at an approximate elevation of 4,700 feet, Big Marsh is one of the largest high elevation wetland/marsh complexes in the continental United States.

Figure 1. Location of the Marsh Planning Area near Crescent, OR. Within the action area there is habitat for the northern spotted owl and portions of northern spotted owl Critical Habitat Unit 6, West Cascades South (WCS), subunit WCS 5; Oregon spotted frog and portions of proposed Oregon spotted frog Critical Habitat Unit 9, Little Deschutes River; the gray wolf and Pacific fisher.

III. LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE ACTION AREA A. Species Considered 1. Pacific Fisher The Pacific fisher (Pekania pennanti) is proposed for federal listing as threatened. Currently, the project area overlaps with the 2004 USFWS defined distinct population segment (DSP) for fisher. In the proposed listing analysis, (Fed. Reg. 2014b) both Alternatives 1 and 2 definitions would exclude the Deschutes National Forest 5

10 September 2015 Final and the Marsh project area from the DPS. There is approximately 134 acres of potential denning habitat within the Marsh project area. The proposed actions, through commercial and/or precommercial tree thinning would reduce canopy and stand complexity eliminating potential denning habitat on 34 acres.

2. Oregon Spotted Frog The Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) is federally listed as threatened. It inhabits Big Marsh and the Big Marsh Creek basin at the center of the project area. Big Marsh Creek is part of Oregon spotted frog proposed Critical Habitat Unit 9. Proposed actions directly affect the Oregon spotted frog through handling and relocation of individuals, as well as, manipulation of occupied habitat. Proposed actions within the proposed CHU include manipulation of primary constituent elements. Specifically, portions of isolated overwintering habitat would be removed through filling in of the ditches and breaching of ditches. There would also be nonbreeding and overwintering habitat created through the recontouring of ditches: where the breaches occur, breeding/rearing habitat and other non-breeding habitat will be connected aquatically. Removal of lodgepole pine trees encroaching on the marsh would increase solar exposure to areas inundated in the spring creating breeding/rearing habitat. The project would have a short term adverse effect, but a long term beneficial effect, both to the species and to proposed critical habitat.

The upland density treatments, fuels treatments, firewood, access management and viewpoint enhancement actions that do not affect Oregon spotted frog or proposed critical habitat will not be discussed or further analyzed within the Oregon spotted frog section, but is included within the fisher analysis.

B. Species Not Considered 1. Northern Spotted Owl The northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) is federally listed as threatened. While the project area contains habitat there would be no overstory treatment associated with the Marsh project within northern spotted owl nesting, roosting or foraging habitat, known northern spotted owl home ranges, or Critical Habitat. There would be approximately 706 acres of overstory treatment associated with northern spotted owl dispersal habitat. All but 223 acres of dispersal habitat would still be functional post-treatment. Since proposed treatments would decrease dispersal habitat, the determination is that implementation of the proposed action “May Effect, but is not Likely to Adversely Affect” the northern spotted owl. There would be no activity within or adjacent to any 2012 Critical Habitat Unit, therefore there would be “No Effect” to northern spotted owl Critical Habitat. The project meets all Project Design Criteria outlined in the 2014 programmatic Biological Assessment2. The Level 1 team discussed the need to consult and determined further consultation was not necessary, therefore it is not considered in this document.

IV. CONSULTATION HISTORY 3/6/2014 - A Level 1 consultation meeting for the Marsh Project was held at the Bend Pine Administrative Site to provide the Level 1 team with an overview of the project and to discuss Oregon spotted frogs and northern spotted owls. Attendees included from the Crescent Ranger District: Joan Kittrell, District Wildlife Biologist; Carina Rosterolla, Wildlife Biologist, and Paul Powers, District Fish Biologist; from the Supervisor Office: Rob

2 The Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests completed a Joint Terrestrial and Aquatic Programmatic Biological Assessment (BA, USDA and USDI 2014) in May 2014 for Federal Lands within the Deschutes and John Day River Basin’s administered by the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests. A letter of concurrence was received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in June 2014 6

10 September 2015 Final Tanner, Assistant Forest Hydrologist; Peter Sussman, Soil Scientist, Lauri Turner, Forest Wildlife Biologist and Level 1 Representative; Dan Rife, Forest Fish Biologist and Level 1 Representative; and Jennifer O’Reilly, Fish and Wildlife Service Level 1 Representative.

5/15/2014 - Email exchange between Joan Kittrell and Jennifer O’Reilly regarding utilizing the recently signed programmatic BA for the northern spotted owl (NSO).

7/31/2014 - Joan Kittrell met briefly with Jennifer O’Reilly to discuss wording on OSF that would be in the Marsh EA and BA to ensure consistency when the EA goes out for comment.

7/14/2015 – Level 1 team met to discuss content needed in the BA and how the new NSO territory would alter the project. The Level 1 team agreed that by dropping or altering unit boundaries would meet design criteria for the NSO, the programmatic BA would still be used and formal consultation would not be necessary.

7/21/2015 – Level 1 team met to discuss edits needed to the BA.

9/2/2015 – Level 1 team met to discuss final edits to the proposed CHU section and wording for determination.

V. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed action for the Crescent Ranger District Marsh Environmental Analysis consists of those actions from the preferred alternative, Alternative C modified. The proposed action provides for components of Provisioning, Supporting and Cultural Ecosystem Services. Provisioning Services include restoration of natural water flow and forest products. Supporting Services include high quality plant and animal habitat. Cultural services include high quality dispersed recreation opportunities and scenic views. Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed actions and Figure 2 shows the location of proposed treatment units.

Table 1. Marsh Proposed Action

Provisioning Hydrology Restoration of Natural Water Flow Service Stream Crossing Removal On closed non-system road off of 6030, a 10x100 ft section of old Gate Relocation road/trail crossing in tributary removed and gate replaced.

Restoration Includes filling in portions of the east and west ditches, creating of Natural Ditch Closure breaches in the ditches, connecting and creating Oregon spotted frog Water Flow overwintering habitat in the marsh Culvert Removal 7 culverts on the 6030 road Instream Wood Placement Along approximately 1 mile of Big Marsh Creek and tributaries Cultural High Quality Dispersed Rehabilitation/Development Services Recreation and Scenic Views Dispersed Camping Close and rehabilitate 9 sites, reduce footprint in 15 of 41 existing sites Trail Maintenance Re-establish 2 miles of the Big Marsh Nature Trail Recreation User-Created OHV Trail and Access 0.5 miles of user-created trail ripped and planted Restoration Management Access Improvements Re-open 1/2 mi of 5825-540 Scenic Overlook Maintenance Selectively fell trees to enhance view-approximately 2 acres

10 September 2015 Final

Provisioning High Quality Plant and and Under- Prescribed Animal Habitats, Forest Overstory Pile and Burn Acres Supporting story Fire Products Services Lodgepole Pine Encroachment LPO STD PF PB (GP) 191 Overstory Treatment Riparian Girdle or Vegetation Lodgepole Pine Encroachment Fire Kill in LPU PF PB (HP) 202 Restoration Understory Treatment Mosaic Total Riparian Vegetation Restoration 393 Lodge pole Pine Density HIM SDT PB (GP) 171 Management Mixed Con Density Upland HIM SDT PB (GP) 141 Management Density Management Mixed Con Density HIM SDT PF PB (GP) 39 Management, Underburn HTH SDT PF PB (GP) 94 Total Upland Density Management 445 Pile and Burn Only PB (GP) 49 Pile existing slash, mow PB (GP) 21 Prune Prune PB (GP/HP/SC) 217 SDT PB (GP/SB) 106 Upland Fuels Roadside SDT, PB (GP/SB) 461 Management Prune Small Diamter Thin, SDT PF PB (GP/SB) 239 Underburn Underburn PF 350 Total Upland Fuels Management 1,443 Total Acres Treated 2,281 All areas proposed for piling, except for those in lodgepole Total Potential Areas Firewood pine encroachment treatment areas (LPO or LPU) or within (subset of above treatment 1,595 Gathering NSO NRF habitat, or riparian areas would have acres) opportunities for firewood removal. HIM = Harvest Improvement Cut, HTH = Harvest Commercial Thin, LPO = Lodgepole Pine Encroachment Overstory, LPU = Lodgepole Pine Encroachment Understory SDT = Small Diameter Thinning PF = Prescribed Fire = underburn or in Riparian Vegetation treatment areas may also include burning of concentrations only; PB = Pile and Burn, GP = Grapple Pile, HP = Hand Pile, SB=Slash Busting, SC=Scatter, Pile and Burn treatments may vary depending on activity fuel loading and location after the initial vegetative treatment.

10 September 2015 Final

Figure 2. Marsh Proposed Action (Larger scale available in Appendix B) A. Restoration of Natural Water Flow 1. User Created Road/Trail Restoration The abandoned snowmobile trail crossing on an unnumbered spur road that joins the 6030 road northwest of Big Marsh would be removed utilizing a spider excavator or similar type of machinery. The crossing is a boardwalk type structure that is rotten and no longer used. The boardwalk is approximately 10 feet wide by 100 feet long. Approximately one mile of the road/trail would be restored utilizing a 200 class or similar excavator with a toothed bucket to break up compaction and fluff the soil. In addition, the existing gate at the riparian crossing would be moved to the junction with the 6030 road further restricting motorized access. Work would take place in between July 1 and late September when soil conditions are the driest.

2. Ditch Treatments Portions of the east and west ditches along the edges of Big Marsh would be reconfigured. The purpose is to help return the hydrologic regime to a more natural condition, get more water flowing into the marsh itself, and provide connectivity between Oregon spotted frog breeding/rearing, nonbreeding and overwintering habitats. The focus would be on areas where tributary streams currently flow into the ditches. Reconfiguring, along with construction of short lead-out channels, would direct flow towards the main channel of the Marsh. This work would also include bolstering existing ditch plugs created during restoration work in the past 20 years. The work would include:

10 September 2015 Final o Plugging of ditches at the breach points. Ponds created by plugging the ditches would generally be 3-6 feet deep, 15-30 feet long, and, at a minimum, equal to the current width (varys from 8 to 20’) of the ditch to provide OSF overwintering habitat. o Whenever possible breaches would have a lead out portion of the outlet sloped at ≤3% grade to the marsh level to provide connectivity between rearing/summer habitat and wintering habitat. o All hydrologic restoration work within Oregon spotted frog habitat would be coordinated with a wildlife biologist before implementation. Oregon spotted frog occurrence surveys would be completed prior to hydrologic restoration work. In the event of occurrence, Oregon spotted frogs would be removed from the project site to adjacent habitat at the time of implementation.

The majority of material removed from the berms or excavated from the channels would be re-located within the ditch channels to serve as plugs and would become part of the soil profile. An estimated 5,000 ft2 of the soil resource could be excavated and re-located in the west ditch area from these activities. An estimated 3,000 ft2 could be excavated and re-located in the east ditch area from these activities.

All ditch treatments would be accomplished with a small tracked excavator (100 class or smaller, or walking spider excavator). Timing of treatments would be between July 1 and September 30 when waters have receded and soils are driest.

WEST DITCH TREATMENTS (Figure 3 treatment numbers correspond to numbered location on map.) 1. Remove the existing log/plastic dam structure near the confluence with the west ditch and main channel tributary. Removal would be done by hand or with excavator described above. 2. Plug the west ditch just northwest of the existing dam with excavated soil from Treatment 3. The plug would be approximately 50 feet in length and would prevent conveyance of water down the ditch and prevent fish from getting into the ditch. 3. Excavate a 50 ft breach in the berm along the northeast side of the ditch and utilize this material for Treatment 2. Trees growing on the berm would be tipped over and used as roughness in the ditch line. The berm would be excavated to create a breach approximately 50 feet, at an elevation that matches the adjacent valley floor surface. Excavated material would be placed in the ditch line to reduce channel efficiency and distribute flow onto the adjacent valley floor. The material from the berm would include soil and trees. Lodgepole pine trees 3-18 inches dbh would be up-rooted and incorporated into and along the plug and ditch. Sedge mats (1-4 ft²) may be excavated with machinery or by hand adjacent to the ditch and transplanted along the new plug to initiate native vegetation establishment on the bare soil. 4. Expand an existing narrow (6 ft.) breach in the ditch berm to a broad breach approximately 50 feet in width. Utilize excavated material to plug the ditch upstream and downstream of the breach so that water can more effectively move from the western toe slope across the ditch and into the marsh. 5. Excavate approximately 5-10 frog overwintering ponds within the ditch. Ponds would be approximately 3-6 feet deep, 16-26 feet long, and, at a minimum, equal to the current width (varies from 8 to 20’) of the ditch. Excavated material would be utilized as plugs in the ditch. Lead-out breaches through the berm (from the excavated overwintering areas) on the northeast side of the ditch would be constructed and would serve as transition zones from marsh to ponds for aquatic species, primarily frogs. The lead- out breaches would be tapered from the deepest part of the pond to a shallower elevation that corresponds with the marsh elevation, as close to 3% gradient as possible. Location of these ponds would occur where the ponds would incorporate existing topography and materials to provide optimum overwintering habitat. Generally they would be at wide spots in the ditch to maximize the area of shallow, inundated shoulders that promoted vegetation emergence during the spring months. 6. Construct a broad (approximately 100 ft.) breach on the east side of the ditch to allow water inputs from the west side to flow into the marsh. Berm material would be used to plug adjacent portions of the ditch. 7. Excavate frog overwintering areas within the ditch; similar to as stated in #5 above. Ponds would be approximately 3-6 feet deep, 16-26 feet long, and from 8 to 20’wide. Excavated material would be utilized as plugs in the ditch. Lead-out breaches through the berm (from the excavated overwintering 10

10 September 2015 Final areas) on the northeast side of the ditch would be constructed and would serve as transition zones from marsh to ponds for aquatic species, primarily frogs. The lead-out breaches would be tapered from the deepest part of the pond to a shallower elevation that corresponds with the marsh elevation, as close to 3% gradient as possible. 8. Widen the existing breach in the berm to approximately 100 ft. to allow more water from the spring tributary to flow across the ditch and into the Marsh. The material from the breach construction would be utilized to plug the ditch upstream and downstream of the breach. 9. Widen the existing breach in the berm to approximately 100 ft. to allow more water from the spring tributary to flow across the ditch and into the Marsh. The material from the breach construction would be utilized to plug the ditch upstream and downstream of the breach. Re-contour the area where the spring tributary was dammed/ponded (near where it meets the west ditch). The area is approximately 30 feet by 50 feet. The existing log dam, consisting of a log with plastic sheeting that is in the ditch would be removed. The plastic sheeting would be properly disposed of offsite and the log would be left on site. 10. Remove lodgepole pine trees along the berm during implementation of actions 2 - 9. Material would be incorporated into and adjacent to the ditches for complexity. A small amount of material would be utilized in the excavated overwintering ponds and lead-out breaches. Additional hand felling/burning work would occur to address the conifer encroachment in the broader area adjacent to the berm that is too wet for machinery.

Figure 3. West Ditch Treatment Locations

10 September 2015 Final

EAST DITCH TREATMENTS (Figure 4 treatment numbers correspond to numbered location on map.) 1. Utilize a portion of the earthen piles from the previously constructed ponds as fill/plug material for the southernmost portions of the ditch. Utilizing a spider excavator or similar equipment, approximately 600 cubic yards of material would be removed from the earthen piles by reducing the height of the piles by approximately 3 feet. Piles would retain an elevation that is 1-2 feet above the high water mark with varying elevations for complexity. Material from the earthen piles would be relocated into the ditch adjacent to the ponds, mostly to extend the length of the two existing plugs. Material would not be redistributed adjacent to the existing constructed pond piles due to yellow rail habitat nearby. 2. Construct 5-10 additional breaches in the existing berm that are 15-20 feet wide. This activity would extend north to approximately where the 5825-540 road comes down to the Marsh. The excavated material would be used to recontour the edges of the ditches to favor habitat for spotted frogs. Any excavated reed canary grass would be placed on high and dry locations to reduce the likelihood of spread. Lodgepole pine would be thinned along this entire reach and would be left in place or utilized for habitat or fill. Additional hand felling/burning work would occur to address the conifer encroachment in the broader area adjacent to the berm that is too wet for machinery. Timing of this handwork would take place during the dryer times of the year starting July 1 and into the winter months.

Figure 4. East Ditch Treatment Areas.

10 September 2015 Final 3. Culvert Removal On the south end of the closed portion of Forest Road 6030, seven culverts would be removed to improve aquatic species passage and habitat connectivity. Existing culverts are undersized and do not provide aquatic organism passage. Once the culverts are removed, the stream channel would be reshaped and stabilized to match the stream morphology (i.e. channel width, depth and gradient) immediately upstream and downstream of the area. Floodplains would also be constructed to match the upstream and downstream floodplain dimensions. Grade control structures (i.e. boulder sills built sub-grade) may also be needed to stabilize these channels. Removal of the culverts and contouring would require excavation equipment. Boulders would come from district weed free rock sources such as Odell Pit. Access would be provided by the existing road. The project would be completed during the driest time of the year, generally July 1 through September.

4. Instream Wood Placement Trees in Riparian Encroachment treatment units would be directionally felled, pushed over and/or placed adjacent to Big Marsh Creek and both the east and west ditches in the project area to imitate the natural role of in-stream wood in the hydrologic regime. This would support a wider diversity of wildlife species. Areas proposed for wood placement occur within proposed harvest units. Equipment used for harvest would be used for cutting, pushing over and placement of trees within the floodplain of Big Marsh Creek. The placed trees would provide the structural foundation for beaver dam building, supporting the expansion of beaver in the project area.

B. Recreation Rehabilitation/Development 1. Dispersed Camping There would be 9 dispersed camp sites closed and rehabilitated and 15 sites reduced in size. The action would reduce impacts to either a high quality dispersed recreation experience or to other values within the planning area. For example, sites proposed for closure are located in the marsh itself and impacting natural resources, or are grouped so closely together as to detract from the dispersed camping experience. Sites proposed for size reduction would be pulled back from riparian areas or reduced in size due to resource impacts. Actions include the placement of boulders from Odell Pit, posts, and other implements to block access to previously used areas and the removal of fire rings. Work would be completed during dry conditions, by hand or excavator type equipment during drier times of the year, July 1 through September 30th. In associated upland areas, work may be completed at any time during the summer or fall most likely June through October.

2. Trail Maintenance/Reestablishment Reestablish the Big Marsh nature trail, providing seasonal walking access to the marsh. This would include hand removal and replacement of a puncheon (wooden walkway used to cross bogs or small streams), reestablishment of a trail tread to a width not to exceed 24”, removal of the native material bridge and replacement with a low water crossing, installation of low water crossings (stepping stones) at each of the east ditch breaches, and design and installation of multiple interpretive signs describing the marsh and its systems. It is expected that all work would be done with shovels, pulaskis, posthole diggers, chainsaw, and wheelbarrows during low water, July 1 through September.

3. User-created OHV Trail Restoration Approximately 1/2 mile of user-created OHV trails in the northwest portion of the planning area would be rehabilitated by ripping, recontouring and planting native vegetation, returning the landscape to a more natural condition. Work would be completed by hand or excavator type equipment. This upland treatment would be completed during the summer or fall, most likely June through October.

4. Access Improvements To provide access to the east side of the marsh, approximately 1/2 mile of Forest Road 5825-540 would be reopened to the public. This would include removing road closed carsonite markers and putting the road on the Motorized Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). The road was changed to a maintenance level 1 - closed, in the late 1990s but not physically closed. As the only access to the east side of the marsh, it continued to receive high use by fishermen, hunters and birdwatchers. With the implementation of Travel Management in 2005, the 13

10 September 2015 Final closed status of the road was reinforced through the MVUM. Public comments since that time led to this proposed action.

C. Riparian Vegetation Restoration 1. Lodgepole Pine Encroachment Overstory (LPO) (Commercial Harvest) On approximately 191 acres along the transitional area between upland and marsh, the majority of lodgepole pine both in the overstory and understory, would be removed through commercial harvest. There would be a minimum of two of the largest trees per acre left to serve as foraging perches for great grey owls and other predatory birds. Removal would be accomplished by cutting or prescribed fire. Other species such as Engelmann spruce and true firs may also be removed where they are intermixed with lodgepole pine. After lodgepole pine is removed, willows and other ecologically appropriate hardwoods would be planted at low densities. These plantings may need fencing to protect them from big game browsing until they become established. Areas that are not primarily lodgepole pine would be avoided unless needed to access lodgepole pine areas.

2. Lodgepole Pine Encroachment Understory (LPU) (Non Commercial Treatment) In riparian areas primarily consisting of lodgepole pine, all trees less than 8” dbh would be removed. There would be no commercial removal of the overstory in these units; however, trees larger than 8” dbh in these areas may be girdled (except Engelmann Spruce), cut and left in place, or used for instream wood placement. This would reduce seeding in of lodgepole pine after treatment. This activity would be accomplished by hand cutting or prescribed fire on approximately 202acres. After lodgepole pine is removed, willows and other ecologically appropriate hardwoods would be planted at low densities. These plantings may need fencing to protect them from browsing until they become established.

D. Upland Density Management Implementation of the following activities would be accomplished via commercial logging equipment and/or hand tools (chainsaws, loppers, etc.). While there is no specific logging systems/equipment required or prohibited, there are resource protection measures listed in the Resource Protection Measures section below to reduce, minimize, or avoid resource damages.

1. Lodgepole Pine Density Management (171 acres) (improvement cut, precommercial thin, grapple pile, slash and burn) In order to improve the health, composition and quality of lodgepole pine dominated stands; lodgepole pine that would not respond to thinning would be removed. Removal would include lodgepole pine trees with less than a 30% live crown or heavy dwarf mistletoe. This would create some openings less than two acres in size that are likely to seed in within 10 years. Lodgepole pine would also be removed around scattered sugar pine and ponderosa pine that occur throughout the stands. The remaining lodgepole pine overstory would be thinned to an average of 20’ spacing. This action, along with leave areas, would create a stand of varying tree densities. Some stands would have further openings created to break up the age structure so that stands are at future beetle risk at differing times. Slash generated would be machine piled and burned.

2. Mixed Conifer Density Management (HIM) with (39 acres) and without (141 acres) Underburn (improvement cut, precommercial thin, grapple pile, slash and burn, prescribed fire) In dry ponderosa pine or dry mixed conifer (ponderosa dominated) areas, all lodgepole pine would be removed and remaining trees would be thinned from below to between 60 and 80 square feet of basal area favoring healthy sugar pine, ponderosa pine, and white pine. Initial slash treatment would include grapple piling and burning. This action, along with leave areas, would create varying tree densities throughout each treatment unit including some openings less than two acres in size. Some of these openings may be planted with ecologically appropriate tree species including ponderosa pine and sugar pine. The emphasis of these fire resistant tree species would facilitate future maintenance by prescribed fire and the reduction of tree density would reduce beetle risk for several decades. Other openings would be left unplanted to provide longer term early seral habitat. Some areas would be below desired stocking levels in the overstory and may be planted as described

10 September 2015 Final above. This action would occur on approximately 141 acres with additional units totaling 39 acres receiving an underburn post-harvest.

3. Mixed Conifer Density Management Underburn (HTH) (94 acres) (cultural treatment cut, precommercial thin, grapple pile, slash and burn, prescribed fire) In dry mixed conifer (Douglas-fir dominated) areas, trees will be thinned from below to between 80 and 100 square feet of basal area per acre favoring Douglas-fir, sugar pine, ponderosa pine and white pine. This treatment would include gaps with large trees at low densities as well as untreated clumps to create variable density conditions. The overall treatment would increase individual tree growth with the gaps favoring large branch development and creation of multiple canopy layers important for future spotted owl habitat. Canopy cover would be greater than 35% over each stand after treatment and remain spotted owl dispersal habitat.

In dry ponderosa pine or dry mixed conifer (ponderosa dominated) areas, all lodgepole pine would be removed; remaining trees will be thinned from below to between 60 and 80 square feet of basal area favoring healthy sugar pine, ponderosa pine, and white pine. This along with leave areas will create varying tree densities throughout each treatment unit including some openings less than two acres in size. Some of these openings may be planted with ecologically appropriate tree species including ponderosa pine and sugar pine. The emphasis of these fire-resistant tree species would facilitate future maintenance by prescribed fire and the reduction of tree density would reduce beetle risk for several decades. Other openings would be left unplanted to provide longer term early seral habitat. All areas will remain at desired stocking levels after treatment.

E. Upland Fuels Management Implementation of the following activities would be accomplished via heavy equipment such as grapplers and hand tools (chainsaws, loppers, etc.).

1. Pile and Burn (PB) (70 Acres) In areas prescribed for piling and burning, grapple piling (GP) of slash and down wood up to 9” DBH would occur as necessary. This involves a machine (usually a small excavator) using grapple arms to stack slash into piles measuring approximately 15x15x10 ft. In units deficient in down woody material, 2-3 piles per acre in drier upland areas and 1-3 piles per acre in the other areas would be left unburned and remain on site. In LPU units where pile burning is proposed, slash and down wood would be hand piled (HP) instead of grapple piled. Hand piles are smaller, approximately 6x6x4 ft. After the piled material has dried, they would be burned in the fall when conditions are such that fire remains generally within the footprint of the pile with little creep into adjacent areas. All areas proposed for piling, except for those in lodgepole pine encroachment treatment areas (LPO or LPU), spotted owl habitat, or riparian areas would have opportunities for firewood removal before piling and burning.

2. Pruning (217 acres) Live and dead lower limbs of trees within eight feet of the ground would be cut to increase the crown base height in a stand and reduce the risk of surface fire getting into the crowns of trees and creating torching or crown fire. The resulting slash would be scattered or piled.

3. Small Diameter Thinning (SDT) with underburning (239 acres), roadside with pruning (461 acres), and roadside without pruning (106 acres) Trees 6” diameter at breast height (DBH) and smaller in northern spotted owl nesting, roosting, and foraging (NRF) habitat and 8” DBH and smaller in all other areas would be cut to increase resilience to fire, increase future individual tree growth, and reduce bark beetle risk in ponderosa and lodgepole pine. Where appropriate, this process can also be accomplished with mechanized equipment by masticating/slash busting (SB). Slash busting involves the use of mechanized equipment to mow, cut, chop, and grind materials to reduce shrub or ground vertical fuel structure to a height of about eight inches.

10 September 2015 Final Species preferences will be determined by individual stand conditions, but would generally favor Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, sugar pine and white pine, true firs, then lodgepole pine for retention. Larger trees that are not cut in this treatment would be included in spacing. o Ponderosa pine – 20’ spacing o Douglas-fir and true firs - 18’ spacing o Lodgepole pine - 14’ spacing

4. Underburn (PF) (350 acres) Prescribed fire or underburning would be utilized in forest stands composed primarily of fire resilient tree species such as ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, or sugar pine in the ponderosa pine Dry and Mixed Conifer Dry PAGs. In stands consisting of less fire-resilient tree species, such as those upland areas dominated by lodgepole pine, burning would be limited to created piles.

In lodgepole pine encroachment units (LPO or LPU prescriptions) where burning is proposed to induce mortality in encroaching lodgepole pine, felled trees or slash would be allowed to dry for one to two years before burning. When desired conditions are met, fire control lines would be completed by mowing grasses or using existing streams and wet areas to ensure fire containment.

F. Additional Actions for Resource Protection The following features are incorporated into the design of all activities included in the Marsh project. Features designated with “OSF” apply to Oregon spotted frogs, those with “F” apply to fisher.

1. Soil and Water Quality  National Best Management Practices (BMPs; USDA 2012) will be implemented to ensure consistency with the Federal Clean Water Act and State water quality direction. Core BMPs applicable to this project are outlined in the USDA (2012) document as follows; for Aquatic Ecosystems (pp. 19-28); Prescribed Fire (pp. 54-56); Recreation Management (pp. 87-102); Road Systems (pp. 104-124); and Vegetation Management (pp. 128-139). For a complete list of specific National BMPs applicable to this project, see the Aquatics specialist report, USDA Forest Service 2014 (USDA 2014). (OSF,F)

 Minimize or avoid new access routes over and/or along streams, wetlands or any other aquatic feature holding water when designating access for all operations within the project area. If the area cannot be avoided, a designated route may be approved by the soils and/or aquatic resource specialists (BMP Road-7). (OSF)

 Retain adequate supplies of large woody debris (greater than 3-inches in diameter) to provide organic matter reservoirs for nutrient cycling following completion of all project activities (LRMP SL-1). Where existing, a minimum of 5 to 10 tons per acre of woody debris be retained on dry, ponderosa pine sites to help maintain long-term site productivity. (F)

 Avoid equipment operations during periods of high soil moisture, as evidenced by equipment tracks that sink deeper than six inches in depth or greater. (OSF)

 Winter-time vegetation management activities may occur in areas over snow and/or frozen ground as approved by the soils and aquatic specialists, to allow activities to occur where they would otherwise be not possible due to moist/sensitive soils or other resource concerns (Veg Man BMP-7). (OSF)

 There would be no new construction of temporary roads or logging facilities on soils with high water tables without prior approval from the Soils resource specialist. (OSF)

 In all Riparian Encroachment units (LPO or LPU prescriptions) (OSF)

10 September 2015 Final o Minimize the burning of willows by prescribed fire in these units by introducing fire when moisture is high enough to prevent the need for a bare-soil fireline along/within the riparian area, yet dry enough to meet objectives. A wet and/or mowed fireline is preferred over a bare- soil fireline. o Mechanized equipment would remain outside the non-forested, sedge and willow dominated riparian area unless authorized to put wood into adjacent stream(s). o Hand and grapple piles would be located outside of wet features to the best extent possible. Mechanized grapple piling access routes would need approval from soils and/or aquatic specialists. o A portion of the trees from these units would get utilized for in-stream wood. Trees may be directionally felled or pushed over toward/into waterways or ditches or placed with equipment where disturbance to the floodplain vegetation and soils would be minimal. The amount of wood placed in ditches would be determined by the wildlife biologist. o LPO treatments may leave more than two large trees per acre within the riparian reserve to address water quality related issues. Lay out of these riparian units would include input from the soils/aquatic specialists. o LPU activities in unit 74 would be accomplished mostly by hand thinning or by fire. All access routes would be designated by soils and/or aquatics specialists if mechanized equipment is utilized. o All grapple piling and associated pile burning would occur at least 50 feet from waterways or outside the sedge and willow dominated riparian area, whichever is greatest. o All mechanized activities in the following units would be completed during the driest part of the year (August, September, October, and November) or as approved by soils and/or aquatic specialists. . Units 14, 16, 19, 23, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 71, 72, 73, and 74.

 Restrict activities in units 17, 20, 24, 28 and 32 to the following; (OSF) o HIM treatments may minimize harvested openings (up to two acres in size) within 100 feet of Big Marsh Creek, Refrigerator Creek and the unnamed tributaries to Refrigerator Creek. Openings within 100 feet of these waterbodies would need approval from soils and/or aquatics specialists. o A portion of the trees from these units would get utilized for in-stream wood. Trees may be directionally felled or pushed over toward/into Big Marsh Creek or other waterbodies or placed with equipment where disturbance to the floodplain vegetation and soils would be minimal. o All mechanized small diameter thinning and grapple piling and associated pile burning would occur at least 50 feet from waterbodies or outside the nonforested, sedge and willow dominated riparian area (whichever is greatest). Small diameter conifer thinning would occur by hand within this 50 foot buffer up to the wetted edge of the adjacent stream body.

 In units 30, 43, and 49, directionally fell or push over some portion of the larger small-diameter trees into waterways where they cross the unit to meet wood objectives and provide aquatic habitat as approved by the soils and/or aquatic specialists. (OSF)

 Restrict activities in unit 18 to the following; o Mechanized equipment would generally remain outside the non-forested, sedge and willow dominated riparian area and access routes would need approval from soils and/or aquatic specialists. (OSF)

2. Wildlife LEAVE AREAS (F)  To provide strategic wildlife habitat (such as dense multi-storied stands, accumulations of snags and down logs, and the largest available green trees) and unique habitats (such as rock outcrops and mixed 17

10 September 2015 Final conifer/hardwood stands), 15% to 20% of each unit, regardless of management allocation, would be retained in an unmanaged condition - 10.5% in larger aggregate clumps and the remainder as individual trees or small clumps (NWFP C-41). These retention areas may also provide for protection of other resources, such as cultural resource sites. Adjacent treatment areas could have associated leave areas lumped together to increase their size and/or distribution, except where otherwise noted. No felling or removal of trees or snags would be allowed in retention areas, including trees for instream wood placement.

The exception to defining new retention areas would be those units where designated retention areas were established from past timber sales. These leave areas would be retained intact and satisfy the 15% retention for those units (NWFP C-42). Table 2 illustrates units that have designated leave areas established from past timber sales. These established leave areas would satisfy the 15% retention areas for those units, except for units noted in bold in the table where additional acreage would need to be added to meet the 15% retention. Table 2. Existing Retention Areas in Marsh Units from Past Timber Sale Units Marsh Old Unit Unit 2 Varmit 54 3 Critter 19 4 Critter 81 6 Critter 15 25 Critter 40 26 Critter 40 27 Critter 40 42 Critter 17

OREGON SPOTTED FROGS  Just prior to hydrological restoration implementation work, the wildlife biologist, fisheries biologist, and hydrologist will coordinate the survey for, and removal/salvage of, Oregon spotted frogs in the area where work will occur and relocate them to habitat in a safe area within the Marsh where work is not occurring.

 A removal/salvage plan will be developed and implemented by the Forest Service in coordination with the USFWS.

 Implementation of Units 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 71, 72,73,74, and 75 with equipment would occur during dry periods when there is insufficient water present to support the Oregon spotted frog. Hand felling, hand piling, and girdling could take place adjacent to overwintering ponds during the dry periods (August through November).

SNAGS AND DOWN WOOD (F)  All existing snags (any species) would remain standing except where snags must be felled for occupational safety (i.e., along haul roads and landings). Where snags need to be felled, they should be cut at the highest point equipment can reach and the harvester feels is safe (approximately 18 feet) to retain integrity of the snag. Leave all portions of the bole at the site.

 Harvest operations would be designed to avoid snags by locating skid trails and landings away from them, where possible. If snags need to be felled, they are to be retained as down wood. Felled snags may be moved off roads and landings, but not removed from the site.

10 September 2015 Final

 In treatment stands below minimum snag levels specified in the Deschutes National Forest Wildlife Tree and Log Implementation Strategy (Table 3), as determined by pre-sale tally, sufficient live trees would be retained to create snags. When possible burning operations would be utilized to create snags where deficiencies occur. Table 3. Snag Levels from the Deschutes National Forest Wildlife Tree and Log Implementation Strategy PAG3 Snag Densities and Diameters (dbh) PP 4 snags/acre (2/acre > 10” dbh, 1/acre> 12”dbh, 1 snags/acre > 20” dbh) MC 4 snags/acre (2/acre > 10” dbh, 1/acre> 12”dbh, 1 snags/acre > 20” dbh) LP 6 snags/acre > 10” dbh or largest available

 Live trees not intended for removal but damaged during vegetation management activities would remain standing if they do not pose a safety risk to forest workers. If they are to be cut they should be cut at the highest point equipment they can reach the snag and the harvester feels is safe (approximately 18 feet) to retain integrity of the future snag. If they are felled, they would remain on site and retained for down wood.

 Existing down wood greater than nine inches in diameter would not be reduced except in firewood units or fuels treatment units. While leaving down wood in place is preferred, it is recognized that some manipulation may be needed to meet stand prescription objectives. In all units, down wood may be manipulated (shifted, clumped, grouped, driven over, etc.) as little as necessary to meet objectives. Whole trees may be broken into 8-12’ pieces or longer.

 No underburning or broadcast burning would take place in early-seral mixed conifer, mid-seral mixed conifer, and lodgepole pine habitat types other than minor creeping from burning piles. Exceptions would be in early-seral mixed conifer stands that are managed to emphasize ponderosa pine and/or sugar pine associated species and within areas that have been identified as requiring management for strategic fuels reduction.

 Wherever possible, cull material greater than or equal to 10 inches in diameter would be retained in the unit and not moved to landings.

 In firewood units or units designed for fuels treatments, maintain the down wood conditions listed in Table 4.

 Table 4. Down Wood Levels Tons Diameter Approximate Whole Tree Percent Species per Acre Small end Equivalent Cover 25-150 whole trees 10 inch diameter or 17-100 whole trees 12 inch diameter or an equivalent in larger Lodgepole Pine 7 to 42 8 inches or mixed diameters. If no trees of 2.6-15.9 nine inch diameter are present, leave 45 whole trees per acre of the largest available. 50-100 whole trees 10 inch diameter Stands Dominated by or 16-27 whole trees 16 inch 12 to 20 9 inches 2.8-5.2 Ponderosa Pine diameter or equivalent in larger or mixed diameters

3 PP= ponderosa pine, LP = lodgepole pine, MC = mixed conifer 19

10 September 2015 Final

Tons Diameter Approximate Whole Tree Percent Species per Acre Small end Equivalent Cover Ponderosa Pine Stands Not Where Lodgepole Pine specified in 8-10 whole trees of the largest LP 0.1-0.3 9 inches Comprises Most Down this plant on site plus retain all other species (in LP) Wood association 50-200 whole trees 10 inch diameter or 16-60 whole trees per acre 16 Mixed Conifer 11 to 42 9 inches 2.6-10 inch diameter or equivalent in larger or mixed diameters

 In treatment units below down wood retention levels and where piling of slash would occur, retain two large slash piles (minimum of 15’ x 15’ x 10’) per acre for wildlife improvement.

 To concurrently meet wildlife objectives for retention of larger dead wood and fuels objectives for reduction of large fire risk, burn prescriptions and fuels moistures should be such that the amount of snags ≥ 15-19 inches dbh and down wood ≥ 12-16 inches diameter at the large end would not be reduced and would have limited charring. It is assumed that reduction of snags and down wood < 12 inches is most effective in meeting fuels objectives.

 Snags ≥ 20 inches dbh and down wood ≥ 16 inches diameter at the large end that are in an advanced stage of decay or that have ants present would be protected as forage for pileated woodpeckers.

 Grapple and hand piles would not include material >11” dbh. If snags and down wood within a unit do not meet identified minimums (Table 3 and Table 4), the largest material available would be retained.

FIREWOOD REMOVAL (F)  No snag falling by firewood cutters would be allowed in personal use firewood areas.

 Firewood units would be limited to the following treatment units outside of riparian areas: o 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 49

 Personal use and/or commercial firewood removal would not be permitted within spotted owl nesting, roosting or foraging habitat to protect prey species and their habitat. Portions of the following units contain NRF habitat. These areas would be flagged and signed before allowing firewood removal, and no removal would be allowed behind signage: Units 25, 26, 27, 30, 43, and 49

SLASH DISPOSAL/PRESCRIBED BURNING OPERATIONS (F)  Slash disposal using prescribed fire would be accomplished during the cool and moist seasons of spring and fall.

 Prescribed burning would be accomplished in a mosaic pattern across the landscape with unburned/unmowed areas within the burn, in addition to unburned designated leave areas, with the goal of leaving at least 25 percent shrub cover.

MONITORING Monitoring for Oregon spotted frogs would occur during the breeding season and periodically throughout the summer within the project area prior to, during, and post implementation.

10 September 2015 Final

IV. LISTED SPECIES IN THE ACTION AREA. A. Pacific Fisher 1. ESA Status The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was issued a court order in April 2003 to conduct a 90-day finding on a petition to list a distinct population segment of the fisher. In July 2003, the USFWS published a 90-day finding that substantiated a listing may be warranted and began a 12 month status review. In April 2004, the USFWS determined the fisher in Washington, Oregon, and California is a “distinct population segment” (DPS) of the entire fisher species (Pekania pennanti). The USFWS determined the fisher faces significant biological threats sufficient to warrant listing but is precluded by other higher priority listing actions (Federal Register (Fed. Reg.) 2014b). Those threats included loss and fragmentation of habitat, mortalities and injuries from incidental captures, decreases in prey base, increasing human disturbance, and small isolated populations. On October 7, 2014, the USFWS changed the candidate status to proposed threatened for the West Coast DPS of fisher (Fed. Reg. 2014b). At the time of the 2014 proposed listing, the USFWS found the designation of critical habitat for fisher to be “not determinable” (Fed. Reg. 2014b). All potential stressors currently acting upon the West Coast DPS of fisher or likely to affect the species in the future are addressed in the Federal Register (2014) and further analyzed in the Draft Species Report (USFWS 2014) (http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/cno/es/fisher/). Based on the analyses conducted in the Draft Species Report (USFWS 2014), the USFWS stated in the Fed. Reg. (2014b) the current major threats to the West Coast DPS fisher are 1) habitat loss from wildfire and vegetation management; 2) toxicants; and 3) the cumulative impact and synergistic effects of these and other stressors in small populations (Fed. Reg. 2014b). Other potential threats listed in the Fed. Reg. (2014b) were climate change, human development, trapping and incidental capture, research activities, disease or predation, collision with vehicles, manmade factors affecting its continued existence including direct climate effects and small population size.

2. Ecology The fisher is a house-cat sized member of the Mustelidae family which includes weasels, mink, marten, and otters. Their occurrence is closely associated with low- to mid-elevation forests (generally less than 4,101 ft. [1,250 m]) with a coniferous component, large snags or decadent live trees, and logs for denning and resting, and complex physical structure near the forest floor to support adequate prey populations (Powell and Zielinski 1994). Rosenberg and Raphael (1986 cited by Kremaster and Bunnell in Rochelle et al. 1999) stated the fisher was negatively associated with edges at all scales of measurements and could be considered a forest interior species. However, fishers also venture into openings to feed (reviews of Buskirk and Powell 1994 and Martin 1994 cited by Kremaster and Bunnell 1999 in Rochelle et al. 1999). Major prey species include small to medium sized mammals, birds, and carrion. Porcupine are the best known prey species but fisher also prey on snowshoe hare, squirrels, mice and shrews (Powell and Zielinski 1994).

The Draft Species Report for fisher (USFWS 2014) gathered and analyzed information regarding fisher home ranges and the following was taken from the report. Lofroth et al. (2010) found that west of the Rocky Mountains in the U.S. and Canada, male home ranges tended to be three times larger than females averaging 7.3 square miles (mi2) (18.8 square kilometers (km2)) for females and 20.6 mi2 (53.4 km2) for males. Home range size most likely increases with increasing latitude (Lofroth et al. 2010) and home range size increases with body size (Lindstedt et al. 1986). The abundance or availability of prey and their vulnerability to predation may play a role in home range size and selection (USFWS 2014). Aubry and Raley (2006) in a study area in the southern Oregon Cascades, determined that mean home ranges for adult females was 6,400 acres (10 mi2 or 25 km2) and for males averaged 15,360 acres (24 mi2 or 62 km2) during the non-breeding season. During breeding season, male fishers expand their home ranges to 36,480 acres (57 mi2 or 147 km2). None of the studies determined the minimum acres of suitable habitat that were necessary within a home range for it to be occupied. Males who maintained their home ranges during the breeding season were more likely to successfully mate than were nonresident males encroaching on an established range (Aubry et al. 2004).

Dispersal, the movement of juveniles from their natal home range to establish a breeding territory, is the primary mechanism for the geographic expansion of a population (Draft Species Report USFWS 2014). Long distance 21

10 September 2015 Final dispersal has been documented for fishers with males moving greater distances than females. The Draft Species Report for fisher (USFWS 2014) reported that Arthur et al. (1993) found an average maximum dispersal distance of 9.3 mi (14.9 km) and 10.7 mi (17.3 km) for females and males, respectively and 4.7 mi (7.5 km) to 14.0 mi (22.6 km) for females and 6.8 mi (10.9 km) to 14.3 mi (23.0 km) for males in a low density population in Maine. To note, in areas with high trapping mortality young fishers may not have to disperse as far in order to find unoccupied home ranges (Arthur et al. 1993). York (1996) reported a higher dispersal distance for juvenile male and female fishers averaging 20 mi (33 km) with a range from 6 mi (10 km) to 66 mi (107 km) for a high- density population in Massachusetts. On the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation study area, mean maximum travel distance was greater for males, 5.0 mi (8.1 km) with a range of 3.7 mi (5.9 km) to 6.40 mi (10.3 km), than for females, 4.1 mi (6.7 km) with a range of 1.3 mi (2.1 km) to 12.5 mi (20.1 km)] (Matthews et al. 2013, p. 104). Aubry et al. (2004) found evidence of male-biased juvenile dispersal and female philopatry (the drive or tendency of an individual to return to, or stay in, its home area) in fishers, which may have a direct bearing on the rate at which fishers can colonize formerly occupied areas within their historical range. There have also been studies suggesting male fishers will disperse more often than females (Tucker 2013, Matthews et al. 2013). Draft Species Report (USFWS 2014)

Within a given region, the distribution of fishers is likely limited by elevation and snow depth and fisher are unlikely to occupy habitats in areas where elevation and snow depth act to limit their movements for traveling and hunting (Krohn et al. 1997 cited by USFWS 2004; Lofroth et al. 2010). In mid-elevation areas with intermediate snow depth, fishers may use dense forest patches with large trees because the overstory increases snow interception (Weir 1995 cited by USFWS 2004). Aubry and Houston (1992 cited by Powell 1993) felt that snow affected fisher distribution and population density in Washington State. In the western USA, fishers generally avoid clearcuts and forested stands with less than 40 percent canopy cover (Buck et al. 1994; Jones and Garton 1994 cited by Aubry and Lewis 2003). Powell (1993) reported that open habitat vegetated with young deciduous trees and shrubs typical of clear-cut areas, are used by fishers in summer but are truly open with no overhead cover in winter. The abundance or availability of prey and their vulnerability to predation may play a role in home range size and selection.

Prey item remains collected in Oregon include snowshoe hare, brush rabbit, California ground squirrel, Douglas’ squirrel, northern flying squirrel, woodrats, opossum, striped skunk, porcupine (male fishers only), bobcat, deer, elk, Steller’s jay, pileated woodpecker, and hairy woodpeckers (Aubry and Raley 2002). Fishers are fast, agile and adept at climbing trees and would eat any prey they can catch and overpower, including squirrels, hares, mice, birds, and porcupines. Although adapted for climbing, fishers are primarily terrestrial. When inactive, the fisher occupies dens in tree hollows, under logs, in-ground or rocky crevices, or rests in the branches of conifer trees during the warmer months. Female fishers give birth and raise kits in cavities in large- diameter, 31 inches dbh (greater than 80 cm) live trees, snags, and logs, and use these structures and large platform branches for rest sites (Powell and Zielinski 1994; Aubry and Raley 2002).

3. Habitat At a landscape scale, fisher occurrence in western North America has been associated with low- to mid- elevation forests, generally at increasing elevations in southern latitudes (Lofroth et al 2010). Fisher are not associated with any specific forest plant community but rather occur where there is moderate to high amounts of contiguous canopy cover (Lofroth et al 2010). They are associated with coniferous and mixed conifer and hardwood forests with late successional forest characteristics (i.e. large-diameter trees, coarse downed wood, and singular features of large snags, tree cavities, or deformed trees) (Fed. Reg. 2014b). The USFWS (Fed. Reg. 2014b) describes key fisher habitat as forests with diverse successional stages containing a high proportion of mid- and late-successional characteristics.

DENNING HABITAT For denning habitat, fishers are obligate users of tree or snag cavities. Fishers select denning sites with characteristics of late-successional forests, typically utilizing the largest diameter classes of trees, snags and logs available (Lofroth et al 2010). Reproductive females utilize cavities in live and dead trees. Kits are born during late winter to early spring when weather conditions are still cold. Tree cavities provide both thermal insulation 22

10 September 2015 Final and security from potential predation. Tree and snag cavities are used almost exclusively for birthing (natal) and nursing (pre-weaning) kits (Lofroth et al 2010). Females with older kits may incorporate hollow logs or other coarse down wood during the post-weaning period.

RESTING HABITAT Fishers rest in large, deformed or deteriorating trees, snags and logs, selecting the largest diameter classes available. Resting sites generally provide protection from predators and inclement weather. Resting in live trees fisher select for microstructures such as brooms, dense branching, branch platforms and rodent nests. When utilizing snags and down logs for resting fishers select hollow snags, or cavities in the boles, or platforms created when the top of snags break off (Lofroth et al 2010). Fisher use coarse down wood and hollow logs more frequently in winter than arboreal sites in regions with colder winter temperatures.

FORAGING HABITAT Fisher will utilize more successional stages when active than when resting or denning. Male fishers use a wider array of habitat conditions than females (Lofroth et al 2010). Active fishers do avoid nonforested environments and early-successional forest stands that lacked canopy cover. The versatility of utilizing a wide variety of habitat associations results in a diverse and varying abundance of the small and medium-sized mammals that fisher consume. For example, tree squirrels and other arboreal rodents are found in multilayered forests with large old trees and a diversity of conifers providing a perennial seed source; snowshoe hares key habitat components include understory cover and vegetation density; and deteriorating live hardwoods and conifers, snags and coarse down wood provide habitat for the northern flying squirrel, western redback vole and bushytailed woodrat.

4. Threats WEST COAST FISHER THREATS Currently, the Deschutes National Forest overlaps with the 2004 distinct population segment (DPS) for fisher. In the proposed listing analysis (Fed. Reg. 2014), both Alternatives 1 and 2 would shrink the DPS excluding the Deschutes National Forest. As such, the Marsh project area would not overlap the 5 known fisher extant population extents; Southern Sierra Nevada (SSN), northern California-southern Oregon (NCSO), Northern Sierra Nevada Reintroduced Population (NSN) in California, Southern Oregon Cascades (SOC) Reintroduced Population in Oregon, and the Olympic Peninsula Reintroduced Population (ONP) in Washington. For maps of the 2014 DPS proposed boundaries refer to the Fed. Reg. 2014: pp 60419-60443 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-10-07/pdf/2014-23456.pdf).

The following is a summary, some portions verbatim, of threats as listed in the Federal Register Vol. 79 No. 194 October 7, 2014(Fed. Reg. 2014b). A detailed discussion and references can be found in that document.

Wildfire and Fire Suppression Fed. Reg. 2014b p.60428-60429 Fishers' behavioral and population responses to fires are unknown within the West Coast range. Fire suppression actions and post-fire management have the potential to exacerbate the effects of wildfire on fisher habitat.

 Fire suppression and associated activities which may result in removal of fisher habitat (for example, backburning, fuel breaks, and snag removal).

 Higher severity and/or larger scale fires, could cause shifts in home ranges and movement patterns, lower the fitness of fishers remaining in the burned area (due to increased predation, for example), create barriers to dispersal, and permanently remove suitable fisher habitat, and is very likely to remove habitat for a period of many decades while the forest regrows.

 Moderate severity fire may also remove habitat, but likely in smaller patches and for a shorter length of time. 23

10 September 2015 Final

 Low-severity fire may reduce some elements of fisher habitat temporarily, but in general is unlikely to remove habitat.

Historically, the fire regime in NCSO is historically extremely variable. Fisher habitat is highly fragmented in many parts of NCSO, and even temporary losses of habitat may impede dispersal and increase fragmentation of resident fisher population. Throughout most of Oregon and Washington, the scope and severity for this stressor were lower than the NCSO areas; however, high-severity fires that remove fisher habitat have the potential to further disrupt habitat connectivity and availability.

In Washington and areas of Oregon outside of NCSO, the effect of fire in scope and severity is lower than the other areas, and much of this area is considered to be unoccupied. Fires in these areas would increase the negative impact on fisher habitat if they were close to occupied areas.

Climate Change Fed. Reg. 2014b p.60429 and p.60433 The USFWS does not view climate change as a threat to fisher habitat now or in the future; they will continue to seek additional information concerning how climate change may affect fisher habitat (Fed. Reg. 2014b). Since the USFWS does not view this as a threat, it will not be further analyzed in this document.

Vegetation Management Fed. Reg. 2014b p.60429-60430 Vegetation management techniques of the past (primarily timber harvest) have been implicated as one of the two primary causes for fisher declines across the United States. The magnitude and intensity of past timber harvest is one of the main reasons fishers have not recovered in Washington, Oregon, and portions of California, as compared to the northeastern United States. Oregon and Washington Coast Ranges (Federal and non-Federal combined) have the highest vegetation managed lands, likely due to the prevalence of non-Federal land ownership in these sub-regions.

 Activities that remove or substantially degrade fisher habitat through the removal of large structures and overstory canopy are projected to take place within the analysis area over the next 40 years. o Removing important habitat elements (such as den sites and canopy cover) has a greater effect on fishers than activities that maintain these elements.

 Some management techniques have, and can, substantially modify the overstory canopy, the numbers and distribution of structural elements, and the ecological processes that create them.

 Management techniques can sustain or benefit habitat in areas where habitat may not be the limiting factor for current or potential fisher populations and where habitat is being managed intentionally or incidentally in ways that benefit fisher. Example: Habitat within the NWFP.

 Vegetation management outside of occupied areas is less likely to have a negative impact on the viability of existing fisher populations, the maintenance of fisher habitat in these areas is important for future expansion.

Development Fed. Reg. 2014b p.60430 Within much of the analysis area, human development is generally considered to be of relatively low concern for fishers and occurs at relatively small spatial scales in forested landscapes. As such, the

10 September 2015 Final USFWS does not consider development to be a threat to fisher habitat now or in the future. Since the USFWS does not view this as a threat, it will not be further analyzed in this document.

Trapping Fed. Reg. 2014b p.60430 Extensive trapping in the 1800s and 1900s is frequently cited as the principal initial cause of the substantial reduction of the range of the fisher in Washington, Oregon, and California. Claar et al. (1999) stated that trapping may affect local populations and even light pressure may cause local extinction. Trapping and incidental capture is extremely low throughout the analysis area, and stated “therefore, the USFWS does not consider trapping to be a threat to the fisher now or in the future.” Since the USFWS no longer views this as a threat, it will not be further analyzed in this document.

Research Fed. Reg. 2014b p.60431 The draft Species Report revealed extremely low to nonexistent scope and severity for the research activity stressor throughout the analysis area. The USFWS concluded that research is not a threat to the continued existence of fisher, now or in the future. Since the USFWS does not view this as a threat, it will not be further analyzed in this document.

Disease and Predation Fed. Reg. 2014b p. 60431 Disease and predation are the most prevalent sources of direct mortality among individual fishers within the study areas. However, it is unknown how disease and predation rates influence fisher population trends in general (USFWS 2014, pp. 112-116 and 167-169). The USFWS does not consider disease or predation to be threats to the fisher, now or in the future. Since the USFWS does not view this as a threat, it will not be further analyzed in this document.

Vehicle Collisions Fed. Reg. 2014b p. 60433 The USFWS concluded vehicle collisions are not a threat to fisher, although, with time, the impacts on fishers will likely accumulate and act synergistically with other stressors to impact fishers where they occur. Since the USFWS does not view this as a threat, it will not be further analyzed in this document.

Exposure Toxicants Fed. Reg. 2014b p. 60433 The USFWS newly identified toxicants as a threat due to reported mortalities of fisher from the toxicants and the potential sublethal effects. Recent research documenting mortalities from anticoagulant rodenticides (ARs) in California fisher populations has raised concerns regarding both individual and population-level impacts of toxicants within the fisher's range in the Pacific States. The USFWS found that the scope of the toxicant stressor was best reflected by a range of values and varied by sub-region, due to differences in format of available data or the lack thereof. There was no mention within the Fed. Reg. (2014b) of AR fisher related deaths occurring in Oregon. However, fisher carcasses in NCSO tested positive for ARs in their tissue. Since the Crescent Range District is outside of the 5 known populations, if the use of ARs was occurring, there would be no population to affect. Therefore, the threat of toxicants will not be further analyzed in this document.

Population Size Fed. Reg. 2014b p. 60433-60434 Habitat fragmentation, limited dispersal distance, a reluctance to cross open areas and a low annual reproductive rate have all contributed to the decline of fisher populations and hampered their ability to re-colonize historical habitat (USFWS 2004). Fishers have a low annual reproductive capacity; not all females produce young every year and litters usually consist of two to three kits raised entirely by the female. In addition, evidence suggests only juvenile males disperse long distances which would affect the rate at which fishers may be able to colonize formerly occupied areas within its historical range (Aubry et al. 2003).

The USFWS concluded that small population size constitutes a threat to fisher, now and in the future. Researchers have identified the greatest long-term risk to fishers as the isolation of small populations and the higher risk of extinction due to stochastic events (USFWS 2014, pp. 25

10 September 2015 Final 147-149). Fishers are highly prone to localized extirpation, their colonizing ability is somewhat limited, and their populations are slow to recover from deleterious impacts. A lack of verifiable sightings in the Western and Eastern Cascades in Washington and Oregon, coastal Oregon, and the north and central sections of the Sierra Nevada indicates that populations of fishers in southwestern Oregon and California are isolated from fishers elsewhere in North America.

 Small, isolated populations are subject to an increased risk of extinction from stochastic (random) environmental, genetic, or demographic events.

 Small populations of low-density carnivores, like fishers, are more susceptible to small increases in mortality factors due to their relatively low fecundity and low natural population densities.

 Fishers may also be prone to instability in population sizes in response to fluctuations in prey availability.

 Low reproductive rates retard the recovery of populations from declines.

The Crescent Ranger District is outside of the 5 known populations. There is one known occurrence of a dispersing male into the Marsh project area from the Rouge River-Siskiyou National Forest. The project area is approximated 43 miles away from the known population where it originated from. This distance is above the average mean when compared to the mean distance from the dispersal studies discussed in the Draft Species Report for fisher (USFWS 2014). The 43 mile distance from a population is much greater than the dispersal range of 4.7 to 14 mi given for female fishers based on the report’s (USFWS 2014) findings. As such, it is highly unlikely a female fisher would disperse 43 miles to the Marsh project area.

It is unknown the amount of denning habitat a fisher home range needs to incorporate in order for it to be functioning. Average home ranges west of the Rocky Mountains are 4,672 acres (7.3 mi2, 18.8 km2) for females and 13,184 acres (20.6 mi2, 53.4 km2) for males. Potential denning habitat was modeled for the Deschutes National Forest with the parameters of the following plant associations: lodgepole pine wet, white fir, Shasta red fir, western hemlock, silver fir, and mountain hemlock in stands with greater than 40% canopy cover where average tree size is 20 in dbh or greater. The Marsh project area includes 134 acres of potential denning habitat. This amount of potential denning habitat would be only a small portion of a fisher’s home range if one were to establish within the Marsh project area. Because of the limited potential denning habitat within the project area and the project area being over the average dispersal distance for a fisher, a fisher home range or a pair establishing within the Marsh project area is unlikely. As such, population size would not be a threat and therefore will not be further analyzed in this document.

Measures to Reduce the Stressors Related to Habitat or Range Fed. Reg. 2014b p. 60434-60435 SYNERGISTIC EFFECTS Fed. Reg. 2014b p. 60434-60435 The USFWS considered all of the stressors operating within the five disjunct populations of fishers (four small populations and one with population size estimates ranging from 258 to 4,018). The USFWS concluded these populations are reduced in size due to historical trapping and past loss of late- successional habitat and, therefore, are more vulnerable to extinction from random events and increases in mortality. However, just as stressors do not occur in equal scope and severity across the analysis area, the USFWS concluded the cumulative and synergistic effects from these stressors occur more in some sub-regions than others. In Washington and areas of Oregon outside of NCSO, the effect of cumulative and synergistic impacts relating to habitat-related stressors is lower than other areas, and much of this area is considered to be unoccupied.

10 September 2015 Final

Synergistic Effects of Multiple Stressors:  Alterations to habitat, which may increase fishers' vulnerability to predation;

 Sublethal exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides may increase the death rates from predation, vehicle collisions, disease, or intraspecific conflict;

 Stressors associated with climate change, such as increased risk of fire and forest disease, and environmental impacts of human development that will likely interact to cause large- scale ecotype conversion including shifts away from fisher habitat types, which could impact the viability of populations and reduce the likelihood of reestablishing connectivity;

 Increases in disease caused by climate change; and

 Human development, which is likely to cause increases in vehicle collisions, conflicts with domestic animals, and infections contracted from domestic animals.

The Crescent Ranger District is outside of the 5 known populations and therefore stressors would be considered lower, especially since the area is considered unoccupied. As such, cumulative and synergistic impacts relating to habitat-related stressors as a threat will not be further analyzed in this document.

5. Distribution Currently, the Deschutes National Forest overlaps with the 2004 distinct population segment (DPS) for fisher. In the proposed listing analysis (Fed. Reg. 2014), both Alternatives 1 and 2 would shrink the DPS excluding the Deschutes National Forest. As such, the Marsh project area would not overlap the 5 known fisher extant population extents; Southern Sierra Nevada (SSN), northern California-southern Oregon (NCSO), Northern Sierra Nevada Reintroduced Population (NSN) in California, Southern Oregon Cascades (SOC) Reintroduced Population in Oregon, and the Olympic Peninsula Reintroduced Population (ONP) in Washington. For maps of the 2014 DPS proposed boundaries refer to the Fed. Reg. 2014: pp 60419-60443 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-10-07/pdf/2014-23456.pdf).

6. Environmental Baseline Denning habitat for the Pacific fisher occurs in very minor amounts on the Deschutes National Forest in the following plant associations: lodgepole pine wet, white fir, Shasta red fir, western hemlock, silver fir, and mountain hemlock in closed stands where average tree size is 20 in dbh or greater. Viable modeling estimated there are currently 4,182 acres of potential denning habitat across the entire Deschutes National Forest and approximately 134 acres within the Marsh analysis area. Suitable denning habitat is distributed in small pockets across the project area and is thought to be a limiting factor. As such, effects to the potential fisher denning habitat will be the focus of Pacific fisher analysis.

Table 5 shows modeled denning habitat acres and percent for the Deschutes National Forest (Deschutes NF) and the Marsh project area (Marsh PA) on National Forest Lands only. The Marsh project area encompasses three percent of the total fisher denning habitat on the Deschutes NF. Table 5. Modeled Fisher Denning Habitat Acres and Percent in the Marsh Analysis Area and Forest Wide (National Forest Lands Only)

Area Fisher Habitat Acres Percent of Habitat Deschutes NF 4,182 100% Marsh PA 134 3%

10 September 2015 Final Table 6 displays the range of tolerance intervals (TI) for fishers based on information from DecAID. Approximately 18 acres of the 134 acres of current denning habitat (13 percent) does not have snags greater than 20 in. dbh and is less likely to support denning females. For the 0-50 percent tolerance interval, modeling shows 54 acres (40 percent) of the mapped denning habitat has 0-2.7 snags/acre for snags greater than 20 in. dbh. This tolerance interval is more likely to support denning females than the acreage showing no snags/acre for snags greater than 20 in. dbh. Approximately 64 acres (47 percent) of the potential denning habitat has greater than 2.7 snags/acre greater than 20 in. dbh and would equate to the highest quality denning habitat in the project area. Table 6. Tolerance Intervals for the Pacific Fisher and Snag Use for the Marsh Planning Area Pacific Fisher Density of Snags ≥20" dbh by tolerance interval Tolerance Interval 0 0-50% 50%+ #/ha 0 0 - 6.7 6.7+ Snags Density #/ac 0 0 - 2.7 2.7+ Denning Habitat 134* ac 13% 40% 47% Foraging Habitat 23,837 ac 46% 29% 25% Tolerance information from DecAID 2.1 Table MMC_S/L.sp-22 *Accuracy of data at this low acreage is questionable. LEMMA website recommends use of data at a scale of 20 square miles or 12,800 acres. Statistical analysis was completed on the Forest comparing GNN with stand exams and found GNN to be comparable to stand exams at the stand level (Simpson 2008).

Snag levels at the 0-50 percent tolerance interval also provide potential denning habitat. There would be fewer denning opportunities in lower density snags levels than at the higher snag densities. Large down wood across the potential denning habitat also provides denning sites. No tolerance levels for down wood have been developed for fisher at this time. Analysis of down wood greater than or equal to 20 in. diameter showed that levels meet or exceed historic range of variability (HRV) in mixed conifer PAGs. Resource Protection Measures disclose the limited circumstances where snag felling may be needed during project implementation.

Figure 5. shows where snag densities greater than 20 in. dbh and greater than 2.7 snags/acre overlap (50%+ TI) with fisher modeled denning habitat. This would represent the highest quality denning habitat in the project area, though snag densities less than 2.7 snags/acre (0-50%TI) could still provide denning habitat since fisher also utilize down wood for den sites.

10 September 2015 Final

Figure 5. Pacific Fisher Denning Habitat Modeled Using Green Tree Data (Viable that Overlaps with DecAID Snag Data Prey species utilized by the fisher occupy a wide range of habitat types. A project area that has multiple canopies or small trees and shrub cover would provide foraging habitat. The majority of the Marsh project area consists of closed/multistory structure providing potential ample foraging habitat. Stand conditions within the Marsh project area are providing an abundance of foraging habitat that probably did not historically occur due to dense understory growth and forest encroachment into Big Marsh. Figure 5. also shows potential foraging habitat based on GNN canopy cover values. Canopy cover greater than 40 percent was used to determine foraging habitat regardless of stand size or composition. There are approximately 23,837 acres of foraging habitat with the project area. Approximately 25 percent of foraging habitat also has greater than 2.7 snags per acre. Over time, as stand tree size and canopy cover increase, there is potential for additional denning habitat to become available to the fisher.

10 September 2015 Final

Suitable denning habitat is very limited within the project area due the minimal amounts of forested stands with greater than 20 in. dbh trees in lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, and mixed conifer PAG types with a dense canopy greater than 40-55 percent. Where tree densities are high, the risk of insects and disease would continue in the stand with potential to diminish habitat due to trees dying and reducing canopy cover in these areas.

POPULATION AND SURVEY HISTORY Fisher populations are considered to be extremely low in Oregon, Washington, and parts of the Rocky Mountains. Gibilisco (1994) described the presumed historical range of fishers including lands within the state of Oregon. The eastern extent included the eastern portion of the Cascade Range to Bend and southward to Paulina Peak, Walker Rim, and lands in the Fremont-Winema National Forests. Lofroth et al. (2010) used these boundaries for their assessment area based on the known and historical range of fishers. In Oregon, the fisher has been extirpated from all but two portions of its historical range (Aubry and Lewis 2003). Within Oregon, the two known extant populations are in the southwestern portion of the state: one in the southern Cascade Range was established through reintroductions of fishers from British Columbia and Minnesota that occurred between 1961 and 1981, and one in the northern Siskiyou Mountains of southwestern Oregon presumed to be an extension of the population in northern California. Genetic testing has revealed the populations are isolated from each other (Aubry et al. 2002).

There are no known Pacific fisher populations on the Deschutes National Forest. The closest population to the project area is approximately 40 miles to the southwest on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. The Fed.Reg. (2014) identifies this population as a reintroduced population, Southern Oregon Cascades (SOC) Reintroduced Population. There is one 1999 documented occurrence of a radio collared dispersing male fisher from this population within the Marsh Project area. The closest current detection was March 2014 in Paddy’s Valley on the Willamette National Forest, approximately nine miles away from the southwest Marsh project border. However, the high elevation of Big Marsh may preclude year round fisher occurrence due to long durations of deep snow. Additionally, due to the lack of dispersing males within the project area and the limited dispersal range of female fishers, it is unlikely a breeding population would be established in the Marsh project area in the near future. However, at roughly 30,108 acres, the Marsh project area would be sufficient size for a breeding pair if they were present.

Carnivore surveys were conducted on the Crescent District in 1993-1996 and 1998, the winter of 2010-2011, and currently ongoing as of April 2014 using bait with camera sets, snow tracking, and track plates (1993-1996). To date, there were no detections of fishers or wolverine from these surveys although martens were confirmed. As previously mentioned, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) cite Krohn et al. (1997) as saying the distribution of fishers is likely limited by elevation and snow depth and the species is unlikely to occupy habitats where elevation and snow depth act to limit their movements. Preference to lower elevations with little to no snow was also discussed in more recent Draft Species Report Fisher, West Coast Population (USFWS 2014a).

At the present time it is unknown if the average annual snow depths and the high elevation of the Crescent Ranger District (greater than 4,400 feet) can support year-round fisher occupancy. If currently present on the District, they may have to include lower elevation forest with less snow on the Bend-Ft. Rock Ranger District of the Deschutes National Forest or the adjacent Rogue River-Siskiyou, Umpqua, or Willamette National Forests as part of their home ranges. Aubry et al. (2002) documented juvenile male fishers are capable of long distance dispersal with one collared male relocating to the Crescent Ranger District in the summer of 1999 having traveled 34 miles (55 km) from the point of capture on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. The radio signal from this animal was lost in December 1999 north of Big Marsh due to battery failure. In 2014 a joint USFWS and Willamette National Forest survey for Pacific fisher was started using bait and camera stations with hair snags. The camera station within Paddy’s Valley, approximately nine miles away from the southern portion of the Marsh project border, captured fisher occupancy multiple times, the latest was in March 2014. However, it is unknown if it is just one individual or multiple.

10 September 2015 Final 7. Proposed Action and Effects PROPOSED ACTION All vegetation management actions described in the beginning of the document were considered within this analysis. Those actions that may impact the fisher are displayed in Table 7. Aquatic restoration activities are not included because fisher are not known to den or hunt in open marsh areas where these treatments are proposed. However, proposed aquatic restoration treatments could increase habitat of certain small rodent prey species, like mice, thus increasing potential available prey in adjacent forests.

Table 7. Proposed actions included within the Fisher Analysis for the Marsh project. Cultural High Quality Dispersed Rehabilitation/Development Services Recreation and Scenic Views Close and rehabilitate 9 sites, reduce footprint in15 sites of 41 existing Dispersed Camping sites Trail Maintenance Re-establish 2 miles of the Big Marsh Nature Trail Recreation User-Created OHV Trail and Access Ripping and planting 0.5 miles Management Restoration Access Improvements Re-open 1/2 mi of 5825-540 Scenic Overlook Maintenance Selectively fell trees to enhance view-approximately 2 acres Provisioning High Quality Plant and and Under- Prescribed Animal Habitats, Forest Over-story Pile and Burn Acres Supporting story Fire Products Services Lodgepole Pine Encroachment LPO STD PF PB (GP) 191 Overstory Treatment Riparian Girdle or Vegetation Lodgepole Pine Encroachment Fire Kill in LPU PF PB (HP) 202 Restoration Understory Treatment Mosaic Total Riparian Vegetation Restoration 393 Lodgepole Pine Density HIM SDT PB (GP) 171 Management Mixed Con Density Upland HIM SDT PB (GP) 141 Management Density Management Mixed Con Density HIM SDT PF PB (GP) 39 Management, Underburn HTH SDT PF PB (GP) 94 Total Upland Density Management 445 Pile and Burn Only PB (GP) 49 Pile existing slash, mow PB (GP) 21 Prune Prune PB (GP/HP/SC) 217 SDT PB (GP/SB) 106 Upland Fuels Roadside SDT, PB (GP/SB) 461 Management Prune Small Diamter Thin, SDT PF PB (GP/SB) 239 Underburn Underburn PF 350 Total Upland Fuels Management 1,443 Total Acres Treated 2,281

10 September 2015 Final

All areas proposed for piling, except for those in lodgepole Total Potential Areas Firewood pine encroachment treatment areas (LPO or LPU) or within (subset of above treatment 1,580 Gathering NSO NRF habitat, or riparian areas would have acres) opportunities for firewood removal. HIM = Harvest Improvement Cut, HTH = Harvest Commercial Thin, LPO = Lodgepole Pine Encroachment Overstory, LPU = Lodgepole Pine Encroachment Understory SDT = Small Diameter Thinning PF = Prescribed Fire = underburn or in Riparian Vegetation treatment areas may also include burning of concentrations only PB = Pile and Burn, GP = Grapple Pile, HP = Hand Pile, SB=Slash Busting, SC=Scatter Pile and Burn treatents may vary depending on activity fuel loading and location after the initial vegetative treatment.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS Vegetative Treatments Vegetative treatments proposed include a combination of commercial thinning, small diameter thinning, and/or fuels reduction treatments to lessen the risk of large scale loss of forest to uncharacteristic wildfire events and disease outbreaks. Treatments would also move stands and the Big Marsh area closer to historic conditions. Proposed treatments would include forested stands of late and old structured stands of mixed conifer habitat that could provide habitat for the fisher. The silvicultural prescriptions would reduce understory green tree densities to relieve stress on the late-successional and old growth trees in these stands. Small diameter thinning and prescribed fire would further reduce the densities of trees smaller than eight inches in diameter.

Table 8 illustrates existing modeled potential denning habitat for Pacific fisher at the project level and on the Deschutes NF level. Proposed treatments would occur on one percent of the Deschutes NF denning habitat. There are approximately 134 acres of modeled fisher denning habitat within the project area. Approximately 35 acres or 26 percent of denning habitat is proposed for treatment (Table 8 and Table 9). Table 8. Potential Fisher Denning Habitat Acres within Marsh PA and Deschutes NF (National Forest System Lands Only) Marsh Project Acres and Deschutes NF Percent of Percent of Potential Potential Pacific Fisher Pacific Fisher Denning Denning Habitat Habitat 134 Existing Acres 3% 100% Proposed Action 35 1% Treated Acres 26%

UPLAND FUELS AND DENSITY MANAGEMENT TREATMENTS (HTH, HIM, SDT, Pruning, Prescribed Fire (underburning) and Pile and Burn) Table 9 illustrates acres of modeled potential fisher denning habitat treated by proposed upland fuels and density management treatments in the analysis area. As seen in Table 9, only one acre of denning habitat would be treated with HTH, commercial thinning of the stand overstory. The other 32-34 acres would be treated through SDT and/or underburning.

10 September 2015 Final

Table 9. Potential Fisher Denning Habitat Acres and Percent by Treatment Type (National Forest System Lands Only) for the Marsh Planning Area Upland Treatments in Potential Fisher Denning Habitat Percent of Treatment Acres Habitat HTH, SDT and UB 1 0.7% SDT and UB 33 25% UB 1 0.7% Total 35 26%

All proposed treatment activities overlapping potential fisher denning habitat would occur in mixed conifer dry PAG stands in the upland treatment units only. Only one acre of potential denning habitat would overlap proposed treatments of thinning from below (HTH) within a Douglas-fir dominated stand. Commercial thinning (HTH) treatments of Douglas-fir dominated stands, which include denning and foraging habitat for the fisher, would retain a canopy cover over 35%. Densities would be variable across the stand providing potential denning habitat in leave areas and foraging habitat across the rest of the stands. Minimal amounts of trees over 21 inches dbh would be removed to maintain uneven-aged, multi-storied characteristics. These Douglas-fir dominated stands would be managed for future northern spotted owl NRF habitat and would become fisher denning habitat as canopies close. The benefits to conducting commercial and small diameter thinning would reduce the risk of large tree and large scale loss of forest to a wildfire event, beetle outbreak, or other disease issues. These events would potentially remove more fisher habitat than thinning depending on scale and intensity. With thinning, a 40 percent canopy cover level could return in a decade or two. A wildfire event would remove the large tree component taking centuries to replace. In addition, proposed treatments would move stands and the Big Marsh area closer to the Historic Range of Variability. In that, there would be an overall reduction in stand density, conifer encroachment into pine stands, forest encroachment into early seral areas, and a reduction, along with lowered intensity, of insect, disease, and fire risk.

A component of fisher foraging habitat is the structural complexity that supports a diverse prey base, provides for opportunities for fisher to be successful in capturing prey, and allows for fisher to hunt while minimizing their exposure to predation. Large down woody material, multiple canopy layers, high canopy closure, and overall higher structural complexity contribute to effective foraging habitat for fisher. Prey item remains collected in Oregon include snowshoe hare, brush rabbit, California ground squirrel, Douglas’ squirrel, northern flying squirrel, woodrats, opossum, striped skunk, porcupine (male fishers only), bobcat, deer, elk, Stellar’s jay, pileated woodpecker, and hairy woodpeckers (Aubry and Raley 2002). Other prey species include deer mice, squirrels, birds, shrews, chipmunks, bushytailed woodrats, snowshoe hares, and mountain cottontail rabbits (Bull 2000; Ruggiero et al. 1994). During implementation, prey could be displaced due to treatment activity. However, the 15-20 percent retained areas within each unit and adjacent untreated habitat would provide refugia during operations. Seasonal restrictions for the spotted owl, other raptors, and big game would limit the amount of disturbance duration. In the long-term, HTH treated acres would continue to provide and maintain habitat for prey post-implementation.

The majority of proposed treatments within potential denning and foraging habitat would be in SDT and UB treatments (34 acres). The proposed treatments would retain overstory canopy while removing trees six inches dbh and under within northern spotted owl NRF habitat and under eight inches dbh outside, followed by an underburn. Upland treatment units would fill in with seedlings resulting in multi-aged, and complex canopy structure. These units would be returning to habitat overtime. The short-term decrease in habitat would be balanced with the long-term benefit of having different stands at differing ages and densities changing the timing of beetle infestation between stands, as well as lessening the risk of disease and stand replacing fire and moving conditions towards HRV. The ponderosa pine dominated stands would have some openings planted, 33

10 September 2015 Final but the focus would be restoring the stands to a more fire resilient condition. The proposed actions would treat one acre of potential denning habitat within an underburn unit. Small diameter thinning (SDT) and underburning could potentially affect prey species by reducing shrub and small tree habitat in the short-term. In the long-term underburning would stimulate brush growth, once again providing prey habitat.

Prescribed fire is generally used in ponderosa pine plant associations to remove small diameter fuels and needle cast with minimal large tree loss. Therefore, this action would likely have minimal impact on fisher habitat because these stands may not have the canopy or minimum tree diameter for fisher denning habitat. Fuel treatments taking place in potential denning habitat are not expected to make it unsuitable for denning as design features are in place to protect large snags and large down wood. Activities are expected to remove some trees (through commercial and non-commercial thinning, burning, and/or mastication), some of which are infected with mistletoe which have been documented as providing resting sites for fishers (Lofroth et al. 2010). Since proposed treatments would not completely eradicate dwarf mistletoe, it would continue to persist in treated and untreated areas throughout the project area post treatment.

The proposed Action proposes personal use firewood removal in selected units. Minimum down wood levels would have to be maintained to those specified in Table 3. (Section V. Project Description, F. Additional Actions for Resource Protection 2.Wildlife) and monitoring would determine when to close these woodcutting areas. The personal use firewood cutters tend to remove the most readily available and largest diameter down wood first which would reduce some of the complex physical structure fishers are closely associated with. This could potentially impact fishers by reducing prey base habitat and result in less prey such as squirrels and chipmunks. Dense prey populations would still be available in untreated stands and those units without firewood removal. Firewood removal would not be considered a long-term event as periodic snag fall occurs and contributes additional down wood to the forest floor.

During implementation, prey could be displaced due to treatment activity. However, the 15-20 percent retention areas within each unit and adjacent untreated habitat would provide refuge during operations. Post- implementation, the project area would continue to provide habitat for fisher prey species. Project Resource Protection Measures would retain15-20 percent of each treatment unit as unmanaged, i.e. no treatment, which would retain overlapping fisher denning/foraging and prey habitat. Timing restrictions would limit the duration of disturbance to fisher and prey habitat. Resource Protection Measures also include protection for snag and down wood during implementation, protecting denning/foraging habitat for fisher and their prey within treatment units. Additionally, there would be no snag removal and no firewood removal within these units to retain spotted owl NRF habitat. As a result, fisher denning and prey habitat would be retained.

RIPARIAN VEGETATION RESTORATION TREATMENTS (HIM, LPO, and LPU with Prescribed Fire and Pile and Burn) No modeled Pacific fisher denning habitat is located within riparian vegetation restoration treatment units. As such, there would no effect to the denning habitat within these units. Foraging habitat may be effected within riparian treatment units that propose complete canopy cover removal along the edges of Big Marsh. Stands would become open, removing cover for both the fisher and some of its prey. Historically, the area of current foraging habitat around the marsh did not exist; through successional tree encroachment these areas have provided foraging opportunities for the fisher. Riparian vegetation restoration treatments would treat the encroachment and move these areas closer to historic conditions.

RECREATION AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT There are no recreation and access management activities that overlap fisher habitat, thus there would be no direct effects. Indirect effects would be beneficial to the fisher and their prey by reducing habitat disturbance from recreation activities. Proposed actions would limit the spread of recreational activities and restrict them to already disturbed areas.

10 September 2015 Final

Threats WILDFIRE AND FIRE SUPPRESSION This threat would be reduced in and around potential fisher habitat through the proposed understory thinning and prescribed fire within the project area. The prescribed fire would be implemented to imitate a low-severity fire. The Fed. Reg. (2014b) stated, “Low-severity fire may reduce some elements of fisher habitat temporarily, but in general is unlikely to remove habitat”. Resource mitigation measures are in place to retain a percentage of dead wood, snags and down wood, within each proposed prescribed fire unit and for all other proposed treatment units. In addition, prescribed fire is generally used in ponderosa pine plant associations to remove small diameter fuels and needle cast with minimal large tree loss. Therefore, this action would likely have minimal impact on fisher habitat because these stands may not have the canopy or minimum tree diameter for fisher denning habitat or lose the needed canopy cover element.

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT This threat from the Marsh project is currently less likely to have a negative impact on fisher populations due to the lack of fisher occurrence on the Crescent Ranger District. There is one observation of a dispersing male fisher occupying the Marsh project area, from the summer of 1999 until the winter of 1999 when the signal was lost due to battery failure. The project area does not overlap with the known fisher extant populations. The Fed. Reg. (2014b) stated, “Vegetation management outside of occupied areas is less likely to have a negative impact on the viability of existing fisher populations and the maintenance of fisher habitat in these areas is important for future expansion.” In addition, the Fed. Reg. (2014b) also discussed where wildlife habitat was being managed, this could intentionally or incidentally benefit fisher: “Some forms of vegetation management may not exert a significant negative effect on forest structure and stand conditions important to fishers. For example, vegetation management that implements thinning with the goal of maintaining or enhancing late-successional characteristics, or increases structural and species diversity in young stands may provide or improve fisher habitat. Although there is no published work evaluating the direct effects of fuel treatments on fishers, various studies indicate that management to reduce fire risk or restore ecological resilience may be consistent with maintaining landscapes that support fishers in both the short and long term, providing treatments retain appropriate habitat structures, composition, and configuration.” An example of this would be fisher habitat overlapping with northern spotted owl NRF and dispersal habitat and the NWFP. By maintaining the primary constituents of spotted owl habitat, overlapping habitat elements for fisher would also be maintained.

Implementation of the Marsh project would affect 35 (26 percent) acres of potential denning habitat in the Marsh project area. Only one acre of denning habitat would be treated by overstory treatment (HTH). The overstory would not be completely removed within the unit due to retention of at least 15 percent of a unit. The majority of denning habitat affected acres would come from SDT and underburning treatments. Post- implementation, the reduction in fuels and tree density from proposed treatments would aid in making potential denning habitat more resilient to stand replacing events. SDT and fuels treatments in conjunction with resource protection measures would not reduce the quality or quantity of potential fisher denning habitat where it overlaps with spotted owl NRF. These resource protection measures would restrict thinning to six inches dbh trees and under and no overstory removal within northern spotted owl NRF habitat. In mixed conifer stands that overlap northern spotted owl dispersal habitat, canopy cover would remain at 80 percent to maintain functionality. Resource protection measures would be incorporated to retain snags and down wood at appropriate DLRMP (1990) down wood levels, ensuring down wood and snags within potential denning habitat. In addition, there would be no snag removal or firewood removal within northern spotted owl NRF habitat. These measures would also maintain the fisher habitat that overlaps with NRF and dispersal habitat in proposed units, and reduce the overall effects of proposed treatments on available fisher habitat. Additionally, 15-20 percent of each unit would be retained as unmanaged. Some foraging habitat would be removed, though through project resource protection measures and adjacent untreated habitat, ample foraging opportunities would still be available in the short-term. In the long-term as cover grows, foraging habitat would return in the treated units.

8. Interrelated and Interdependent Effects There are no interrelated or interdependent effects to fisher populations. 35

10 September 2015 Final

9. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects include future State, tribal, local or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the analysis area. Future federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to Section 7.

There are no cumulative effects anticipated to occur in the analysis area.

10. Rationale for Findings and Determination FINDINGS Fuel loadings and stand density are higher than historical conditions on much of the Marsh planning area, which has increased the risk for a large scale disturbance event. As evidenced in the Butte, Royce Mountain, and Davis fires on the Crescent Ranger District, there is the potential for large scale wildfire events to severely affect National Forest system lands in the east-Cascades province.

Implementation of the Marsh project would affect 35 acres of potential denning habitat on the Deschutes National Forest for the Pacific fisher. Proposed treatments would affect 26 percent of the potential fisher denning habitat within the project area and 3 percent of potential fisher denning habitat on the Deschutes National Forest. Proposed actions would treat one acre of denning habitat by overstory treatment (HTH), but the majority of proposed treatments include SDT and/or underburning. Post-implementation, proposed treatments would aid in making potential denning habitat more resilient to stand replacing events and promote higher quality and growth in the long term. Resource protection measures would also maintain potential fisher denning habitat that overlaps with NRF and dispersal habitat in proposed units, and reduce the overall effects of proposed treatments on available fisher habitat. Within overlapping northern spotted owl NRF habitat, there would be no snag removal or firewood due to resource protection measures. Additionally, 15-20 percent of each unit would be retained as unmanaged. Some foraging habitat would be removed, though through project resource protection measures and adjacent untreated habitat, ample foraging opportunities would still be available in the short-term. In the long-term as cover grows, foraging habitat would return in the treated units.

DETERMINATION Due to the small amount of fisher habitat affected by the project from one acre of overstory removal and 34 acres of understory treatments; the proposed treatments affecting 26 percent of potential fisher denning habitat within the project area and 3 percent on Deschutes National Forest; resource protection measures; retention of snags and down wood; available potential habitat within and adjacent to treatment units; and reducing overall potential denning habitat loss from the applicable USFWS listed threats there would be a minor effect to the West Coast DPS of fisher. Therefore, implementation of the Marsh project would have a “May Effect, but is not Likely to Adversely Affect” the Pacific fisher and its habitat on the Deschutes National Forest.

B. OREGON SPOTTED FROGS 1. ESA Status On August 29, 2013 the proposed ruling was published in the Federal Register listing the Oregon spotted frog as a threatened species (Fed. Reg. 2013b) as well as a proposal to designate critical habitat for the species (Fed. Reg. 2013a). On August 29, 2014 the final ruling was published in the Federal Register listing the Oregon spotted frog as a threatened species (Fed Reg 2014a). As of the signature of this document, there is no final ruling on the proposed 2013 CHU.

2. Ecology For a detailed life history, habitat needs and threats refer to the Final Rule (Fed.Reg. 2014a)

Conditions required for the Oregon spotted frog life cycle include 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 (Watson et al. 2003). The Oregon spotted frog inhabits emergent wetland habitats in forested landscapes, although it is not typically found under forest 36

10 September 2015 Final canopy. 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 (Fed. Reg. 2014a).

Oregon spotted frogs are known to occur at sites as small as 2.5 ac (one ha) and as large as 4,915 ac (1,989 ha; Pearl and Hayes 2004). Oregon spotted frogs have been found at elevations ranging from near sea level in the Puget Trough lowlands in Washington to approximately 5,000 ft. (1,500 meters ) in the Oregon Cascades (McAllister and Leonard 1997).

BREEDING/REARING HABITAT Oregon spotted frogs breed in shallow pools (2–12 in [5–30 cm] deep) starting as early as February or as late as June depending on location. Pools are near flowing water, or may be connected to larger bodies of water during seasonally high water or at flood stage. Characteristic vegetation includes grasses, sedges, and rushes. Eggs are laid where the vegetation is low or sparse such that vegetation structure does not shade the eggs (McAllister and Leonard 1997). Full solar exposure seems to be a significant factor in breeding habitat selection (McAllister and White 2001; Pearl and Hayes 2004).

POST BREEDING HABITAT After breeding, approximately June through September, Oregon spotted frogs move to deeper (> 4 inches [>10cm]), permanent pools or creeks (Watson et al. 2003). They are often observed near the water surface basking and feeding in beds of floating and submerged vegetation (Watson et al. 2003; Pearl et al. 2005a).

OVERWINTERING HABITAT Overwintering habitat is generally in areas that retain water October through March and may overlap with post- breeding habitat (Watson et al 2003). Known overwintering sites range from 2 in. to 5 ft. (0.06-1.5 m) deep and are associated with flowing systems, such as springs and creeks, which provide well oxygenated water (Hayes et al. 2001; Tattersall and Ultsch 2008) and shelter locations protecting against predators and freezing temperatures (Watson et al. 2003). This species remains active during the winter in order to select microhabitats that can support aerobic metabolism and allow it to evade predators (Hayes et al. 2001; Tattersall and Ultsch 2008). Man-made features (ponds and ditches) that have been documented providing overwintering habitat range in size from 3x5 ft. (1x1.5 m) with a depth of three feet at Dilman Meadow on the Deschutes National Forest to 16-26 ft. (5-8 m) wide and 5-6.5 ft. (1.5-2 m) deep at Klamath Marsh and Conboy National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in WA (Pearl pers. comm. 2014).

CONNECTIVITY/MOVEMENT In order for habitats to be utilized they must be connected seasonally through surface water. Connections between breeding, post-breeding, and overwintering habitats should be present at least through the spring and again in the fall. Subadults and adults can traverse overland for short distances, but watered corridors are preferred. A flat grade (≤ 3%) connection of surface water from shallow ephemeral breeding/rearing sites to deeper permanent water is necessary for tadpole survival (Watson et al. 2003; Pearl and Hayes 2004). Barriers to movement include hard barriers, such as dams, and inhospitable habitat, such as lakes or rivers/creeks without refugia from predators (Federal Register 2013a).

3. Threats Threats to the species’ habitat include loss of wetlands; changes in hydrology due to construction of dams; human-related alterations to seasonal flooding, or loss of beaver; changes in vegetation due to succession and encroachment, poor water quality, or livestock grazing (in some circumstances); development most markedly residential and commercial; and predation with the introduction of nonnative plant and animal species.

4. Proposed Critical Habitat The Proposed Rule for the designation of critical habitat for the Oregon spotted frog was published in the Federal Register on August 29, 2013 (Fed.Reg. 2013a). Areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the time it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they contain physical or biological 37

10 September 2015 Final features (1) which are essential to the conservation of the species, and (2) which may require special management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. In identifying those physical or biological features within an area, the focus is on the principal biological or physical constituent elements that are essential to the conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are those specific elements of the physical or biological features that provide for a species’ life history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species (Federal Register 2013a).

Physical and biological features are essential to the conservation of the species and may require special management considerations or protection. Physical or biological elements of habitat include but are not limited to (Fed Reg 2013a):  Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior  Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements  Cover or shelter  Sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) of offspring  Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species

The following is, verbatim, specific Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) and portions of Special Management Considerations or Protection as listed in the Federal Register Vol. 78 No. 168 August 29, 2013 p53544 (Fed. Reg. 2014a). A detailed discussion and references can be found in that document.

The primary constituent elements specific to the Oregon spotted frog are: (1) Primary constituent element 1 - Nonbreeding (N), Breeding (B), Rearing (R), and Overwintering Habitat (O). Ephemeral or permanent bodies of fresh water, including, but not limited to natural or manmade ponds, springs, lakes, slow-moving streams, or pools within or oxbows adjacent to streams, canals, and ditches, that have one or more of the following characteristics: • Inundated for a minimum of 4 months per year (B, R) (timing varies by elevation but may begin as early as February and last as long as September); • Inundated from October through March (O); • If ephemeral, areas are hydrologically connected by surface water flow to a permanent water body (e.g., pools, springs, ponds, lakes, streams, canals, or ditches) (B, R); • Shallow water areas (less than or equal to 30 centimeters (12 inches), or water of this depth over vegetation in deeper water (B, R); • Total surface area with less than 50 percent vegetative cover (N); • Gradual topographic gradient (less than 3 percent slope) from shallow water toward deeper, permanent water (B, R); • Herbaceous wetland vegetation (i.e., emergent, submergent, and floating leaved aquatic plants), or vegetation that can structurally mimic emergent wetland vegetation through manipulation (B, R); • Shallow water areas with high solar exposure or low (short) canopy cover (B, R); • An absence or low density of nonnative predators (B, R, N) (2) Primary constituent element 2 - Aquatic movement corridors. Ephemeral or permanent bodies of fresh water that have one or more of the following characteristics: • Less than or equal to 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) linear distance from breeding areas; • Impediment free (including, but not limited to, hard barriers such as dams, biological barriers such as abundant predators, or lack of refugia from predators). (3) Primary constituent element 3 - Refugia habitat. Nonbreeding, breeding, rearing, or overwintering habitat or aquatic movement corridors with habitat characteristics (e.g., dense vegetation and/or an abundance of woody debris) that provide refugia from predators (e.g., nonnative fish or bullfrogs).

10 September 2015 Final

Special Management Considerations or Protection Threats to the physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of this species and that may warrant special management considerations or protection include, but are not limited to: (1) habitat modifications brought on by nonnative plant invasions or native vegetation encroachment (trees and shrubs); (2) loss of habitat from conversion to other uses; (3) hydrologic manipulation; (4) removal of beavers; (5) livestock grazing; and (6) predation by invasive fish and bullfrogs. These threats also have the potential to affect the PCEs if conducted within or adjacent to designated units.

5. Distribution OREGON SPOTTED FROGS ON THE DESCHUTES NATIONAL FOREST Across the Deschutes National Forest, the Oregon spotted frog occurs in small numbers throughout the Upper Deschutes and Little Deschutes River sub-basins. The Marsh project area occurs within the Little Deschutes sub-basin on the Deschutes National Forest.

Little Deschutes River Subbasin 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 (652,797 acres) 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. Major tributaries to the Little Deschutes River include: Crescent Creek, Long Prairie Creek, Paulina Creek and headwater tributaries (Big Marsh, Clover, Hemlock and Rabbit Creeks). Oregon spotted frog breeding sites occur throughout the Little Deschutes River from the headwaters to the confluence with the Deschutes River and the following tributaries: Crescent Creek, Big Marsh Creek and Long Prairie Creek. The Deschutes National Forest manages lands occupied by Oregon spotted frogs in the upper Little Deschutes River sub-basin in the Crescent Creek and Upper Little Deschutes River watersheds. Known breeding locations for Oregon spotted frog within the Little Deschutes River sub-basin occur at Big Marsh, along Crescent Creek downstream of the confluence with Big Marsh Creek, and along the Little Deschutes River and associated wetlands upstream of the confluence with Crescent Creek. Most known breeding locations are within five watersheds in the sub-basin: Upper, Middle, and Lower Little Deschutes River; Crescent Creek; and Long Prairie (Fed Reg 2014a).

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 (Fed Reg 2014a).

Threats within the Little Deschutes River subbasin 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. 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 (Fed Reg 2014a). 39

10 September 2015 Final

Oregon spotted frog habitat in the Little Deschutes River sub-basin in Oregon may 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). 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 (Fed Reg 2014a).

Development of land along the Little Deschutes River and its tributaries in Oregon is a continued threat to Oregon spotted frogs. 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% above the 2000 level over the next 20 years (UDWC 2002, p. 12) thereby increasing risks to wetland habitat that support Oregon spotted frogs in the vicinity of the Little Deschutes River (Fed Reg 2014a).

The State of Oregon allows lethal removal of beavers and their dams on private land and regulates trapping of beaver on public lands. Currently, the presence of beavers result in active maintenance of Oregon spotted frog habitat in the Little Deschutes River and Upper Deschutes River sub-basins. Active removal of beavers and their dams can occur in Oregon spotted frog habitat in all of the occupied sub-basins in Oregon. Under State law in Oregon, the lawful killing of beavers or removal of dams reduces or degrades wetland habitats used by all life stages of Oregon spotted frogs (Fed Reg 2014a).

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). Reed canarygrass competitively excludes other native plant species and limits the biological and habitat diversity of host wetland and riparian habitats (Antieau 1998). Reed canarygrass also removes large quantities of water through evapotranspiration, resulting in potentially shallow groundwater hydrologic characteristics (Antieau 1998). Reed canarygrass dominates large areas of Oregon spotted frog habitat at lower elevations (Hayes 1997, Hayes et al. 1997) and is broadening its range to high elevation (i.e. above 4500 feet) Oregon spotted frog habitat in the Little Deschutes and Upper Deschutes River sub-basins in Oregon (USDA 2012a, USDA 2012b; USDA 2012c; and USDA 2012d; USDA 2012e) (Fed Reg 2014a).

Reed canarygrass is colonizing portions of Big Marsh which is the headwaters to the Little Deschutes sub-basin. Reed canarygrass is also present in Oregon spotted frog habitat at multiple sites along the Little Deschutes River (i.e., 7 out of 13 surveyed sites). The threat to Oregon spotted frog habitat from reed canarygrass is considered to be moderate in the Little Deschutes River sub-basin (Fed Reg 2014a).

The highest impact to Oregon spotted frogs resulting from lodgepole pine encroachment is taking place in the upper elevations of the Little Deschutes River sub-basin in Oregon, where these breeding habitats (i.e., those within the riparian lodgepole pine plant association group), evolved with fire as a natural disturbance process (Fed. Reg. 2014a).

6. Environmental Baseline At the center of the Marsh Ecosystem Restoration project is Big Marsh. The 2,000 acre shrub/meadow/marsh complex provides perennial water with pockets and ponds of varying depths throughout the marsh and hosts a large population of Oregon spotted frogs.

10 September 2015 Final

POPULATION INFORMATION Oregon spotted frog egg mass surveys have been conducted every spring, April and May, since 2002 by the Deschutes National Forest. Many of the surveys are incomplete due to the size of the marsh and inability to access it easily in a spring with high snow levels. Table 10 displays survey results for the last 13 years with a low of 490 egg masses in 2002 to a high of 3,618 egg masses in 2015. Table 10. - Big Marsh Egg Mass Survey Data, 2002 to 2014, Deschutes National Forest

Annual Oregon spotted frog total egg mass counts for Big Marsh 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 490 694 173* 1,254 1,736 2,611 427* 25** 1,514 1,265 2,662 3,071 1,087 3,618 *Incomplete survey. **Incomplete late season survey. Masses already hatched.

BREEDING/REARING HABITAT Egg mass locations are used to determine breeding/rearing habitat. Within Big Marsh, breeding occurs primarily along the edges of the marsh. The extent of the breeding/rearing habitat varies with water levels. Snow pack and spring melt influence where this habitat occurs. During spring snow melt in high snow years, water can cover the marsh from tree line to tree line. Egg masses in these conditions are more concentrated on the edges within the shallow areas. Water levels during spring melt in low snow years are lower across the marsh increasing the area of warm, shallow water and potential egg laying sites (oviposition sites). However, in low water years egg masses and tadpoles are at risk of becoming stranded as water levels recede. Even during high snow years egg masses are at risk of becoming stranded if the seasonal melt happens in stages. Local, low elevation melting creates more oviposition sites, but if waters recede before higher elevations melt egg masses can become stranded.

Figure 6 shows breeding locations prior to 2000 and 2001 through the 2006 breeding seasons. Surveys prior to 2000 found that egg masses were primarily associated with the ditches. Starting in 2002, adult surveys were suspended and the Forest Service biologists focused on egg mass surveys. Adults were found during egg mass surveys. Adult surveys were conducted on portions of the east ditch by researchers in 2013. With past restoration efforts (described below), the Oregon spotted frog population has increased. Based on egg mass surveys the population has increased from a low estimated at 980 breeding individuals (male and female) in 2002 to a high of 7,236 breeding individuals in 2015 (Table 10).

Portions of the west and east ditches were plugged in late fall of 2000 with breaches created in several places along the length. In the late summer and fall of 2004, major sections of the west ditch were filled in, ponds created and breaches created where sections of the ditch remained. The 2004 project also created overflow ponds on the east ditch where stream flows bypassed the ditch flowing directly into the ponds and the marsh. Both the 2000 and 2004 restoration projects increased water into the marsh and expanded breeding/rearing habitat outside of the ditches as illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 6 shows the expanded breeding areas on the west side after the 2000 and 2004 ditch closures. The northeast part of the east ditch was closed in 2006 and 2007 expanding breeding/rearing habitat in that part of the marsh. Figure 7 shows results of breeding after the closure on the northeast corner of the marsh after the 2006 ditch closures that occurred there.

10 September 2015 Final

Figure 6. Oregon Spotted Frog Locations within Big Marsh prior to 2000 on the left and between 2001 and 2006 on the right.

Figure 7. Oregon Spotted Frog Locations within Big Marsh Prior 2007 to 2011 on the left and 2012 to 2014 on the right. 42

10 September 2015 Final POST BREEDING HABITAT After spring snow melt waters recede, water remains available across Big Marsh. During normal water years, the depths range from 3 in. to 3 ft. with pockets and ponds exceeding 5 ft. Sedge and rush species are the dominate vegetation over much of the marsh. Deeper ponds have open water with yellow water lily commonly present. The current ditch structures provide nonbreeding habitat. The west side ditch is shallow (0.5-3 ft.), shaded by trees and/or lacks emergent vegetation along most of the remaining open sections. It provides marginal rearing habitat except where emergent vegetation is present and overstory shade is absent. The eastside ditch provides varying water depths (2-4 ft.), emergent vegetation, and/or down wood in most sections that are open. It also has less overstory shade and more solar exposure. The east and west side ditch areas are not aquatically connected to each other or to the marsh except in the spring when high water floods the marsh and ditches. Adults have been sighted utilizing sections of both ditches during the post breeding season.

OVERWINTERING HABITAT Overwintering habitat within Big Marsh is suspected to be within the deeper ponds that occur throughout the marsh, beaver ponds and runs, man-made relief ponds, as well as the deepest portions of the west and east ditches. The west ditch, shallower than the east ditch, has fewer potential overwintering ponds. Ditch habitat is not connected to the rest of the marsh except in the spring. When water levels are high, ditches in some segments overflow, allowing for connectivity. Ponds within the marsh are connected through shallow water, which generally occurs throughout most of the marsh. There is approximately 40 acres of potential overwintering habitat in Big Marsh (Figure 8). This habitat was determined through low elevation aerial photography taken in July of 2012. Open water at this time of year would most likely represent overwintering habitat. This, however, underestimates potential overwinter habitat as deeper water also has sedges, rushes and/or yellow water lily that does not appear as open water. Not all habitat was field verified.

Figure 8. Potential Overwinter habitat within Big Marsh (Larger scale in Appendix B)

10 September 2015 Final CONNECTIVITY/MOVEMENT Except for the overwintering habitat within isolated parts of the ditches, habitat components are generally well connected within the marsh especially in the spring. Through the summer, ditches, edge pockets of water and ponds become less connected. Connectivity varies year to year depending on water conditions. During droughts, the shallower portions of the marsh dry out and deep water ponds can be isolated. In the fall, generally in October as trees shut down, water levels increase reconnecting isolated rearing and nonbreeding habitat with overwintering habitat. Where restoration work has not occurred, overwintering habitat within the ditches is isolated due to the berms created when the ditches were dug. In most cases these berms are located between the ditch and the marsh blocking any connectivity to the marsh. If this overwintering habitat is utilized, frogs would need to travel overland to access it.

The major connectivity corridor in and out of the Big Marsh is Big Marsh Creek. Big Marsh Creek is the primary drainage within the Upper and Lower Big Marsh Creek subwatersheds. It originates from snowmelt runoff on Tolo Mountain and travels north approximately 15 miles to its confluence with Crescent Creek. The upper reaches of Big Marsh and its tributaries are in good geomorphic condition. They are moderately incised, wide and shallow with moderate slopes, generally a Rosgen B-type channel. Within the marsh Big Marsh Creek is a braided channel, providing water connections to shallow water and ponds. At the lower reaches, Big Marsh Creek and Refrigerator Creek transition from slightly entrenched, wide and shallow, Rosgen C-type channel to Rosgen E-type, not incised, but narrow and deep.

THREATS TO OREGON SPOTTED FROG AND ITS HABITAT WITHIN BIG MARSH Threats to Oregon spotted frog and its habitat in Big Marsh include wetland loss due to past hydrological manipulation and loss of beaver; lodgepole pine encroachment into wetlands; presence of reed canary grass, and non-native fish within the marsh. There is currently no evidence of bullfrogs within the project area. Bullfrogs have not been detected during any Oregon spotted frog surveys conducted during the day or yellow rail surveys conducted at night. Bullfrog surveys were conducted in conjunction with yellow rail surveys in 2013 and 2014.

HABITAT MAPPING According to USFWS National Mapping of water bodies and wetlands GIS layer, there currently is approximately 1,273 acres of freshwater emergent wetland, 46 acres of riverine and 1,987 acres of freshwater forested/shrub wetland in the Marsh project area (Figure 9). In Big Marsh, the freshwater emergent wetland approximates Oregon spotted frog habitat and the forested/shrub wetland designation approximates the lodgepole pine encroachment areas. There is also lodgepole pine encroachment within the emergent wetlands; these areas do not have the density of lodgepole pine as the forest/shrub wetland. Figure 9 also shows a picture of encroaching lodgepole pine on the SW side of the marsh. The foreground is emergent wetlands with scattered lodgepole pine encroachment and the forest/shrub lodgepole pine encroachment can be seen in the mid-ground of the photo with dense lodgepole pine encroachment.

10 September 2015 Final

Figure 9. USFWS delineation of water bodies and wetlands in the Marsh Project Area with 5 May 2011 photo showing lodgepole pine encroachment (Larger scale available in Appendix B) HISTORY OF LAND USE, THREATS AND RESTORATION Big Marsh came under private ownership in 1906 under the Swamp Land Act, which encouraged private ownership and management of large blocks of land. The marsh was degraded by efforts to make the land useable for grazing. Examples of these efforts include the removal of beavers and digging of ditches on the west and east sides. These manipulations to the marsh ecosystem increased available meadow and extended the grazing season. As a result the water table was lowered and the capacity of the marsh to hold water for extended release in the summer was reduced (USDA 2014c).

Anecdotal accounts speak to a time when Big Marsh maintained a diverse mix of riparian dependent vegetation ranging from forbs to bushes and deciduous trees. At that time the marsh had an elevated shallow groundwater elevation, ample beaver activity and a more open, wetland type character.

Historic accounts from Byron Pengra and William Odell described extensive beaver dams and stream waters that overflow Big Marsh Creek to an average depth of 12 to 20 inches. From this account, a water elevation of 20 inches above the outlet of the meadow was recreated to see the extent of the Marsh that would have been flooded. Figure 10 shows this elevation, which amounts to 515 acres of the northern end of the Marsh being inundated, indicated by the black contour line, when the beavers were present.

10 September 2015 Final

Figure 10. Portion of Big Marsh inundated (black contour line) in July, 1865 according to Thompson, Pengra and Odell accounts. Over the past century-and-a-half of European management of the Marsh, the shallow groundwater elevation had been lowered, beaver have been removed and riparian vegetation has been reduced to favor grasses that have been preferred by sheep and cattle grazers. During the past 50 years, the open wetland nature of the marsh has changed with the encroachment of coniferous trees. Lodgepole pine trees have become well established as a result of fire suppression as well as a drier meadow surface.

Lodgepole pine has encroached within the marsh and over the years has reduced habitat for the Oregon spotted frog. Comparing current photos of Big Marsh (Figure 11) with those from the 1950s shows the expansion of lodgepole pine into marsh. As the water table lowered, lodgepole pines were able to take advantage of the drier conditions and fire suppression to become established within the marsh.

The reed canarygrass, present in Oregon spotted frog habitat within Big Marsh, is thought to have been planted as a forage species for cattle. A 2009 Big Marsh field survey of reed canarygrass has shown that reed canarygrass forms a small monoculture at the north outlet of the marsh, and lines the edges of Big Marsh Creek as it travels through the marsh. Reed canarygrass is also found sporadically along both the east and west ditches, and in isolated patches in the southeast region of the marsh. On the 2015 egg mass survey of the southeast portion of the marsh, reed canary grass was found at 6 of 23 oviposition sites. The composition of the plant species on those sites included 10-50% reed canarygrass. (2015_OSF_Data, District Records)

10 September 2015 Final

Figure 11. 1959 and 2012 Aerial Photos of Big Marsh Historically, bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and redband trout (Onchorhychus mykiss) were the dominant fish species found in the planning area. Bull trout have been extirpated from the watershed since about 1979. Redband trout have been greatly depleted and persist at low levels. Big Marsh and all streams within the planning area are dominated by non-native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and brown trout (Salmo trutta), with brook trout being most prevalent. For the most part there is segregation of frogs and fish. Generally, Oregon spotted frogs occur in the warmer shallows, ponds, and ditches of the marsh while fish are found in the deeper, colder stream channels. Overlap occurs during high flows in the spring when water levels rise. In some years the marsh becomes a shallow lake providing an opportunity for overlap of fish and frog occurrences. Antidotal observations suggest that with the restoration of water flows throughout the marsh, spring flooding of the entire marsh occurs more frequently and lasts longer than in the past. Egg mass surveys have shown Oregon spotted frog populations have increased during this time period.

The Marsh was in private ownership until 1982 when the Forest Service acquired it. The grazing allotment on Big Marsh was discontinued in 1989 and the grazing allotment closed with the decision from the Big Marsh Creek And Little Deschutes River Wild and Scenic River Plans signed in 2001 (USDA 2001).

Restoration of the marsh has been ongoing since 1989. The loss of wetlands within the project area has been due to drying of the marsh, vegetation succession, and lack of fire. Wet sedge/rush communities moved to shrub/forest land due to lack of fire. A wildfire within the Marsh project area in 1998 killed 10 acres of lodgepole pine and created small ponds where the fire was able to burn into the peat underneath the trees. Once water was released into the area through the ditch closures, sedge/rush communities re-established.

10 September 2015 Final Table 11 lists management actions that have been taken to restore water back into the marsh, reduce encroaching lodgepole pine, and reintroduce fire and planting native vegetation where ditches were filled in.

Table 11. History of Activities in Big Marsh since 1989 Year Personnel Management Action 1989- Federal, State, and Private Removal of grazing allotment fences and installed a head-gate on the 1990 groups east ditch 1992 District Personnel Conducted a 72 acre prescribed burn District Personnel- East ditch head-gate removed, not functioning properly, added berms 1997 Contractors Extinguished a 20 acre human caused fire near the snowmobile bridge A 2.5 mile nature trail was constructed on the east side of the marsh 1998 District Personnel Extinguished a 10 acre lightning fire on the southwest side of the marsh District Personnel - Modified the berms in the east ditch and constructed a main channel for 2000 Contractors Big Marsh and connected side channels Completed 65 acres of lodgepole pine felling District Personnel Conducted a prescribed fire (80 acres) at the north end of the marsh District Personnel – Begin closure of the west ditch and 2 acres of ditch relief ponds created 2001 Contractors (east and west sides of the marsh) District Personnel and Closed 25 miles of existing road to motorized use in the Hemlock and Forest Road Maintenance Big Marsh subwatersheds Group District Personnel – OHA 2002 1,500 willow cuttings planted adjacent to west ditch - RMEF Completed 260 acres of prescribed burning on the east-side of the 2003 District Personnel marsh District Personnel - 2006 Completed additional closures of the east ditch Contractors District Personnel - Removed the snowmobile bridge and placed a logjam in the same spot 2007 Contractors Completed additional closures of the east ditch District Personnel – Completed approximately 100 acres of lodgepole pine encroachment 2008 County Corrections Crew removal on the east-side

Projects have been conducted to remove small diameter lodgepole pine through cutting and burning. Cutting of small diameter lodgpole pine occurred in 2001on the west side and 2008 along the margins of the marsh on the east side. Prescribed burning of portions of the marsh occurred in 2001 and 2003. Approximately 320 acres were burned during those years.

Restoration of the hydrological regime in Big Marsh has been a continuing process since 1989 with the installation of a headgate on the ditches to divert water back to Big Marsh Creek and into the marsh. In 2000, the headgate was removed and the ditches were plugged at the diversion point where Big Marsh Creek flowed into the ditches. These activities were done in conjunction with the restoration of the historic channel. Dirt plugs were installed at various intervals within the ditches on the east and west side of the marsh. Filling in of portions of both the east and west ditch occurred in subsequent years (Table 6). Numerous breaches and overflow ponds were created to assist in connecting water flow back to the marsh and away from the ditches increasing the amount of wetland within Big Marsh. Although the hydrology in the area has recovered substantially since the late 1990s, sections of the ditches were not closed off completely and remain partially open. They continue to intercept water from the upland slopes and groundwater.

10 September 2015 Final There is evidence of old and recent beaver dams and lodges throughout Big Marsh. Active removal of beavers occurs on a cyclic basis within Big Marsh. Anecdotal information from stream surveys and Oregon spotted frog egg mass surveys indicate both beaver activity and beaver trapping which are followed by several years without sign of beaver activity. There has not been continuous beaver occupation within the marsh; therefore their dam building activities have not consistently influenced the hydrology of the area as they had done historically.

HYDROLOGICAL CONDITIONS OF THE MARSH Big Marsh Creek is a braided channel through Big Marsh providing water connections to shallow water and ponds. A number of the shallow channels are fully vegetated with sedges and rushes. Open ponds generally contain sedges and rushes at the edges and yellow water lily in areas of permanent deep water. Table 12. Stream Miles within the Marsh Planning area and plan views of major stream types (Rosgen, 1994). Rosgen Stream Miles Channel Type Big Marsh Braid* 0.08 D Big Marsh Creek 21.43 C and E Dublin Creek 0.26 B Fly Creek 1.31 B Otter Creek 1.54 B Refrigerator Creek 5.74 C and E No Name 72.43 B Grand Total 102.78 *This is a portion of Big Marsh Creek that is braided within the Marsh.

Within the Upper Big Marsh Creek Subwatershed, Otter, Fly, Dublin and several other unnamed tributaries flow into Big Marsh Creek. Some of the unnamed tributaries include those flowing out of Windigo Lakes near Windigo Pass. A major portion of this subwatershed is designated as Oregon Cascade Recreation Area (OCRA) and consequently has had minimal past management disturbance. Streams within this subwatershed are generally in good geomorphic condition and are mostly stable, slightly incised channels in the upper portions of the subwatershed. In the lower portions of the subwatershed Big Marsh Creek transitions from a wide and shallow Rosgen C-type channel to a narrow and deep Rosgen E-type channel.

Within the Lower Big Marsh Creek subwatershed, there are several springs that flow into the marsh from the southwest corner of the marsh. These springs add a considerable amount of water to the system. Several more unnamed tributaries, as well as, Refrigerator Creek flow into Big Marsh Creek downstream of Big Marsh. Similar to the streams in the Upper Big Marsh Creek Subwatershed, these streams are generally in good geomorphic condition. Unnamed tributaries to Big Marsh Creek are predominately Rosgen B-type channels while most of Big Marsh and Refrigerator Creek is Rosgen C and E-type channels. The best habitat for Oregon spotted frog within this subwatershed appears to be the Big Marsh Braid Rosgen D-type as well as E-type channels that provide a variety of flows, depths and streamside vegetation. For more information on these watersheds and streams within the area see the Big Marsh Watershed Analysis (1997).

Table 12 and Figure 12 show the contribution and flow paths of the streams within the watershed. The primary habitat for Oregon spotted frog is found in Big Marsh Creek starting approximately at Otter Creek and continuing to Crescent Creek.

10 September 2015 Final

Figure 12. Stream Connectivity Approximately half of the flow paths for water within the Marsh Planning area maintain perennial flow (Table 13). There are almost 6 miles of constructed ditch line around the perimeter of the marsh, of which 70% has plugs to prevent conveyance of flow down the ditches. However, where the ditch is not filled in, the ditch lines disrupt the natural hydrology of the marsh by intercepting water from the toe slopes around the marsh. Table 13. Miles of streams by flow regime

Flow Regime Miles Ditch 5.85 Ephemeral 8.03 Intermittent 43.48 Perennial 45.41 Grand Total 102.78

10 September 2015 Final The timing and duration of flows in the upper portions of the watershed have been relatively unmanaged and undisturbed. However, constructing draining/diversion ditches, changing the vegetation composition and trapping/removing beavers have increased the draining efficiency of the marsh (i.e. increased the rate at which water leaves the site). Rehabilitation efforts have led to an elevated shallow groundwater elevation and reversal of the drying trend throughout the marsh. In areas where the shallow groundwater elevation is recovering, encroaching lodgepole pine trees are showing signs of stress and/or dying. Although the hydrology in the area has recovered substantially since the late 1990s, this project plans to improve the fluvial mechanisms within the marsh even more.

Oregon Water Resources Department does not currently operate a streamflow gage on Big Marsh Creek or any of its tributaries. However, there are two historic gages on Big Marsh Creek that collected data in the early to mid-1900s.

The gage referred to as BIG MARSH CR AB COLLINS RANCH NR CRESCENT, OR was periodically monitored between May of 1924 until September of 1928. The data are available in mean daily flows which range from 313 cfs on May 18, 1927 to 7 cfs at many times during several years.

The gage referred to as BIG MARSH CR HOEY RANCH NR CRESCENT, OR was monitored periodically from April 1, 1912 to September 30, 1958. The data are available in mean daily flows which range from 554 cfs on April 21, 1943 to no flow on March 27, 1935 due to unusual regulation, but cause unknown.

Additional field flow measurements were taken in September of 1982 above and below Big Marsh, in addition to flow measurements from seven springs coming into the Marsh from the southwest. These measurements showed 19.4 cfs coming into the marsh and 31.3 cfs leaving the marsh. The difference in flows, 11.9 cfs, was attributed to the spring tributaries (approximately 4.9 cfs) from the southwest corner of the marsh as well and groundwater inflow. Additional flow notes, computations, and measurements are available at the Deschutes Supervisor’s Office.

There has been no development within the Marsh project area except for the 2 mile Marsh interpretive trail loop. On the east side of the project area there is an interpretive/nature trail built in the late 1980’s that has fallen in disrepair but is still utilized by birders, hunters, and anglers to gain access to the marsh. There are no developed campgrounds. The majority of recreation use appears to be dispersed camping, hunting and fishing, with the camping being a supporting activity for hunting and fishing. There are a total of 41 dispersed camping sites identified within the Marsh planning area boundary. The majority of the sites have been identified as infrequently to rarely used. The primary use season of these sites is the fall hunting season(s) in October and November.

OREGON SPOTTED FROG PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT Table 14 provides the ownership breakdown of proposed Critical Habitat Unit 9 (CHU 9). The Marsh project occurs within CHU 9 – Little Deschutes River. Approximately 25% or 2,847 acres of proposed CHU 9 are within the Marsh project area and includes Big Marsh along with Big Marsh Creek and its tributaries. Table 14. Oregon Spotted Frog Proposed Critical Habitat Unit 9 on the Deschutes National Forest and Marsh Project Area. Proposed Critical Marsh Habitat Unit Total Acres Deschutes NF Other Lands Project Area Number 9

Total Acres 11,367 4,147 7,220 2,847

% of Total Acres 100% 36% 64% 25%

10 September 2015 Final

Proposed CHU 9 - Little Deschutes River The Little Deschutes River unit consists of 11,367 acres in Klamath and Deschutes Counties. This unit includes the extent of the Little Deschutes River and associated wetlands from the headwaters to the confluence with the Deschutes River, 1 mile south of Sunriver and approximately 20 miles south of Bend. This unit includes the following tributaries, including adjacent wetlands: Big Marsh Creek, Crescent Creek, and Long Prairie Creek. Oregon spotted frogs are known to occupy this unit.

The essential physical and biological features are found within this unit but are impacted by hydrologic manipulation of water levels for irrigation, non-native predaceous fish, reed canarygrass, and bullfrogs. The essential features within occupied habitat within this subunit may require special management considerations or protection to ensure maintenance or improvement of the existing nonbreeding, breeding, rearing, and overwintering habitat; aquatic movement corridors; or refugia habitat, and to address any changes that could affect these features.

Figure 13 shows the proposed Critical Habitat on the Deschutes National Forest in the Upper Deschutes River and Little Deschutes River sub-basins as well as, Oregon spotted frog locations taken from the Forest Service NRIS database.

Figure 13. Oregon Spotted Frog Proposed Critical Habitat on the Deschutes National Forest (Does not include all locations from FWS or USGS surveys) 52

10 September 2015 Final

7. Proposed Action and Effects PROPOSED ACTION Proposed actions that would affect the Oregon spotted frog, its habitat, and proposed CHU 9 include those activities associated with Restoration of Natural Flows, Riparian Vegetation Restoration and the trail maintenance within the Recreation and Access Management proposal. Proposed actions considered in this analysis are listed within Table 15 and their location displayed in Figure 14. Upland Fuels and Density Management treatments are located outside habitat and would not affect the Oregon spotted frog, their habitat, or proposed CHU 9 and as such are not included in this analysis. Although 11 acres of roadside treatment overlaps riparian areas, resource mitigation measures restrict this work to outside of riparian areas. Therefore, this treatment would not affect the Oregon spotted frog, their habitat, or proposed CHU9 and is not included in this analysis.

Table 15. Proposed Actions affecting the Oregon Spotted Frog and/or Proposed Critical Habitat Unit 9

Provisioning Hydrology Proposed Action within or adjacent to OSF Habitat Service Includes filling in portions of the east and west ditches, creating breaches in the ditches, connecting and Ditch Closure creating Oregon spotted frog overwintering habitat with the rest of the marsh Restoration of On closed non-system road off of 6030, a 10x100 ft. Stream Crossing Removal Gate Natural Water section of old road/trail crossing in tributary removed moved Flow and gate moved to the junction with the 6030. Culvert Removal 7 culverts removed on the 6030 road Wood placed along approximately 1 mile of Big Marsh In stream Wood Placement Creek and tributaries Provisioning and Forest Products, High Quality Plant Proposed Acres of Treatment within or adjacent to Supporting and Animal Habitats OSF Habitat Services Lodgepole Pine Encroachment 191 Overstory Treatment Riparian Lodgepole Pine Encroachment Vegetation 202 Understory Treatment Restoration Total Riparian Vegetation 393 Restoration Cultural High Quality Dispersed Recreation Proposed Action Proposed Acres of Treatment Services and Scenic Views within or adjacent to OSF Habitat Close and rehabilitate 7 sites and reduce the size of 5 Dispersed Camping Recreation and sites Access Trail Maintenance Re-establish 2 miles of the Big Marsh Nature Trail Management User-Created OHV Trail Restoration 0.5 miles of user created OHV trail restored

10 September 2015 Final

Figure 14. Actions within and adjacent to Oregon Spotted Frog Habitat

10 September 2015 Final

Additional Actions related to treatments  Hydrological restoration work would occur July, August and September.

 Just prior to hydrological restoration implementation work, the wildlife biologist, fisheries biologist, and hydrologist will coordinate the survey for, and removal/salvage of, Oregon spotted frogs in the area where work will occur and relocate them to a safe area within the Marsh.

 The Oregon spotted frog removal/salvage plan will be developed and implemented by the Forest Service in coordination with the USFWS.

 Implementation of Units 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 71, 72,73,74, and 75 with equipment would occur during dry periods when there is insufficient water present to support the Oregon spotted frog. Hand felling, handpiling, and girdling could take place adjacent to overwintering ponds during the dry periods as well (August through November).

 Avoid equipment operations during periods of high soil moisture, as evidenced by equipment tracks that sink deeper than six inches in depth or greater.

 There would be no new construction of temporary roads or logging facilities on soils with high water tables without prior approval from the Soils resource specialist.

 In all Riparian Encroachment units (LPO or LPU prescriptions) o Minimize the burning of willows by prescribed fire in these units by introducing fire when moisture is high enough to prevent the need for a bare-soil fireline along/within the riparian area, yet dry enough to meet objectives. A wet and/or mowed fireline is preferred over a bare-soil fireline. o Mechanized equipment would remain outside the non-forested, sedge and willow dominated riparian area unless authorized to put wood into adjacent stream(s). o Hand and grapple piles would be located outside of wet features to the best extent possible. Mechanized grapple piling access routes would need approval from soils and/or aquatic specialists. o A portion of the trees from these units would get utilized for in-stream wood. Trees may be directionally felled or pushed over toward/into waterways or ditches or placed with equipment where disturbance to the floodplain vegetation and soils would be minimal. The amount of wood placed in ditches would be determined by the wildlife biologist. o LPO treatments may leave more than two large trees per acre within the riparian reserve to address water quality related issues. Lay out of these riparian units would include input from the soils/aquatic specialists. o LPU activities in unit 74 would be accomplished mostly by hand thinning or by fire. All access routes would be designated by soils and/or aquatics specialists if mechanized equipment is utilized. o All grapple piling and associated pile burning would occur at least 50 feet from waterways or outside the sedge and willow dominated riparian area, whichever is greatest. o All mechanized activities in the following units would be completed during the driest part of the year (August, September, October, and November) or as approved by soils and/or aquatic specialists.

10 September 2015 Final . Units 14, 16, 19, 23, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 71, 72, 73, and 74

 Restrict activities in units 17, 20, 24, 28 and 32 to the following; o HIM treatments may minimize harvested openings (up to two acres in size) within 100 feet of Big Marsh Creek, Refrigerator Creek and the unnamed tributaries to Refrigerator Creek. Openings within 100 feet of these waterbodies would need approval from soils and/or aquatics specialists. o A portion of the trees from these units would get utilized for in-stream wood. Trees may be directionally felled or pushed over toward/into Big Marsh Creek or other waterbodies or placed with equipment where disturbance to the floodplain vegetation and soils would be minimal. o All mechanized small diameter thinning and grapple piling and associated pile burning would occur at least 50 feet from waterbodies or outside the nonforested, sedge and willow dominated riparian area (whichever is greatest). Small diameter conifer thinning would occur by hand within this 50 foot buffer up to the wetted edge of the adjacent stream body.

Monitoring A monitoring for Oregon spotted frogs would be developed that would include surveys during the breeding season and periodically throughout the summer within the project area prior to, during, and post implementation.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS Oregon spotted frog habitat as described here, coincides with primary constituent elements described in the proposed Critical habitat rule (Fed. Reg. 2013a). Habitat types are grouped and discussed in this section as:

 Life cycle habitats o Breeding/Rearing habitat: Shallow water areas with high solar exposure less than or equal to 12 inches (30.5 cm) that remain inundated for at least 4 months of the year or are connected by surface water flow to a permanent water body with a gradual topographic gradient less than 3% slope. o Nonbreeding habitat: Shallow or deeper water with less than 50% vegetative cover. o Overwintering habitat: Generally deeper water 12 inches (30.5 cm) and greater that is inundated from October through March and does not freeze solid for long periods of time.  Aquatic movement corridors o Ephemeral or permanent bodies of water that are less than or equal to 3.1 miles (5 km) from breeding areas and are barrier free.  Refugia habitat o Life cycle habitat or aquatic movement corridors with dense vegetation and/or an abundance of woody debris that provide refugia from predators.

Restoration Of Riparian Vegetation LODGEPOLE PINE TREATMENTS There would be no loss of wetlands with the implementation of the Marsh project, but rather a change in wetland types. The purpose of the lodgepole pine encroachment removal on 393 acres is to provide for riparian vegetation restoration. These actions would convert forested/shrub wetlands to freshwater emergent wetlands, as well as prevent the existing freshwater emergent wetlands from becoming forested wetlands. Units proposed for lodgepole pine encroachment overstory treatments (LPO 191 acres) or understory treatments (LPU 202 56

10 September 2015 Final acres) are located in areas, as identified by 1950’s photos, that either lacked trees, had greatly reduced numbers, or were scattered islands of trees (Figure 15).

Figure 15. Riparian Treatment Units Location Selection Based on 1950s Photo. (Larger scale maps available in Appendix B). The density of lodgepole pine within treatment units varies from scattered trees to stands of forest. Wetland types are based on USFWS National Delineation of Waterbodies and Wetlands (Figure 16). Approximately 87 percent of the proposed riparian restoration units are in a delineated wetland type of riverine, freshwater emergent or freshwater forested/shrub wetlands. The freshwater forested/shrub wetlands are those areas with the greatest density of lodgepole pine encroachment and the greatest need for restoration. Riverine and freshwater emergent wetlands currently provide Oregon spotted frog habitat but may have widely scattered lodgepole pine encroaching or pockets of lodgepole pine in the margins.

10 September 2015 Final

Figure 16. USFWS Wetland delineation with proposed treatments. (Larger scale available in Appendix B) Lodgepole Pine Overstory Commercial Treatment (LPO) Approximately 191 acres within the transitional area between upland and marsh, would have the majority of lodgepole pine, both in the overstory and understory, removed through commercial harvest. Two of the largest trees per acre would be retained, as well as areas with existing Engelmann spruce and true firs. Where they are intermixed with lodgepole pine, some Engelmann spruce and true firs may be cut. After lodgepole pine is removed, willows and other ecologically appropriate hardwoods would be planted at low densities. These plantings may need fencing to protect from browsing until they become established.

Riparian vegetation restoration work would be completed prior to any ditch work that would locally increase water levels. It would not be completed during the breeding season or when frogs are active in these units, but when units are dry and there is insufficient water for frogs of all life stages. This generally occurs August through October. Equipment would avoid overwintering ponds that are wet year round. Overwintering ponds have few trees adjacent to them and would be not have equipment working in or near them. Resource protection 58

10 September 2015 Final measures restrict equipment from working within 50 feet of permanent water; other measures which protect soils would also protect the wet areas during implementation. Access routes would require prior approval from soils and/or aquatic specialists. Because these units have a period where they are dry enough for the soils to support equipment, it is unlikely Oregon spotted frogs would be directly affected by machine harvest operations.

Table 16 displays the acres of wetlands within the LPO units. Approximately 82% (169 acres) of these units are within wetlands with the majority, 131 acres, in the encroaching forested/shrub wetlands. Removal of the lodgepole pine within these units would create a mosaic of shrub wetland type or emergent wetland. Refer to Figure 16 to see the current mosaic of emergent and forested wetlands within these units. Table 16. Distribution of Wetlands within Riparian Encroachment LPO Treatment Units for the Marsh project. Freshwater Wetland Freshwater % of Emergent Riverine Grand Unit Acres Forested/Shrub Unit in Wetland Ac Total Wetland Ac Wetland Ac Ac 14 16 0 8.1 0.3 8.4 53% 16 7 0 4.9 0.3 5.2 74% 19 2 0 0.1 0 0.1 5% 50 6 0.3 3.4 0 3.7 62% 51 2 0.8 1 0.2 2 100% 52 18 0 16.4 0 16.4 91% 57 13 1.1 7.8 0 8.9 68% 58 12 1.8 8.7 0.9 11.4 95% 59 20 0.6 11 1.3 12.9 65% 60 22 2 20 0 22 100% 65 24 2.1 21.4 0.1 23.6 98% 66 22 2.3 12.5 1.2 16 73% 73 18 6.8 10.9 0.2 17.9 99% 75 25 15.5 5.1 0.1 20.7 83% LPO Total 207 33.3 131.3 4.6 169.2 82% Ac

Freshwater Emergent Wetlands Approximately 33 acres of existing freshwater emergent wetland providing breeding/rearing habitat is associated with proposed units 50, 51, 58, 60, 66, 73, and 75. Equipment would not be allowed in areas of wet soils, but delayed until soils are sufficiently dry or work completed by hand. Removal of encroaching lodgepole pine in these units would reduce shade and vegetative cover and increase solar exposure providing for maintenance of existing emergent wetland habitat for breeding and rearing. Refer to Figure 17 illustrating proposed riparian vegetation restoration units overlapping Oregon spotted frog breeding habitat.

Mixed in with this habitat is approximately 1 acre of potential overwintering habitat in scattered small deep pockets, ponds or part of the ditches within 50, 51 59, 60, 66, 73 and 75. Removal of trees adjacent to these deep water areas may increase solar exposure, but would not alter the overwintering habitat. Hand falling adjacent to permanent water could disturb adults, subadults and metamorphs that are within those waters, resulting in an escape response into the vegetation in the deeper portions of the nonbreeding/overwintering habitat. The duration of the disturbance would average approximately a day at each unit for handwork or 14 days, not necessarily consecutive. Larger units may take as much as two days, smaller units less than a day.

10 September 2015 Final

Forested/Shrub Wetlands Forested/shrub wetlands occur within all of the proposed commercial LPO treatment units, approximately 131 acres of the 207 acres (Table 16). Equipment would not be allowed in areas of wet soils, but delayed until soils are sufficiently dry or work completed by hand. Cutting of trees in this wetland type would convert it to more of a shrub or emergent wetland habitat. Elimination or reduction of trees would provide for less water consumption by trees resulting in increased water availability. There would also be a reduction of shade in these areas. Less shade with additional water could increase breeding and rearing habitat by as much as 131 acres in non-drought years and retain water in existing habitat later into the dry season. With past restoration projects, Oregon spotted frogs have moved into areas where there has been a reduction of LP and increase of water.

Both Habitat Types Hardwood planting would take place after spring flooding had receded. Hardwoods, like aspen and willow, prefer wet areas, but not areas with long seasons of inundation. Hardwood planting and fencing is not expected to impact Oregon spotted frogs directly. Hardwood planting would increase potential food source for beavers, which in turn would provide frog habitat creation and maintenance.

Figure 17. Oregon Spotted Frog Habitat and Riparian Vegetation Restoration Units (Larger Scale available in Appendix B) 60

10 September 2015 Final

Lodgepole Pine Understory Non-commercial Treatment (LPU) All trees less than 8” dbh would be hand cut/piled/burned on approximately 201 acres of primarily lodgepole pine stands immediately adjacent to and intermixed with existing marsh. There would be no overstory removal in these units. However, lodgepole pine trees larger than 8” dbh in these areas may be girdled, hand cut and left in place, or used for instream wood placement. Spruce trees larger than 8” dbh would not be cut. After treatments, prescribed fire activities would be utilized to reduce seeding in of lodgepole pine. After lodgepole pine removal, willows and other ecologically appropriate hardwoods would be planted at low densities in areas that would not be inundated for long periods of time. This treatment would also result in a mosaic of riparian vegetation species.

Many of the units contain areas of permanent water, are classified as freshwater emergent wetlands, or are flooded during high water in the spring. Table 17 displays the amount and type of wetland within each unit. It would be expected that these wet areas would expand and retain water longer into the summer season as well as being inundated during high water flows in the spring after treatment. Refer to Figure 15 to see the current mosaic of emergent and forested wetlands within these units. Table 17. Distribution of Wetlands within Riparian Encroachment LPU Treatment Units for the Marsh project. Freshwater Wetland Freshwater % of Emergent Riverine Grand Unit Acres Forested/Shrub Unit in Wetland Ac Total Wetland Ac Wetland Ac Ac 53 9 0.1 8.9 0 9 100% 54 17 14.3 2.4 0.4 17.1 101% 55 5 2.1 2.6 0.3 5 100% 56 9 7 0.9 1.2 9.1 101% 61 11 3.3 7.5 0 10.8 98% 62 11 8.8 2.6 0 11.4 104% 63 9.6 9.3 0 0 9.3 97% 64 35 17.1 18 0 35.1 100% 67 46 29.7 16.2 0 45.9 100% 71 22.2 6.6 0 2.5 9.1 41% 72 12 8.9 2.3 0.5 11.7 98% 74 14.3 3 8.5 0.3 11.8 83% LPU Total 201.1 110.2 69.9 5.2 185.3 92% Ac

Freshwater Emergent Wetland There is approximately 116 acres of freshwater emergent wetland currently providing breeding/rearing habitat associated with all or parts of proposed units 53, 54, 55, 56, 61, 62, 63, 64, , 67, 71, 72, 73, and 74. Refer to Figure 17 illustrating proposed riparian vegetation restoration units overlapping Oregon spotted frog breeding and potential overwintering habitat. Removal of encroaching lodgepole pine in these units would reduce shade and vegetative cover and increase solar exposure providing for maintenance of existing emergent wetland habitat for breeding and rearing. Implementation in these units would disturb Oregon spotted frogs causing an escape response. In normal to high water years, crews could be working in water 3-6 inches. In this rearing habitat, tadpoles and metamorphs as well as adults, and subadults could be trampled underfoot. This is highly unlikely as water and vegetation is fairly evenly distributed providing ample escape habitat. During low water years there would be little to no water present.

10 September 2015 Final Mixed in with this habitat are approximately 9 acres of potential overwintering habitat in small deep pockets, ponds or part of the ditches primarily within 54, 56, 63, 64, 66, 67, 71, 72, and 74. Removal of trees adjacent to these deep water areas may increase solar exposure, but would not alter the overwintering habitat. Hand falling adjacent to permanent water could disturb adults, subadults and metamorphs that are within those waters, resulting in an escape response into the vegetation in the deeper portions of the nonbreeding/overwintering habitat. The duration of the disturbance would average approximately 2 days at each unit for handwork or 24 days. Larger units such as unit 67 may take as much as 4 days, smaller units less than a day.

Forested/Shrub Wetland Forested/shrub wetlands occur within all of the proposed LPU treatment units except unit 71.Across the remaining 11 units approximately 70 acres of the 185 acres of wetlands is forested/shrub (Table 17). Treatments in forested/shrub wetlands would result in less water consumption by trees resulting in increased water availability. There will be a reduction of shade in these areas resulting in increased solar exposure. The result would be an increase in breeding and rearing habitat. Overall, the treatments could increase breeding habitat by as much as 70 acres in non-drought years and retain water in existing habitat later into the dry season.

Both Wetland Lodgepole Pine Treatment Types The results of treatments will provide additional life cycle habitats that may retain water longer into the summer and may increase breeding habitat during high water in the spring. The trees cut and left in place provide down woody material that create microsites and hiding cover during periods of inundation. While burning may reduce this down woody material, it would not consume all of it and the fire would stimulate grasses and forbs providing quality breeding habitat (emergent vegetation) in the spring. As with the LPO hardwood planting and fencing, over the long term the establishment of willows and other hardwoods increase the forage potential for beaver. In turn, additional beaver habitat could increase the beaver population and the habitat that they would provide for Oregon spotted frogs in the future.

Riparian vegetation restoration work in these units would be completed prior to or concurrently with ditch work the months August through October. These units occur in an area with a season of extended wet soils and large areas are inundated except during drought years. There would be no ground equipment utilized in these units.

SUMMARY OF RIPARIAN VEGETATION RESTORATION EFFECTS Lodgepole Pine Treatment Disturbance of adults, subadults and metamorphs in nonbreeding/overwintering areas by hand crews would create escape responses in Oregon spotted frogs. Timing and duration of disturbance would vary. Within the drier LPO units, disturbance would be limited to approximately a day per unit to complete the hand work. Within LPU units, disturbance would be greater as all work would be done by hand and include crews cutting/piling and burning. Disturbance in a given unit could be a day to a week depending on tree density and progress of the crews. During high water years, crews could be working in water 3-6 inches deep that provides rearing habitat. However, with the high water there would be increased escape habitat available.

Over the long term, LPO and LPU treatments in Freshwater Forested/Shrub wetlands and Riverine habitat may create additional breeding habitat on as much as 211 acres during non-drought years (Table 18). Removing the trees would increase water levels and the duration of standing water, sedge/grass and shrub wetland habitat, and solar exposure. Reducing the expansion of lodgepole pine would maintain existing breeding/rearing habitat on approximately 143 acres of the freshwater emergent wetlands where standing water is present into late fall in non-drought years. There would also be potential nonbreeding and overwintering habitat created if hand piles burn into the peat layer and create ponds of varying depths. Surveys after past restoration treatments have shown that Oregon spotted frogs move into and utilize areas where lodgepole pine has been removed.

10 September 2015 Final

Table 18. Total Distribution of Wetlands within Riparian Encroachment Treatment Units for the Marsh project Pre and Post treatment.

Wetland % of Riparian Total Freshwater Emergent Freshwater Forested/ Riverine Grand Units in Treatment Acres Wetland Shrub Wetland Total Wetland Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Ac Ac Ac Ac Ac Ac LPO 207 33 169 131 0 5 0 169 82% LPU 201 110 185 70 0 5 0 185 92% TOTALS 408 143 354 201 0 10 0 354 87% Acres of Wetlands within Marsh 1,273 1,484 1,987 1,786 46 36 3,306 Project Area % of Wetland within Marsh 11% 10% 22% 11% Project Area Treated

Establishment of willows and other hardwoods may increase the beaver population and the habitat creation/maintenance they would provide for Oregon spotted frogs in the future.

Reed canarygrass Reed canarygrass occurs in small scattered patches across the marsh including units 51, 71, 72, 73, and 74. The greatest concentrations are along both ditches and at the outlet of the marsh as it drains into Big Marsh Creek (Table 19). Unit 51 is in the northeast portion of Big Marsh and units 71-74 occur along the east side. Refer to Figure 16 for locations of these units. Riparian vegetation restoration treatments within these units consist of 20 acres of LPO and 111 acres of LPU. To reduce the risk of spreading reed canarygrass and other invasive plants, project design criteria would require equipment to be cleaned and free of mud, dirt, and plant parts prior to moving out of a treatment unit that has an existing invasive infestation. While high water levels may increase and or be sustained longer in the marsh, it is unknown if the flooding would be sufficient to reduce the number of infestations of reed canarygrass within Big Marsh.

Egg masses and frogs have been found in areas with reed canarygrass. Within units 71-74 there are reported occurrences of egg masses and/or frogs within areas of reed canarygrass. Reed canarygrass is not yet a monoculture in these units contributing 10-50% to the composition of vegetation. Unit 51 has a monoculture of reed canarygrass at the outlet of Big Marsh Creek. Adults have been found in this area, but no egg masses. Because reed canary grass is in scattered patches or mixed in with other grasses, sedges and rushes, the exact acres are unknown. Table 19. Units with patches of Reed Canarygrass (actual acres of Reed Canarygrass are unknown) Unit Unit Treatment Acres 51 LPO 2 73 LPO 18 TOTAL LPO 20 71 LPU 22 72 LPU 12 74 LPU 14 TOTAL LPU 88 63

10 September 2015 Final

Restoration of Natural Flows DITCH RESTORATION Ditch restoration would include recontouring/filling a specified amount of ditch as well as removing encroaching lodgepole pine on the adjacent berm along the ditches. The impact area for ditch restoration treatments is approximately 17 acres; 3 acres on the southwest side of Big Marsh and 14 acres on the southeast side (Figure 18). These treatments would restore more natural sloping banks providing a greater diversity of habitats. These activities would also allow incoming water from around the marsh edges to more efficiently flow into the marsh area instead of being conveyed along the perimeter of the Marsh via surface and groundwater flow paths. It would also allow ditch water to flow into the marsh through breaches in the adjacent berm. (USDA 2014 Aquatics Report)

The treatments would also restore historical flow paths of water, instead of utilizing artificial flow paths (i.e. ditches). The recovery of wetland/marsh hydrology on this landscape would likely decrease the fluctuation or variability in flow leaving the marsh. Large, well connected floodplains/marshes such as this have the ability to slow the movement of water and potentially increase the residence time of water within the marsh. Consequently, there could be a slight increase in summer base flow levels, resulting in retaining breeding/rearing habitat longer into the summer and creating additional nonbreeding habitat. (USDA 2014 Aquatics Report)

Figure 18. Juxtaposition of Aquatic Restoration actions with Oregon spotted frog breeding and potential overwintering sites (Larger Version available in Appendix B)

10 September 2015 Final Figure 18 shows breeding sites and potential overwintering habitat in relationship to the restoration actions. Anticipated changes in local water surface elevations at the breaches would likely be in the range of three to six inches across localized areas, up to 1 acre in size from each breach, during wet times of the year. (USDA 2014 Aquatics Report)

Figure 19 shows the distribution of the Oregon spotted frog population in Big Marsh based on egg masses. Ditch work is proposed on the southwest and southeast portions of Big Marsh. Based on a three year average (2012-2014), approximately 26% of the population resides in the areas that would be directly or indirectly affected by the ditch restoration as detailed in the following discussions. The southeast portion represents approximately 18% of the population and the southwest area approximately 8% of the population.

Figure 19. Distribution of the population of Oregon Spotted Frog based on egg mass numbers and location.

10 September 2015 Final

There are approximately 40 acres of potential overwintering habitat in Big Marsh. The ditches represent approximately 15% (6 acres) of the overwintering habitat within Big Marsh. Actions proposed to restore natural water flow would modify nonbreeding habitat and 10% (4 acres) of overwintering habitat within Big Marsh. Modification would take place when ditches are re-contoured, are widened at breach points, plugs put in place or trees felled and left. There would be no net loss of nonbreeding or overwintering habitat. Although approximately 0.1 acres (0.25%) of overwintering habitat would be lost through ditch filling, (Action 1 Figure 20, Action 2 Figure 21) habitat would be created in both ditches wherever breaches are created and specific areas (Action 2 Figure 20, Actions 5 and 7 Figure 21) where the ditch is modified to create 0.35-0.5 acres of connected overwintering habitat. The design of breaching and filling/plugging of the ditches would improve the quality and quantity of nonbreeding and overwintering habitat. Actions would provide connections to all life cycle habitat types within the marsh. The remaining overwintering habitat, untreated ditches, natural ponds, as well as, existing emergent wetland throughout the marsh would not be affected.

East Ditch The impact area for proposed ditch restoration on the east ditch is approximately 14 acres. It includes approximately 3 acres of overwintering habitat that has been verified as overwintering habitat. The east ditch is already highly segmented. Ditches were cut off from Big Marsh Creek in the late 1990s through a series of berms placed in the ditches. Only 2 outlets were created at that time. The remaining ditch segments are not aquatically connected, except during high water in early spring when the marsh is flooded. Modifications to the ditch with the creation of ponds in the early 2000s created all lifecycle habitats in close proximity. Oviposition sites are concentrated in the vicinity of the ponds and the existing outlets (Figure 20). They are not within the ditches or ponds, but in the adjacent shallows. Tadpoles stay in the shallows where they are protected by vegetation. As water recedes tadpoles and metamorphs retreat to the ponds, but have limited access to the ditches. There are no aquatic connections to many segments of ditch except where there are currently breaches in the ditch.

There are three non-connected ditch segments in Action 1 area. The west and middle sections have breaches in them, the eastern section does not (Action 1, Figure 20). There is no connection or access for tadpoles into the eastern section of Action area 1. The western most section of ditch is connected to the ponds year round. The middle section breach is shallower and tends to dry during low water years. Tadpoles would be expected to be in those sections as water recedes and shallow areas dry out. Tadpoles will also have access to the northern sections of ditch in the area of Action 2. Shallows connected by two breaches and the breaches tend to dry out in late summer during low water years. (Action 2, Figure 20).

10 September 2015 Final

East Ditch Proposed Actions – Detailed description found in the Project Description section of this document starting on page 15 Action Impact 1. Move material from piles of previously Fill in approximately 0.05 acres constructed ponds to lengthen 2 existing plugs nonbreeding/overwintering habitat in ditch. 2. Construct 5-10 breaches in existing berm Reconfigure approximately 0.01 acres of that are 15-20 ft. wide 8-20 ft long, recontour overwintering habitat at each breach (0.05- edges for OSF habitat. Thin lodgepole pine 0.1 acres). Outlet configured for along entire reach. breeding/rearing and connectivity. Creating 5-10 acres newly watered habitat. Down lodgepole pine creating microsite refugia along the 14 acre impact area. Estimated Total Impact to Oregon Spotted Approximately 3-6 days of disturbance. Frog Habitat with East Ditch Proposed Filling in 0.05 acres and reconfiguring 0.05- Actions 0.1 acres of overwintering habitat, creating approximately 5-10 acres of newly watered breeding/rearing habitat, connecting existing habitat on both sides of the ditch, and providing microsite refugia along 14 acres. Figure 20. East Ditch Restoration Actions and Locations with Oregon Spotted Frog Habitat and Egg Mass Locations (Larger scale in Appendix B) Material from piles of previously constructed ponds would be moved to lengthen 2 existing plugs in the ditch filling in approximately 0.05 acres of nonbreeding/overwintering habitat (Action 1 of Figure 20). Equipment access to the pond area would occur on the existing berm. Around the ponds, equipment moving material would be traversing through breeding habitat from mounds to ditches. The timing of the work would be July 1 through September 30th. At this time of year equipment would be working in areas that have no standing water. Oregon spotted frogs of all life stages will be located in the rearing or nonbreeding habitat in the ditches, ponds and adjacent low areas where water remains.

10 September 2015 Final Five to 10 additional breaches would be designed to create and/or connect Oregon spotted frog overwintering habitat with the marsh (Action 2 of Figure 20). Material excavated to re-contour the ponds and breaches would be placed in the ditch as berms or to re-contour that section of ditch. The reconfigured ditch would maintain overwintering habitat and/or nonbreeding habitat and creating or connecting to breeding/rearing habitat. All life cycle habitats of the reconfigured ditch would be connected into the marsh.

Local water surface elevations at the breaches would likely be in the range of three to six inches at the localized breached areas covering approximately 1 acre of ground adjacent to the breach. Water in these additional areas would hold during spring and into the early summer creating breeding/rearing habitat. With the creation of 5-10 breaches, 5-10 acres of breeding/rearing habitat would be created. Trees along the berm would be removed at that time and left as down wood providing microsites of refugia and hiding cover for the Oregon spotted frog.

Portions of the east ditch are in LPO units 73 and 75 and LPU units 72 and 74. These units contain approximately 27 acres of forest/shrub wetlands. LPO/LPU treatments would have been completed prior to ditch work. Removal of trees reduces water consumption and increases water availability as well as increases solar input to previously shaded areas. Breaches creating nonbreeding/overwintering habitat would also provide water to these areas. Tree removal on 27 acres of forest/shrub wetlands and breaches providing localized increased water levels on 5-10 acres, in combination, could increase breeding/rearing habitat to as much as 37 acres.

Implementation of the east ditch restoration actions, including survey and moving of frogs to adjacent undisturbed habitat, would take approximately 3-6 days. All life stages of Oregon spotted frogs would be affected. While the majority of tadpoles should have completed metamorphosis by July 1, it is assumed not all tadpoles will have completed the process. At a minimum, frogs living in the ditches and ponds would be disturbed by personnel working to locate and move frogs out of harm’s way and by equipment working in the adjacent areas. Escape responses would cause frogs to move to the nearest vegetation with water levels sufficient to provide hiding cover. A small segment of the frogs in the southeast segment of Big Marsh or less than 18% of the Big Marsh population could be disturbed during the period of work. This part of the Big Marsh population of Oregon spotted frogs is distributed across a large area. There was an average of 35 egg masses in proximity to the SE ditch impact area. These represent approximately 2 % of the Big Marsh population. While all efforts to remove frogs prior to and during work would occur, there is a strong likelihood that not all frogs would be detected or captured. This could result in harm or death to a small percentage (less than 2%) of the Big Marsh Oregon spotted frogs population in any life stage.

West Ditch The impact area for proposed ditch restoration on the west ditch is approximately 3 acres. It includes approximately 1 acre of potential overwintering habitat. The portion of the west ditch is in tack with long stretches with few plugs or breaches. This reach of ditch has little vegetation and over half is currently shaded by trees growing on the berm. The edges drop off sharply and it provides potential overwintering habitat. In the spring at high water levels, the reach of ditch containing Action items 1-5 (Figure 21) are connected to other life cycle habitat on the west side4 and through a small breach at Action item 4. There is no connection to any other life cycle habitats through the ditch reach containing Action items 6 and 7. These are isolated portions of ditch with several plugs in them. Ditch segments that contain Action items 8 and 9 are connected to marsh nonbreeding habitat as long as the springs are running water. Figure 21 illustrates the juxtaposition of breeding habitat and potential overwintering habitat with the ditches. For the last 15 years there has been no egg masses found within the ditch; however adults have been located at the southern end of the impact area.

4 Area to the west of the ditch on this reach has not been surveyed for adults or egg masses. 68

10 September 2015 Final

West Ditch Proposed Actions - Detailed description found in the Project Description section of this document beginning on page 13 Action Impacts 1. Remove existing log and plastic sheeting Reduce damming level, connect additional 50ft to dam structure unnamed tributary 2. Approximately 50x20ft plug in ditch just Plug ditch from unnamed tributary, provide north of dam, place sedge mats. Material from continued separation of fish and frog habitat, fill action 3. in approximately 0.02 acres of potential overwintering habitat 3. Excavate approximately 50x20 ft. breach. Reconfigure approximately 0.02 acres of potential overwintering habitat. Outlet configured for breeding/rearing and connectivity. Creating 1 acre of watered habitat with new breach. Connecting to habitat on both sides of ditch. 4. Expand existing narrow breach to Reconfigure approximately 0.02 acres of approximately 50x20ft. potential overwintering habitat. Outlet configured for breeding/rearing and connectivity. Connecting to habitat on both sides of ditch. 5. Excavate 5-10 OSF overwintering 5-10 breaches and reconfigure approximately pools/ponds up to 60x20ft long and 3-6 ft in 0.03 acres of potential overwintering habitat at depth. each breach (0.15-0.3 ac). Outlet configured for breeding/rearing and connectivity. Connecting to habitat on both sides of ditch. Creating approximately 1 ac of newly watered breeding/rearing habitat at each breach (5-10 acres). 6. Construct breach approximately 50x20 ft. to Breach and reconfigure approximately 0.02 acres connect sedge meadow with marsh. of potential overwintering habitat. Outlet configured for breeding/rearing and connectivity. Creating 1 acre of newly watered habitat. Connecting to habitat on both sides of ditch.

10 September 2015 Final

7. Construct OSF overwintering area within Breach and reconfigure approximately 0.03 acres ditch. Similar to #5. of potential overwintering habitat. Outlet configured for breeding/rearing and connectivity. Connecting to habitat on both sides of ditch. Creating approximately 1 ac of newly watered breeding/rearing habitat. 8. Widen existing breach by 15-20 ft x 8-20 ft Reconfigure approximately 0.01 acres of to enhance flow of spring tributary across potential overwintering habitat. Outlet configured ditch. for breeding/rearing and connectivity. 9. Same as 8 at additional spring, as well as Reconfigure approximately 0.01 acres of recontour and remove existing log dam. potential overwintering habitat. Outlet configured for breeding/rearing and connectivity. 10. Remove lodgepole pine trees along entire Down lodgepole pine creating microsite refugia south section of berm from actions 2-9. along the 3 acre impact area Estimated Impact to Oregon spotted frog Approximately 4-7 days disturbance. Filling in habitat. 0.02 acres and reconfiguring 0.3-0.4 acres of potential overwintering habitat, 8-13 new breaches creating approximately 8-13 acres of newly watered breeding/rearing habitat, connecting existing habitat on both sides of the ditch, and providing microsite refugia along 3 acres. Figure 21. West Ditch Restoration Actions and Location with Oregon Spotted Frog Habitat and Breeding Locations (Larger scale map available in Appendix B) On the southernmost end of the west ditch, a log/plastic sheeting dam used to block the flow of an unnamed tributary to Big Marsh Creek would be removed (Action 1 Figure 21). This dam retains water at a higher elevation in the ditch than the creek. Removal would reconnect the water from the dam location and the adjacent series of drainages to the creek up to a new fifty foot plug installed at a proper elevation just northwest of the dam location (Action 2 Figure 21). The plug would prevent water from the creek entering the ditch and maintain the segregation of frog habitat and fish habitat. This plug would fill in approximately 0.02 acres of potential overwintering habitat. Material to create this plug will come from the excavation a 50 foot breach (Action 3 Figure 21). The result of these three actions would be to reroute the water flowing into that portion of the ditch into the marsh instead of being backed up by the dam. It would also create approximately 0.02 acres of overwintering habitat that is connected to other life cycle habitats on both sides on the ditch.

Along this same section of ditch, a narrow breach (Action 4 Figure 21) would be expanded from 6 ft. to 50 ft. with the excavated material from upstream and downstream of the breach allowing water to move effectively from the western toe slope across the ditch and into the marsh. Action 5 (Figure 21) would result in the creation of 5-10 additional breaches in the ditch resulting in Oregon spotted frog overwintering ponds. Ponds would be approximately 3-6 feet deep, 16-26 feet long, and, at a minimum, equal to the current width (8 to 20’) of the ditch. Excavated material would be utilized as plugs in the ditch. Lead-out breaches through the berm (from the excavated overwintering areas) on the northeast side of the ditch would be constructed and would serve as transition zones from ponds to marsh providing the suite of lifecycle habitat. Breaches would provide a localized increase of water levels by 3-6 inches over approximately 1 acre of ground, holding water in the spring to early summer. These 5-10 breaches could create 5-10 acres of breeding/rearing habitat.

At the end of this same segment of ditch with actions 1-5, a broad 100ft breach would be created to connect water inputs from the west side to flow into the marsh (Action 6 Figure 21). Material from the breach would be placed in the ditch to plug adjacent portions of the ditch.

10 September 2015 Final Action items 1-6 reconfigure major portions of a segment of ditch that is not vegetated but currently containing 0.36 acres of potential overwintering habitat. The results of Actions 1-6 would result in at least the same amount of overwintering habitat, additional nonbreeding, as well as, the 7-12 new breaches creating approximately 7-12 acres of newly watered breeding/rearing habitat in the lead out areas to the marsh and aquatically connecting to existing adjacent lifecycle habitats on both sides of the ditch.

Action items 7, 8 and 9 (Figure 21) are each in separate ditch segments currently providing potential overwintering habitat. Action 7 would alter habitat in the same manner as Action 5. Approximately 0.03 acres of the existing ditch segment would be reconfigured creating at least the same amount of overwintering habitat, and in the process create the additional suite of lifecycle habitats including approximately 1 acre of breeding/rearing habitat. These habitats would be aquatically connected together with existing adjacent habitat. Actions 8 and 9 (Figure 21) widen existing breaches to 100ft to allow water from springs to flow across the ditch into the marsh more effectively as well as reconfigure openings to provide transition habitats (nonbreeding, breeding, rearing) for the Oregon spotted frog. In addition, at Action 9 another log and plastic sheeting dam was constructed blocking flow from the spring to the breach. This area would be recontoured and will convert approximately 0.01 acres of potential overwintering habitat to the full suite of life cycle habitats.

Ditch restoration would occur between July 1 and September 31. Trees on the berm would be removed during this time and/or when LPU/LPO treatments occur. This portion of the ditch is part of LPU unit 67 and LPO units 65 and 66 which has approximately 50 acres of forest/shrub wetland habitat. Ditch breaching would add water to these acres in the early spring with a minimum of 8-13 acres of breeding/rearing habitat created from the breaches (Actions 3, 5, 6 and 7). Tree removal on 50 acres of forest/shrub wetland and ditch breaching adding 8-13 acres of additional water, in combination, could result in addition of and/or retention of water longer on 58-63 acres of breeding habitat within this local area.

Implementation of the west ditch restoration actions, including survey and moving of frogs to adjacent undisturbed habitat, would take approximately 4-7 days. All life stages of Oregon spotted frogs would be affected. While the majority of tadpoles should have completed metamorphosis by July 1, it is assumed not all tadpoles will have completed the process. At a minimum, frogs living in the ditches and ponds would be disturbed by personnel working to locate and move frogs out of harm’s way and by equipment working in the adjacent areas. Escape responses would cause frogs to move to the nearest vegetation with water levels sufficient to provide hiding cover. There is potential for the frogs in the southwest segment of Big Marsh or approximately 8% of the Big Marsh population to be disturbed during the period of work. While all efforts to remove frogs prior to and during work would occur, there is a strong likelihood that not all frogs would be detected or captured. This could result in harm or death. The west ditch is not used for breeding so a representative population utilizing this area could not be calculated. While there is documented use by adults it is believed there is little use by early larval stages because of the abundance of life cycle habitats outside of the ditch where breeding takes place. Because of the availability of this habitat, the numbers that could be harmed or killed as a result of the proposed actions would be an extremely small percentage (less than 1%) of the Oregon spotted frog population in Big Marsh.

ADDITIONAL WETLAND IMPROVEMENTS Culvert Removal Also included in this aquatic restoration treatment is the removal of seven culverts along the closed portion of the 6030 road. This treatment would be implemented to provide aquatic organism passage and habitat connectivity, as well as reduce the relatively small potential for degradation to water quality from a culvert failure. This activity would not result in alterations to the timing, magnitude or duration of flows within the project area (USDA 2014 Aquatics Report). Although culvert removal would not change water conditions in the marsh, removal of the ditches connects this water to the marsh instead of being intercepted by the ditch providing localized increases in shallow water. Oregon spotted frogs have not been found in or adjacent to the culverts. While there would be no direct effects to Oregon spotted frogs, localized increases in shallow habitats in the marsh may occur as a cumulative result of culvert removal, breaches in the ditches and removal of encroaching lodgepole pine. These increases could result in additional rearing/breeding habitat. 71

10 September 2015 Final Addition of Large Wood The last item included in the aquatic restoration treatment is the addition of trees (i.e. large wood) into Big Marsh Creek and associated floodplains and tributaries/ditches from adjacent thinning units. The input of trees would occur on approximately 18 acres along units 14, 16, 50, 51, 64, 67, and 74. Trees would be placed into the adjacent waterbody with equipment if ground conditions allow. If not, trees would be felled or pushed over in the direction of the adjacent waterbody/floodplain. (USDA 2014 Aquatics Report)

Placement of down trees adjacent to Big Marsh Creek and/or its tributaries within the marsh would provide refugia habitat for the frog along these important movement corridors. Large woody debris in channels also provides microhabitat features utilized by the frogs in the winter (Fed Reg 2014a). When low oxygen levels occur in the ponds and wetlands, frogs move to the more oxygenated waters of the associated stream and utilize microhabitat features such as the large woody material and beaver bank tunnels (Fed Reg 2014a). Ideally these features would be created by beavers. The larger benefit from placement of down trees would be supporting the expansion of beaver in the project area. Increasing populations of beaver within the marsh could increase Oregon spotted frog habitat across the marsh by providing a mosaic of connected life cycle habitats. With the presence of beaver building upon these log structures, conditions could move towards historical conditions in the marsh. (USDA 2014 Aquatics Report)

Although beaver presently appear to be a relatively small component within the Marsh ecosystem, the inclusion of large wood into waterbodies could assist beavers in making dams in the future. Large wood may provide a foundation for the development and maintenance of channel and valley spanning beaver dams. Placing lodgepole pine trees on the floodplain and within the wetted channel would give beavers a foundation from which to build their dams in the future, when riparian vegetation has recovered to the level needed to support them. The proposed activities would allow the meadow to move toward the conditions described in 1865 and illustrated in Figure 22. Water levels at that time were maintained around the 4,732 ft. elevation. (USDA 2014 Aquatics Report Figure 7 from that report.) Flooding of the area around the outlet of the marsh was maintained at that higher elevation with the beavers and beaver dams in place.

Figure 22. Longitudinal Valley Profile of Big Marsh showing the potential effects to water surface elevation with recovery of beaver dams at the outlet. Figure 22 shows the 1865 increase across Valley Station 3,500 to the marsh outlet at Valley Station 5,100, or approximately 1500 meters (1 mile) stream distance. Water levels were deeper closer to the outlet. For the most part, adding large wood to waterbodies and floodplains is not expected to affect with the timing or magnitude of 72

10 September 2015 Final water within the marsh. However, the large wood structures at the outlet of Big Marsh are expected to be porous stream spanning structures that have the potential to hold back a small degree of water within the marsh during the wet season. Retaining water in early spring would retain breeding/rearing areas longer, reducing the risk of stranding tadpoles and desiccation of egg masses.

SUMMARY OF RESTORATION OF NATURAL FLOWS EFFECTS Aquatic Restoration work would immediately impact approximately 17 acres of ditches and berms, including 4 acres of potential overwintering habitat over 7-13 days. The work would fill in 0.07 acres of potential overwintering habitat. It would also reconfigure 0.35-1.5 acres of potential overwintering habitat to create quality overwintering as well as other life cycle habitats.

There would be disturbance to frogs within those 17 acres by crews working to remove frogs to adjacent undisturbed habitat, as well as equipment and crews completing the restoration work. While all efforts to remove frogs prior to and during work will occur, there is a strong likelihood frogs would be missed resulting in a small percentage of the Oregon spotted frogs in the ditches would to be harmed or killed.

The Oregon spotted frogs in the southeast and southwest portions of the marsh comprise approximately 26% of the Big Marsh population. All life stages will be affected during the implementation period for all aquatic restoration to be completed. It is estimated only 2% of the population would be in harm’s way and directly impacted by the proposed aquatic restoration actions. A smaller unknown percentage would suffer harm or be killed during the process.

Over the near term and long term, the breaches created with the rework of the ditches are expected in increase water 3-6 inches locally at each breach and maintain the water in the area longer into the summer. The 13-23 new breaches would translate into approximately 13-23 acres of newly watered breeding/rearing habitat. The combined Aquatic restoration treatments adding 13-23 acres of watered habitat with the 77 acres of Riparian Vegetation restoration treatments could expand and/or retain water longer on 90-100 acres of these local breeding/rearing habitats. Unlike the current habitat this habitat would be connected year round in nondrought years. During drought years the lead out areas from the breaches would provide the full suite of life cycle habitats including the overwintering areas of the ditch.

Significant recovery of hydrologic processes has already occurred as a result of previous work over the last several decades. While the proposed project activities would not directly restore the natural flow regime and hydrologic conditions to those described by Thompson, Pengra and Odell in 1865, they are expected to improve conditions and allow for that recovery over the longer term, with the assistance of beavers. Restoration of hardwoods would provide additional forage options for the beaver. Placement of logs in the streams provides solid structures on which beavers can construct their dams. Ponds created and maintained by beavers provide all live cycle habitats for the Oregon Spotted Frog. While beavers seem to be a relatively small component in the Big Marsh ecosystem, the proposed actions would increase beaver habitat and provide foundational structures to support them.

RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT BIG MARSH NATURE TRAIL AND FS ROAD 540 Re-establishment of the two mile long Big Marsh Nature Trail would improve the trail that traverses through Oregon spotted frog breeding habitat (Figure 23). The trail would provide users a clearly defined path to travel on instead of traversing cross-country. This would reduce the likelihood of travel through Oregon spotted frog habitat during times when tadpoles may be present. Currently, less than 0.25 miles of the trail traverses breeding habitat before following the existing berm. With breaches in the berm, and the LPO and LPU treatments, there would be potential for an additional 0.25 miles of the trail to traverse newly created breeding/rearing habitat and have access to other live cycle habitats such as nonbreeding and overwinter habitat. Use of the trail would not typically coincide with the breeding season. The breeding season is generally in March/April and use of the trail would likely occur with opening of fishing season of Big Marsh Creek in late May. 73

10 September 2015 Final Opportunities for human interaction with tadpoles and adult frogs would occur at existing breaches and the 5-10 intersections of trail and ditches where outlets would be created. Existing breaches have gravel in the walkway or a dilapidated bridge over the breach. There is existing vegetation and down wood that provide hiding cover. New breaches will have stepping stones placed in the trail, down wood placed and around the breaches and will re-vegetate over time. Recreationalists utilizing the trail may cause an escape response to those frogs/tadpoles in the immediate vicinity. Adult frogs and tadpoles would move to deeper water and/or into the aquatic vegetation for protection. Installation of rock stepping stones would provide human access across the breaches and minimize the potential of crushing tadpoles. Figure 23 illustrates the proposed reestablished Big Marsh Trail overlapping vegetation treatments and Oregon spotted frog breeding areas. Additional water in the marsh as a result of the ditch breaching would result in more life cycle habitats adjacent to the breaches and allow frogs additional areas to escape to.

Use of this trail was greatly reduced with the closure of the 540 road during implementation of Travel Management in 2011. Fishermen, bird watchers and hunters who walk into the marsh still utilize portions of the trail for access to the marsh. Increased use of the trail is expected with the reestablishment of the trail and reopening of the 540 road. Current users would be focused more on specific marsh features and attributes other than frogs. As awareness of Oregon spotted frogs grows, and use of the trail by more casual recreationist grows, there could be more interaction between humans and frogs in the future.

Figure 23. Proposed Reestablishment of Big Marsh Trail

10 September 2015 Final

DISPERSED CAMPSITES The proposed action includes closing 9 dispersed campsites and reducing the size of 15. Those affecting Oregon spotted frog habitat include closing 7 dispersed campsites and reducing the size of 5. Both closing and reducing the size of a campsite would include placement of rock or log barriers and/or restoration of native vegetation to the site to reduce size or eliminate access. These actions would reduce the number of people accessing frog habitat at any one time, thus reducing potential disturbance to Oregon spotted frogs.

SUMMARY OF RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS Escape response created by disturbance through interactions with Oregon spotted frog tadpoles and adults along the Big Marsh Nature Trail is expected to increase with the reestablishment of the trail and opening of the 540 road. Approximately 0.5 miles of the trail would traverse through breeding/rearing habitat and have access to life cycle habitats. There would be a decrease in access to frog habitat with the closing of 7 dispersed campsites and reduction of 5 others. These actions would reduce the number of people accessing frog habitat at any one time, thus reducing potential disturbance to Oregon spotted frogs

PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT This section discusses the effects to Primary Constituent Elements by each element as outlined in the Federal Register (Fed Reg 2013a).

Primary Constituent Elements (PCE) 1. PCE 1 – Nonbreeding (N), Breeding (B), Rearing (R), and Overwintering (O) Habitat. Ephemeral or permanent bodies of fresh water, including, but not limited to natural or manmade ponds, springs, lakes, slow-moving streams, or pools within or oxbows adjacent to streams, canals, and ditches that have one or more of the following characteristics:  Inundated for a minimum of 4 months per year (B, R) (timing varies by elevation but may begin as early as February and last as long as September);  Inundated from October through March (O);  If ephemeral, areas are hydrologically connected by surface water flow to a permanent water body (e.g. pools, springs, ponds, lakes, streams, canals, or ditches (B, R);  Shallow water areas (less than or equal to 30 cm (12 inches), or water of this depth over vegetation in deeper water (B, R);  Total water surface with less than 50% vegetative cover (N);  Gradual topographic gradient (less than 3% slope) from shallow water toward deeper, permanent water (B, R);  Herbaceous wetland vegetation (i.e. emergent, submergent, and floating-leaved aquatic plants), or vegetation that can structurally mimic emergent wetland vegetation through manipulation (B, R);  Shallow water areas with high solar exposure or low (short) canopy cover (B, R);  An absence or low density of non-native predators (B, R, N)

The Mash Project area has all the elements of PCE 1 across Big Marsh and proposed CHU 9. PCE 1is improved through increases in shallow water areas by as much as 211 acres through breaching of berms and LPO and LPU lodgepole pine removal treatments in freshwater forest/shrub and riverine wetlands. Removal of encroaching lodgepole pine in existing freshwater emergent wetlands would increase solar exposure on 143 acres of seasonally inundated areas making them more suitable for breeding and rearing. These treatments, as well as, input of down wood into the streams would allow these areas to retain water longer into the season providing more reliable rearing habitat.

Ditch restoration fills in approximately 0.1 acre of potential overwintering habitat and reconfigures an additional 0.35-0.5 acres of potential overwintering habitat. The ditch reconfiguration would provide shallow water areas, a gradual gradient from shallow water toward deeper, permanent water, and connects hydrologically to permanent water body. This also creates 0.35-0.5 acres of quality overwintering/nonbreeding habitat connected

10 September 2015 Final to existing breeding/rearing habitat. Restoration includes 13-23 new breaches and widens another two. This additional water is expected to provide 3-6 inches of inundation to the area around each breach resulting in approximately 1 acre of habitat at each new breach point. The additional 3-6” of additional water would create approximately 13-23 acres of breeding/rearing habitat that is directly adjacent and aquatically connected to overwintering sites.

Ditch restoration maintains the existing segregation of Oregon spotted frog habitat from non-native fish species in Big Marsh meeting the final element of PCE 1. Ditches would be filled in for approximately 50’ where dams are currently to fortify the barrier to fish. As with the existing condition, only during spring high water flows are there aquatic connections between fish and Oregon spotted frog.

The Marsh project proposes to improve all of PCE 1

2. PCE 2 – Aquatic movement corridors. Ephemeral or permanent bodies of fresh water that have one or more of the following characteristics:  Less than or equal to 3.1 miles linear distance from breeding areas;  Barrier free (barriers may include, but are not limited to, dams, abundant predators, or lack of refugia from predators)

The Marsh project currently has PCE 2 in the form of Big Marsh Creek, its tributaries and shallow water areas connecting breeding areas across Big Marsh during a normal water years. Big Marsh Creek is the major movement corridor through the marsh and is less than 3.1 miles from other known breeding areas. Overwintering habitats that are not currently connected are found inportions of the ditches. These areas have limited aquatic connections to other PCE 1 elements such as breeding and rearing habitats. Creating breaches in the berms creates aquatically connected habitat, eliminating the barriers between overwintering habitat and other life cycle habitats. The Marsh project will result in a long term improvement of PCE 2.

3. PCE 3 – Refugia habitat. Nonbreeding, breeding, rearing, or overwintering habitat or aquatic movement corridors with habitat characteristics (e.g. dense vegetation and/or an abundance of woody debris) that provide refugia from predators (e.g. non-native fish or bullfrogs).

PCE 3 exists across Big Marsh in the form of dense vegetation. Placing down wood in tributaries and adjacent to the creek would provide additional refugia from predators along approximately 18 acres of Big Marsh Creek and its tributaries. Cutting and leaving lodgepole pine from approximately 17 acres of the southeast and west ditch berms would also provide refugia habitat along the reconfigured and newly created life cycle habitats (PCE 1). Disturbed ditch areas are expected to vegetate naturally over time; also providing refugia to these newly created and connected habitats. Lastly, restoration of aquatic flows maintains segregation of fish and frogs throughout the marsh with ditches being filled in where dams currently exist. An overlap of habitat between predators and Oregon spotted frogs would occur only during spring melt when there are normal to high snow packs. At that time water depth across the marsh is high connecting Big Marsh Creek to ponds and ditches where Oregon spotted frogs occur. The Marsh project enhances PCE by providing additional refugia habitat.

Summary of Proposed Critical Habitat 9. The Marsh project impacts approximately 4% of proposed CHU 9. The short term adverse impact would be loss of PCE 1 overwintering habitat on 0.1 acres. Long term there would be beneficial impact to all PCEs. Improvements to PCE 1 includes:  reduction of encroaching lodgepole pine on 354 acres of forest/shrub, emergent vegetation and riverine wetlands  increase in shallow water areas by 211 – 234 acres  increase solar exposure on 143 acres of seasonally inundated areas making them more suitable for breeding and rearing

10 September 2015 Final

 create and aquatically connect approximately 0.5 acres of overwintering habitat within the ditches to other life cycle habitats  input of down wood on 35 acres along streams and newly created habitats allowing these areas to retain water longer into the season providing more reliable rearing habitat  maintains the existing segregation of Oregon spotted frog habitat from non-native fish species

Improvements to PCE 2 includes:  eliminating barriers between overwintering habitat within the ditches and other life cycle habitats on both sides of the ditches.

Improvements to PCE 3 includes:  enhanced refugia with down wood along approximately 35 acres of Big Marsh Creek, its tributaries, and breached ditch lines.  natural revegetation providing refugia to newly created and connected habitats.  maintains the existing segregation of Oregon spotted frog habitat from non-native fish species

8. Interrelated and Interdependent Effects There are no interrelated or interdependent effects to either Oregon spotted frog populations or proposed Critical Habitat.

There are no cumulative effects anticipated to occur in the analysis area.

10. Rationale for findings and Determination Conclusion FINDINGS Oregon Spotted Frog Proposed actions alter, remove and create habitat for the Oregon spotted frog. Short term direct impacts include altering existing habitat, disturbance and trampling harm or death. During riparian restoration, disturbance of all life stages in nonbreeding/overwintering areas by hand crews would create escape responses in Oregon spotted frogs. Timing and duration of disturbance would vary. There would be little to no disturbance from logging equipment such as skidders and loaders. Equipment would be restricted to non-saturated soils and at least 50 ft from waterbodies or outside the nonforested, sedge and willow dominated riparian areas. There would be approximately 38 days of hand crew work within LPO and LPU units. Within the drier LPO units, disturbance would be limited to approximately one day per unit to complete the hand work around the wet areas. Within LPU units, disturbance would be greater as all work would be done by hand and include crews cutting/piling and burning. Disturbance in a given unit could be one day to a week depending on tree density and progress of the crews. During high water years crews may be working in water 3-6 inches deep that provides rearing habitat. However with high water there would also be ample escape habitat.

The greatest harm for individual Oregon spotted frogs would occur during restoration of natural flows with ditch reconfiguration. Anticipated changes would be limited to the southwest and southeast corners of the Marsh, where diversion ditches continue to impede the natural flow paths of water. With equipment working ( e.g. moving and depositing dirt) in Oregon spotted frog habitat for 7-13 days, there is high potential frogs could be harmed or killed. Although resource protection measures include surveys for and moving of Oregon spotted frogs from restoration sites prior to implementation, the potential for missing a detection and/or capture of a frog is high.

10 September 2015 Final The Oregon spotted frogs in the southeast and southwest portions of the marsh comprise approximately 26% of the Big Marsh population. All life stages will be affected during the 7-13 day implementation period for all aquatic restoration to be completed. It is estimated only 2% of the population would be in harm’s way and directly impacted either by capture and relocation or the proposed ditch breaching and filling actions. A smaller unknown percentage not found and relocated would suffer harm or be killed during the process.

Long-term changes in habitat will occur through the reduction of lodgepole pine in wetland habitats and breaching and reconfiguring ditches. LPO and LPU treatments of Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetlands and Riverine habitat may create additional breeding habitat on as much as 211 acres during non-drought years. Removing the trees would increase water levels and the duration of standing water, and solar exposure. The long term result would be conversion to freshwater sedge/grass and shrub wetland habitat that would provide breeding habitat. Reducing the expansion of lodgepole pine in the freshwater emergent wetlands would maintain existing breeding/rearing habitat and provide increased solar exposure on approximately 143 acres where standing water is present into late fall in non-drought years. The 10 acres of overwintering habitat within the LPO and LPU units would be protected through buffers.

Of the 4 acres of overwintering habitat within the ditch, restoration actions would fill in approximately 0.1 acres and modify an additional 0.35-0.5 acres. Breaching and re-contouring side slopes would enlarge and maintain depth of ponds and the outlet slope gradually to the elevation of the marsh. This configuration would maintain overwintering/ nonbreeding habitat, create and connect to breeding and rearing habitat.

Again these changes would occur primarily where ditch restoration work is proposed (southern end of marsh) but possibly also on the northern end of the marsh as well due to instream log placement. This change in water surface elevation would not be expected throughout the marsh but in localized areas that may currently be dry. For example, areas adjacent to the drainage ditches and the sidecast berms would be expected to become inundated with water more frequently through breaches in the ditch berms.

Although implementation of the proposed actions puts individual Oregon spotted frogs at risk in the short term, the project addresses the major threats to the Oregon spotted frog population within the Marsh project area. Restoration of hydrological conditions, removal of encroaching lodgepole pine, limited reintroduction of fire, adding down wood in ditches and adjacent to the streams to provide refugia and encourage expansion of beaver in the marsh would aid in restoring favorable conditions in the long term.

Proposed Critical Habitat Although the proposed actions fill or reconfigures overwintering habitat, overall the actions improve the primary constituent elements of proposed Oregon spotted frog proposed Critical Habitat Unit 9. Restoration of hydrology would aquatically connect overwintering to breeding/rearing and nonbreeding habitat, create additional wintering habitat and provide conditions for expansion of beaver into the marsh. Removing encroaching lodgepole pine provides additional breeding habitat by increased inundation and providing solar 78

10 September 2015 Final heating to areas which currently are inundated in the spring, but do not warm sufficiently for use. Surveys after past restoration treatments have shown that Oregon spotted frogs move into and utilize these areas. The population of Oregon spotted frog has increased.

DETERMINATION While resource protection measures reduce the risk to Oregon spotted frogs, the potential for harm or death of individuals during implementation of the ditch filling and breaching remains. Over the long term formerly aquatically isolated overwintering habitat would be connected to breeding/rearing and additional life cycle habitats would be created. In conjunction, breeding/rearing habitat would be increased and/or maintained by removing encroaching lodgepole pine. The Marsh project “is likely to adversely affect Oregon spotted frog habitat and individual Oregon spotted frogs over the short term with a long term beneficial effect.”

Within proposed CHU 9, modification of overwintering habitat would occur on 4 acres of ditch with approximately 0.1 acre filled in. It would not affect the proposed CHU’s ability to function in the recovery of the Oregon spotted frog. Over the long term the project increases PCE 1 through creation or maintenance of all life cycle habitats, increase connectivity between habitats (PCE2) and increases refugia (PCE 3) through increased down wood as well as increased cover as treatment areas revegetate. The Marsh project is “likely to adversely affect proposed CHU 9 in the short term with a long term beneficial effect.”

10 September 2015 Final

References

Adams, M.J., C.A. Pearl, S. Galvan, B. McCreary, N. Chelgren, T. Graham, and D. Pilliod. 2006. Amphibian research and monitoring initiative, Pacific Northwest Region 2006 annual report. Unpublished report. U.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Center. November 17, 2006.

Adams, M.J., C.A. Pearl, S. Galvan, B. McCreary, N. Chelgren, T. Graham, and D. Pilliod. 2007. Amphibian research and monitoring initiative, Pacific Northwest Region 2007 annual report. Unpublished report. U.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Center. December 19, 2007.

AmphibiaWeb. 2003. Information on amphibian biology and conservation. Available: http://amphibiaweb.org/ (Accessed May 3, 2006). Berkeley, California.

Antieau, C.J. 1998. Biology and management of reed canarygrass, and implications for ecological restoration. Unpublished report. Washington State Department of Transportation, Seattle, Washington. 13 pp.

Blaustein, A.R., B. Edmond, S.C. Kiesecker, J.J. Beatty, and D.G. Hokit. 1995. Ambient ultraviolet radiation causes mortality in salamander eggs. Ecol. Appl. 5(3):740-743.

Blaustein, A.R., P.D. Hoffman, D.G. Hokit, J.M. Kiesecker, S.C. Walls, and J.B. Hays. 1994. UV repair and resistance to solar UV-B in amphibian eggs: a link to population declines. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 91:1791-1795.

Blouin, M. 2000. Final report for USGS FY 2000 species at risk program project: “genetic data for recovery of the Oregon spotted frog, Rana pretiosa, in the western Unitied States.” Unpubl. Report. 12 pp.

Bowerman, Jay. Sunriver Nature Center, October 4, 2006, email communications with Deanna Lynch, USFWS Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Regarding Oregon spotted frog – update on activities.

Bowerman, Jay. Sunriver Nature Center, September 19, 2012. Email communications with Jennifer O’Reilly, USFWS Bend Field Office, regarding increasing bull frogs in Sunriver area despite efforts to eradicate them.

Bowerman, Jay. Sunriver Nature Center, October 25, 2012. Email communications with Jennifer O’Reilly, USFWS Bend Field Office, Chris Pearl, USGS, and Charlie Quinn, The Nature Conservancy, regarding newly found frog site across from the Old Mill Pond along the Deschutes River.

Bowerman, J. and L. Flowerree. 2000. A survey of the Oregon spotted frog in the area between Sunriver and La Pine, Oregon. Unpublished report prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, and Sunriver Owners Association. 6 pp.

Bull, E.L. and D.B. Marx. 2002. Influence of fish and habitat on amphibian communities in high elevation lakes of northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science 76:240-248.

Canadian Oregon Spotted Frog Recovery Team (COSFRT). 2012. Recovery strategy for the Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa) in British Columbia. Prepared for the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC. 59 pp.

Cook, F.R. 1984. Introduction to Canadian amphibians and reptiles. National Museum of Natural Science, National Museum of Canada.

Corkran, C. and C. Thoms. 2006. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. Lone Pine Publishing. 80

10 September 2015 Final

Cottam, W.P. and G. Stewart. 1940. Plant succession as a result of grazing and of meadow desiccation by erosion since settlement in 1892. J. Forestry 38: 613-626.

Cushman, K.A. and C.A. Pearl. 2007. A conservation assessment for the Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa). U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Region 6, U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management Oregon and Washington. 46 pp.

Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the United States 1780’s to 1980’s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 13 pp.

DeBano, Leonard F., Daniel G. Neary, Peter F. Folliot. 1998. Fire’s effects on Ecosystems. John Wiley andSons, Inc. New York, NY. pp.55-62, 108-114, 148-158.

Demmer, R. J. USDI Bureau of Land Management, October 15, 2012. Email communications with Jennifer O’Reilly, USFWS Bend Field Office, regarding hydrologic effects to Oregon spotted frogs and evidence of egg mass dessication along the Little Deschutes River.

Demmer, R. Bureau of Land Management, November 28, 2012. Email communications with Jennifer O’Reilly, USFWS Bend Field Office, regarding restoration activities that have occurred in Oregon spotted frog habitat on Prineville District-Factors A and D.

Dillon, J. 1996. Personal Communication. Fish and Wildlife Biologist, USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon.

Dunlap, D.G. 1955. Inter- and intraspecific variation in Oregon frogs of the genus Rana. American Midland Naturalist 54:314–331.

Engler, Joe. USFWS Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge, July 22, 1999, written communication with Dr. L. Karolee Owens, USFWS Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, comments on Oregon spotted frog proposed rule.

Engler, J., and D.C. Friesz. 1998. Draft 1998 Oregon spotted frog breeding surveys, Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Klickitat County, Washington. Unpublished Report. 5 pp.

Federal Register. 2014a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Threatened Status for Oregon Spotted Frog; Final Rule. 50 CFR Part 17 Volume 79 No. 168 August 29, 2014.

Federal Register. 2014b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Threatened Status for West Coast Distinct Population Segment of Fisher: Proposed Rule. 50 CFR Part 17 Volume 79 No. 194 October 7, 2014.

Federal Register. 2013a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Designation of Critical Habitat for the Oregon Spotted Frog; Proposed Rule. 50 CFR Part 17.

Federal Register. 2013b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Threatened Status for Oregon Spotted Frog; Proposed Rule. 50 CFR Part 17.

Gannett, M.W., Lite, K.E., Jr., Morgan, D.S., and Collins, C.A., 2001. Ground-water hydrology of the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00–4162. 78 p.

Garwood, J.M., C.A. Wheeler, R.M. Bourque, M.D. Larson, and H.H. Welsh. 2007. Egg mass drift increases vulnerability during early development of Cascades frogs (Rana cascadae). Northwestern Naturalist 88:95-97. 81

10 September 2015 Final

Grant, E.C., R. Jung, J. Nichols, and J. Hines. 2005. Double-observer approach to estimating egg mass abundance of pool-breeding amphibians. Wetlands Ecology and Management 13:305-320.

Green, David M., Hinrich Kaiser, Timothy F. Sharbel, Jennifer Kearsley, and Kelly R. McAllister. 1997. Cryptic species of spotted frogs, Rana pretiosa complex, in western North America. Copeia 1997:1-8.

Gresswell, R.E. 1999. Fire and aquatic ecosystems in forested biomes of North America. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 128:193-221.

Hallock, L., and S. Pearson. 2001. Telemetry study of fall and winter Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) movement and habitat use at Trout Lake, Klickitat County, Washington. Unpublished report to Washington State Department of Transportation and Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Areas Program. 20 pp.

Hann, W.J., J.L. Jones, M.G. Karl, P.F. Hessburg, R.E. Kean, D.G. Long, J.P. Menakis, C.H. McNicoll, S.G. Leonard, R.A. Gravenmier, and B.G. Smith. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the Interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins, Vol. II: Landscape dynamics of the basin. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405, Portland, Oregon.

Hardin-Davis, Inc. 1991. Instream Flow Study for the Deschutes River above Bend, OR. USDA Forest Service Deschutes National Forest, Bend Ranger District. 59 pp.

Hayes, M.P. 1994. The spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) in western Oregon. Part I. Background Part II. Current status. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Technical Report 94-1-01. Unpubl. Report.

Hayes, M.P. 1995. Final Report: Status of the Oregon spotted frog in the Crescent Ranger District, Deschutes National Forest: Headwaters of the Deschutes River System. The Nature Conservancy. Unpublished report.

Hayes, M.P. 1997. Final Report: Status of the Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa sensu stricto) in the Deschutes Basin and selected other systems in Oregon and northeastern California with a range-wide synopsis of the species’ status. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Unpublished report.

Hayes, M.P. and M.R. Jennings. 1986. Decline of ranid frog species in western North America: are bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) responsible? Journal of Herpetology 20:490–509.

Hayes, M.P., J.D. Engler, R.D. Haycock, D.H. Knopp, W.P. Leonard, K.R. McAllister, and L.L. Todd. 1997. Status of the Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) across its geographic range. Oregon Chapter of the Wildlife Society, Corvallis, Oregon.

Hayes, M.P., J.D. Engler, D.C. Friesz, and K. Hans. 2000. Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) oviposition at Conboy National Wildlife Refuge (Klickitat County, Washington): management implications of embryonic mortality. Final report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Lacey, Washington. 14 pp.

Hayes, M.P., J.D. Engler, S.Van Leuven, D.C. Friesz, T. Quinn, and D.J. Pierce. 2001 Overwintering of the Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) at Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Klickitat County, Washington, 2000-2001. Final Report to Washington Department of Transportation. June 2001. 86 pp.

Herter, D.R., and L.L. Hicks. 2000. Barred owl and spotted owl populations and habitat in the central Cascade Range of Washington. Journal of Raptor Research 34:279–286.

Higgins, Holly. USDA Deschutes National Forest, November 28, 2012. Email communications

10 September 2015 Final with Jennifer O’Reilly, USFWS Bend Field Office, regarding timing of and hydrologic effects to OSF breeding at Slough Camp on the Deschutes NF.

Hodgson, Brett. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, September 18, 2012. Email communications with Jennifer O’Reilly, USFWS Bend Field Office, regarding fish stocking program in relation to areas occupied by Oregon spotted frogs.

Johnson, D.M., R.R. Peterson, D.R. Lycan, J.W. Sweet, M.E. Neuhaus, A.L. Schaedel. 1985. Atlas of Oregon Lakes. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, Oregon.

Kiesecker, J.M. and A.R. Blaustein. 1995. Synergism between UV-B radiation and a pathogen magnifies amphibian embryo mortality in nature. Ecol. 92:11049-11052.

Kiesecker, J.M., and A.R. Blaustein 1998. Effects of introduced bullfrogs and smallmouth bass on microhabitat use, growth, and survival of native red-legged frogs (Rana aurora). Conservation Biology 12:776–787.

Kiesecker, J.M., A.R. Blaustein, and C.L. Miller. 2001a. Complex causes of amphibian population declines. Nature 410:681-683.

Kiesecker, J.M., A.R. Blaustein, and C.L. Miller. 2001b. Potential mechanisms underlying the displacement of native red-legged frogs by introduced bullfrogs. Ecology 82:1964-1970.

Kruse, K.C., and M.G. Francis. 1977. A predation deterrent in larvae of the bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 106:248–252.

Kupferberg, S.J. 1997. Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) invasion of a California river: the role of larval competition. Ecology 78:1736–1751.

Leonard, W.P., H.A. Brown, L.L.C. Jones, K.R. McAllister, and R.M. Strom. 1993. Amphibians of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, Washington.

Leonard, W. P. 1997. Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) monitoring at Trout Lake Natural Area Preserve and vicinity, Klickitat and Skamania Counties, Washington. Unpublished Report, Washington Natural Heritage Program, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia. 22 pp.

Lewis, J.C., D.P. Anderson, and S. Van Leuven. 2001. Oviposition ecology of the Oregon spotted frog at Trout Lake Marsh, Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia. 13 pp.

Licht, L.E. 1971. Breeding habits and embryonic thermal requirements of the frogs Rana aurora aurora and Rana pretiosa pretiosa in the Pacific Northwest. Ecol. 52(1):116-124.

Licht, L.E. 1974. Survival of embryos, tadpoles and adults of the frogs Rana aurora aurora and Rana pretiosa pretiosa sympatric in southwestern British Columbia. Can. J. Zool. 52:613-627.

Licht, L.E. 1986. Food and feeding behavior of sympatric red-legged frogs, Rana aurora, and spotted frogs, Rana pretiosa, in Southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Field Naturalist 100:22-31.

Lofroth, E.C., C.M. Raley, J.M. Higley, R.L. Trues, J.S. Yeager, J.C. Lewis, P.J. Happe, L.L. Finley, R.H. Naney, L.J. Hale, A.L. Krause, S.A. Livingston, A.M. Myers, and R.N. Brown. 2010. Conservation of Fisher (Martes pennanti) in South-Central British Columbia, Western Washington, Western Oregon, and California – Volume 1: Conservation Assessment. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado, USA

10 September 2015 Final Marco, A., C. Quilchano, and A.R. Blaustein. 1999. Sensitivity to nitrate and nitrite in pond-breeding amphibians from the Pacific Northwest, USA. Env. Tox. Chem. 18(12):2836-2839.

Marx, S. 2002. Personal communication. Deschutes Watershed District Fish Biologist, High Desert Region, Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, Bend, Oregon.

McAllister, Kelly. Washington Department of Transportation, February 6, 2008 email communications with Deanna Lynch, USFWS Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Regarding Annual update of Oregon spotted frog species assessment.

McAllister, K.R., and W.P. Leonard. 1997. Status of the Oregon spotted frog in Washington. Draft unpublished report, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

McAllister, K.R. and H.Q. White. 2001. Oviposition ecology of the Oregon spotted frog at Beaver Creek, Washington. Unpublished report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 24 pp.

McKee, P. 2003. Personal communication. Fall River Fish Hatchery Manager, Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, Bend, Oregon.

McPhail, J.D. and C.B. Murray. 1979. The early life-history and ecology of Dolly Varden, Salvelinus malma, in the Upper Arrow Lakes. Department of Zoology and Institute of Animal Resources, Vancouver.

Monello, R.J., and R. G. Wright. 1999. Amphibian habitat preferences amoung artificial ponds in the Palouse region of northern Idaho. J. Herpetoloty 33:298-303

Morell, V. 1999. Are pathogens felling frogs? Science 284:728-731.

Mullan, J.W., K. Williams, G. Rhodus, T. Hillman, and J. McIntyre. 1992. Production and habitat of salmonids in mid-Columbia River tributary streams. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Monograph 1.

Nussbaum, R.A., E.D. Brodie, and R.M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. University of Idaho Press, Moscow.

Olson, D.H. and W.P. Leonard. 1997. Amphibian inventory and monitoring: a standardized approach for the Pacific Northwest. Chapter one in: Olson, D.H., W.P. Leonard, and R.B. Bur, eds. Sampling Amphibians in lentic habitats. Northwest Fauna.

Oertley, Jill. U.S. Forest Service, September 28, 2005, email communications with Deanna Lynch, USFWS Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Regarding Oregon spotted frog – update on activities.

Pearl, C.A. 1999. The Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) in the Three Sisters Wilderness Area/Willamette National Forest. 1998 summary of findings. Unpublished report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 20 pp.

Pearl, Christopher. U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division, March 15, 2010, email communications with Deanna Lynch, USFWS Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Regarding Oregon spotted frog assessment.

Pearl, C.A. USGS_Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, November 19 and 26, 2012, email communication with Tia Adams and J. O’Reilly, USFWS Klamath Falls Field Office and Bend Field Office, regarding egg mass collections for genetics.

10 September 2015 Final Pearl, C.A. USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, November 19, 2012, email communication with Tia Adams and J. O’Reilly, USFWS Klamath Falls Field Office and Bend Field Office, regarding Bullfrog predation on Oregon spotted frog in Oregon.

Pearl, Christopher and J. Bowerman. October 5, 2005, email communications with Deanna Lynch, USFWS Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Regarding Oregon spotted frog assessment, additional remarks.

Pearl, C.A. and R.B. Bury. 2000. The Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) in the Three Sisters Wilderness Area, Oregon: 1999 findings. Unpublished report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 14 pp.

Pearl, C.A., and M.P. Hayes. 2002. Predation by Oregon spotted frogs (Rana pretiosa) on western toads (Bufo boreas) in Oregon. American Midland Naturalist 147:145-152.

Pearl, C.A., and M.P. Hayes. 2004. Habitat associations of the Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa): a literature review. Final Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

Pearl, C.A., M.J. Adams, R.B. Bury, and B. McCreary. 2004. Asymmetrical effects of introduce bull frogs (Rana catesbeiana) on native ranid frogs in Oregon. Copeia 2004:11−20.

Pearl, C.A., J. Bowerman, and D. Knight. 2005. Feeding behavior and aquatic habitat use by Oregon spotted frogs (Rana pretiosa) in central Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist 86:36-38.

Pearl, C.A., M.J. Adams, and N. Leuthold. 2009. Breeding habitat and local population size of the Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) in Oregon, USA. Northwest Naturalist 90:136-147.

Pearl, C., D. Clayton, and L. Turner. 2010. Surveys for presence of Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa): background information and field methods. Unpublished report. 49 pp.

Pilliod, D.S., and C.R. Peterson. 2001. Local and landscape effects of introduced trout on amphibians in historically fishless watersheds. Ecosystems 4:322-333.

Risenhoover, K.L., T.C. McBride, K. McAllister and M. Golliet. 2001. Overwintering behavior of the Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa) along Dempsey Creek, Thurston County, Washington. Unpublished report submitted to Washington Department of Transportation, Olympia. 26 pp. + appendices.

Rock, B. 1996-1997. Personal communication. Hydrologist, Ochoco National Forest, Prineville, Oregon.

Rombough, C.R., M.P. Hayes, and J.D. Engler. 2006. Rana pretiosa (Oregon Spotted Frog). Maximum Size. Herpetological Review 37(2):210.

Rosenshield, M.L., M.B. Jofre, and W.H. Karasov. 1999. Effects of polychloronated biphenyl 126 on green frog (Rana clamitans) and leopard frog (Rana pipiens) hatching success, development, and metamorphosis. Env. Tox. Chem. 18(11):2478-2486.

Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena, 169-199. Retrieved from https://riverrestoration.wikispaces.com/Stream+classification+techniques

Satterthwaite, T. 1979. Physical and biological survey. Deschutes National Forest, Crescent Ranger District, Crescent, Oregon.

Scherer, R.D. 2008. Detection of wood frog egg masses and implications for monitoring amphibian populations. Copeia 2008:669-672. 85

10 September 2015 Final

Schreck, C.B., H.L. Li, R.C. Hjort, and C.S. Sharpe. 1986. Identification of Columbia River chinook and steelhead trout. Bonneville Power Administration Project 83-451, Portland, Oregon.

Semlitsch, R.D. 2000. Principles for management of aquatic-breeding amphibians. J. Wildlife Management. 64(3):615-631.

Shovlain, A.M. 2005. Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) habitat use and herbage (or biomass) removal from grazing at Jack Creek, Klamath County, Oregon. Master’s Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. June 2005.

Tattersall, G.J. and G.R. Ultsch. 2008. Physiological ecology of aquatic overwintering in ranid frogs. Biological Reviews 83:119-140.

Tyser, R.W., and C.H. Key. 1988. Spotted knapweed in natural area fescue grasslands: An ecological assessment. Northwest Science 62:151-160.

Upper Deschutes Watershed Council (UDWC). 2002. Little Deschutes River Sub-basin Assesment. Bend, Oregon. May 2002. 88 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Draft Species Report: Fisher (Pekania pennanti), West Coast Population. http://www.fws.gov/cno/es/fisher/

USDA Forest Service. 1990a. Land and Resource Management Plan. Deschutes National Forest Bend, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Odell pilot watershed analysis. Deschutes National Forest, Crescent Ranger District, Crescent, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 1994b. Volume III: Eastside Forest Ecosystem Health Assessment. Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. Wenatchee, Washington.

USDA Forest Service 2001. Big Marsh Creek and the Little Deschutes Wild and Scenic River Plan. Deschutes National Forest. Bend Oregon. USDA Forest Service. http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/deschutes/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprdb5284914

USDA Forest Service. 2004b. Upper Deschutes and Little Deschutes Water quality Restoration Plan, Draft Report. Deschutes National Forest. Bend, Oregon. USDA Forest Service. 2006. In draft. Spotted Owl Database. Deschutes National Forest, Bend, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Draft Davis Lake and Tributaries Oregon Spotted Frog Site Management Plan. Version 1.0. Deschutes National Forest, Crescent Ranger District. September 2009. 31 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2012a. Big Marsh Oregon Spotted Frog Site Management Plan. Version 1.5. Deschutes National Forest, Crescent Ranger District. July 2012. 24 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2012b. Hosmer Lake Oregon Spotted Frog Site Management Plan. Version 1.0. Deschutes National Forest, Bend Fort Rock Ranger District. July 2012. 20 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2012c. Lava Lake Oregon Spotted Frog Site Management Plan. Version 1.0. Deschutes National Forest, Bend Fort Rock Ranger District. July 2012. 23 pp.

10 September 2015 Final USDA Forest Service. 2012d. Little Cultus Lake Oregon Spotted Frog Site Management Plan. Version 1.0. Deschutes National Forest, Bend Fort Rock Ranger District. July 2012. 21 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2012e. Little Lava Lake Oregon Spotted Frog Site Management Plan. Version 1.0. Deschutes National Forest, Bend Fort Rock Ranger District. July 2012. 20 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2012f. Muskrat Lake Oregon Spotted Frog Site Management Plan. Version 1.0. Deschutes National Forest, Bend Fort Rock Ranger District. July 2012. 16 pp.

USDAS Forest Service. 2014. Aquatic and Terrestrial Programmatic Biological Assessment for Lands within the Deschutes and John Day River Basins Administered by the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests

Watson, J.W., K.R. McAllister, D.J. Pierce. 2003. Home ranges, movements, and habitat selection of Oregon Spotted frogs (Rana pretiosa) Journal of Herpetology 37(2):292-300.

Watson, J.W., K.R. McAllister. D.J. Pierce, and A. Alvarado. 2000. Ecology of a remnant population of Oregon spotted frogs (Rana pretiosa) in Thurston County, Washington. Final Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.

Watson, J.W., K.R. McAllister, D.J. Pierce. 2003. Home ranges, movements, and habitat selection of Oregon Spotted frogs (Rana pretiosa) Journal of Herpetology 37(2):292-300.

Wray, Simon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. May 21, 2012. Email communications with Jennifer O’Reilly, USFWS Bend Field Office, regarding egg masses discovered in a pond adjacent to Crane Prairie Reservoir that had received a rotenone treatment in the fall of 2011.

Wright, A.H., and A.A. Wright. 1949. Handbook of frogs and toads. Comstock Press, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York and London, England.

10 September 2015

APPENDIX A.

1. Unit Treatments 2. Riparian Treatments in Wetlands Details

10 September 2015

1. Treatment by Unit Prescribed Pile and Unit Unit* Treatment Overview Overstory Understory Fire Burn Acres 1 Underburn None None PF None 9 2 Underburn None None PF None 14 3 Underburn None None PF None 31 4 Underburn None None PF None 12 5 Underburn None None PF None 84 6 Underburn None None PF None 74 7 Pile and Burn Only None None None PB (GP) 21 8 Road None SDT Prune None PB (GP) 20 9 Road None SDT Prune None PB (GP) 46 Mixed Con Density Management, 10 HTH SDT PF PB (GP) 17 Underburn Mixed Con Density Management, 11 HTH SDT PF PB (GP) 52 Underburn Mixed Con Density Management, 12 HTH SDT PF PB (GP) 24 Underburn 13 LP Density Management HIM SDT None PB (GP) 27 14 Riparian Encroachment LPO Remove PF PB (GP) 16 15 LP Density Management HIM SDT None PB (GP) 21 16 Riparian Encroachment LPO Remove PF PB (GP) 7 17 LP Density Management HIM SDT None PB (GP) 12 18 Pile and Burn Only None None None PB (GP) 17 19 Riparian Encroachment LPO Remove PF PB (GP) 2 20 LP Density Management HIM SDT None PB (GP) 22 21 Pile and Burn Only None None None PB (GP) 11 25 SDT, Underburn None SDT PF PB (GP) 104 26 Underburn None None PF None 126 27 SDT, Underburn None SDT PF PB (GP) 33 28 Mixed Con Density Management HIM SDT None PB (GP) 43 29 Prune None Prune None PB (GP) 217 30 Road None SDT Prune None PB (GP) 305 32 LP Density Management HIM SDT None PB (GP) 23 33 Pile existing slash None None None PB (GP) 21 35 Mixed Con Density Management HIM SDT None PB (GP) 99 36 LP Density Management HIM SDT None PB (GP) 28 37 LP Density Management HIM SDT None PB (GP) 13 Mixed Con Density Management, 40 HIM SDT PF PB (GP) 39 Underburn 41 LP Density Management HIM SDT None PB (GP) 25 42 SDT, Underburn None SDT PF PB (GP) 102 43 Road None SDT Prune None PB (GP) 90 50 Riparian Encroachment LPO Remove PF PB (GP) 6 51 Riparian Encroachment LPO Remove PF PB (GP) 2

II 10 September 2015

Prescribed Pile and Unit Unit* Treatment Overview Overstory Understory Fire Burn Acres 52 Riparian Encroachment LPO Remove PF PB (GP) 18 53 Riparian Encroachment Girdle/Burn LPU PF PB (HP) 9 54 Riparian Encroachment Girdle/Burn LPU PF PB (HP) 17 55 Riparian Encroachment Girdle/Burn LPU PF PB (HP) 5 56 Riparian Encroachment Girdle/Burn LPU PF PB (HP) 9 57 Riparian Encroachment LPO Remove PF PB (GP) 13 58 Riparian Encroachment LPO Remove PF PB (GP) 12 59 Riparian Encroachment LPO Remove PF PB (GP) 8 60 Riparian Encroachment LPO Remove PF PB (GP) 22 61 Riparian Encroachment Girdle/Burn LPU PF PB (HP) 11 62 Riparian Encroachment Girdle/Burn LPU PF PB (HP) 11 63 Riparian Encroachment Girdle/Burn LPU PF PB (HP) 10 64 Riparian Encroachment Girdle/Burn LPU PF PB (HP) 35 65 Riparian Encroachment LPO Remove PF PB (GP) 23 66 Riparian Encroachment LPO Remove PF PB (GP) 19 67 Riparian Encroachment Girdle/Burn LPU PF PB (HP) 46 71 Riparian Encroachment Girdle/Burn LPU PF PB (HP) 22 72 Riparian Encroachment Girdle/Burn LPU PF PB (HP) 12 73 Riparian Encroachment LPO Remove PF PB (GP) 18 74 Riparian Encroachment Girdle/Burn LPU PF PB (HP) 14 75 Riparian Encroachment LPO Remove PF PB (GP) 25 Total 2175 *Unit numbers not sequential as some units were dropped to accommodate the Chinquapin NSO Territory

III 10 September 2015

2. Riparian Treatment in Wetlands Details

Freshwater Freshwater Wetland % of Unit Overstory Understory Unit Acres Emergent Forested/ Riverine Grand in Wetland Shrub Wetland Total Wetland

LPO Remove 14 16 0 8 0 8 53% LPO Remove 16 7 0 5 0 5 74% LPO Remove 19 2 0 0 0 0 5% LPO Remove 50 6 0 3 0 4 62% LPO Remove 51 2 1 1 0 2 100% LPO Remove 52 18 0 16 0 16 91% Girdle/Burn LPU 53 9 0 9 0 9 100% Girdle/Burn LPU 54 17 14 2 0 17 101% Girdle/Burn LPU 55 5 2 3 0 5 100% Girdle/Burn LPU 56 9 7 1 1 9 101% LPO Remove 57 13 1 8 0 9 68% LPO Remove 58 12 2 9 1 11 95% LPO Remove 59 20 1 11 1 13 65% LPO Remove 60 22 2 20 0 22 100% Girdle/Burn LPU 61 11 3 8 0 11 98% Girdle/Burn LPU 62 11 9 3 0 11 104% Girdle/Burn LPU 63 10 9 0 0 9 97% Girdle/Burn LPU 64 35 17 18 0 35 100% LPO Remove 65 24 2 21 0 24 98% LPO Remove 66 22 2 13 1 16 73% Girdle/Burn LPU 67 46 30 16 0 46 100% Girdle/Burn LPU 71 22 7 0 3 9 41% Girdle/Burn LPU 72 12 9 2 1 12 98% LPO Remove 73 18 7 11 0 18 99% Girdle/Burn LPU 74 14 3 9 0 12 83% LPO Remove 75 25 16 5 0 21 83%

IV 10 September 2015 APPENDIX B MAPS 11x17

1. Figure 2. Marsh Proposed Action 2. Figure 8. Potential Overwinter habitat within Big Marsh 3. Figure 9. USFWS Delineation of Waterbodies and Wetland in the Marsh Project Area 4. Figure 15. Riparian Treatment Units Location Selection based on 1950s photo o 1959 photo o 2012 photo with treatment units 5. Figure 16. Wet land Delineation from USFWS with Proposed Treatments 6. Figure 17. Oregon Spotted Frog Habitat and Riparian Vegetation Restoration Units 7. Figure 18. Juxtaposition of Aquatic Restoration Actions with Oregon spotted frog breeding and potential overwintering sites. 8. Figure 20. East Ditch Restoration Actions and Locations with Oregon Spotted Frog Habitat and Breeding Locations o Action 1 o Action 2 9. Figure 21. West Ditch Restoration Actions and Locations with Oregon Spotted Frog Habit and Breeding Locations.

V 10 September 2015 1. Figure 2. Marsh Proposed Action

10 September 2015 2. Figure 8. Potential Overwinter Habitat Within Big Marsh

VII 10 September 2015

3. Figure 9. USFWS Delineation of Waterbodies and Wetlands in Marsh Project Area.

VIII 10 September 2015 4. Figure 15. Riparian Treatment Units Location Selection Based on 1950s Photo. 1959 photo

IX 10 September 2015 2012 Photo with treatment units

X 10 September 2015 5. Figure 16. USFWS Wetland delineation with Proposed Treatments

XI 10 September 2015 6. Figure 17. Oregon Spotted Frog Habitat and Riparian Vegetation Restoration Units.

XII 10 September 2015 7. Figure 18. Juxtaposition of Aquatic Restoration Actions with Oregon spotted frog breeding and potential overwintering sites.

XIII 10 September 2015 8. Figure 20. East Ditch Restoration Actions and Locations with Oregon spotted Frog Habitat and Breeding Locations East Ditch Proposed Actions

XIV 10 September 2015

XV 10 September 2015 9. Figure 21 West Ditch Restoration Actions and Locations with Oregon spotted Frog Habitat and Breeding Locations.

XVI 10 September 2015

XVII