Prepared in cooperation with the Oregon/Washington U.S. Bureau of Land Management and 

Region 6 U.S. Forest Service Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program 

(ISSSSP) 

Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris) in 

Southeastern Oregon: A Survey of Historical Localities, 

2009

By Christopher A. Pearl, Stephanie K. Galvan, Michael J. Adams, and Brome McCreary

Open-File Report 2010–1235

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Cover: Photographs of Columbia spotted frog and pond survey site. Photographs by the U.S. Geological Survey.
Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris) in 

Southeastern Oregon: A Survey of Historical Localities, 

2009

By Christopher A. Pearl, Stephanie K. Galvan, Michael J. Adams, and Brome McCreary

Prepared in cooperation with the Oregon/Washington U.S. Bureau of Land Management and 

Region 6 U.S. Forest Service Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP)

Open-File Report 2010-1235

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2010

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its 

natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov 

or call 1-888-ASK-USGS. 

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod. 

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov. 

Suggested citation:

Pearl, C.A., Galvan, S.K., Adams, M.J., and McCreary, B., 2010, Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) in 

southeastern Oregon: A survey of historical localities, 2009: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1235,

96 p.

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report.
iii

Contents

Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Methods...................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Developing a Pool of R. luteiventris Historical Sites for Surveys............................................................................. 2

Identification of Survey Locations for R. luteiventris from Historical Records.......................................................... 2

Field Surveys .......................................................................................................................................................... 3

Landscape Metrics.................................................................................................................................................. 4

Local Herbicide Applications ................................................................................................................................... 5

Results........................................................................................................................................................................ 5

Discussion .................................................................................................................................................................. 7

Summary .................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................................................... 9

References Cited........................................................................................................................................................ 9

Appendix A. Descriptions of Target, Alternate, and Incidental Surveys .................................................................... 26

Appendix B. Human Footprint Scores for Target Sites ............................................................................................. 87

Appendix C. Land Use Around Target Sites (Percentage of 2-kilometer Radius Buffer) .......................................... 88

Appendix D. Definitions for Land Cover Data (from Homer and others, 2004) ......................................................... 90

Appendix E. Distance to Nearest Agriculture for Target Sites................................................................................... 91

Appendix F. Agriculture in Watershed for Target Sites ............................................................................................. 92

Appendix G. Total Mapped Water within 1-kilometer Radius Buffers for Target Sites ............................................. 93

Appendix H. Recent Herbicide Applications near Selected Target Sites .................................................................. 94

Figures

Figure 1. Map showing Target and Incidental sites surveyed for Rana luteiventris in 

southeastern Oregon, 2009 ..................................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 2. Map showing Target and Incidental sites surveyed for Rana luteiventris around 

Steens Mountain, 2009............................................................................................................................................ 13

Figure 3. Map showing Target and Incidental sites surveyed for Rana luteiventris around 

Silver Creek, 2009 ................................................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 4. Map showing Target and Incidental sites surveyed for Rana luteiventris around Upper Malheur 

tributaries, 2009....................................................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 5. Map showing Target and Incidental sites surveyed for Rana luteiventris around Dry Creek, 2009 ........ 16

Figure 6. Graphs showing numbers of Rana luteiventris detected at sites in southeastern Oregon, 2009 ............ 17

Figure 7. Graph showing elevation at sites with and without detections of Rana luteiventris in southeastern 

Oregon, 2009........................................................................................................................................................... 18

Tables

Table 1. Attributes of Target and Incidental sites surveyed for Rana luteiventris in southeastern Oregon, 2009 ... 19

Table 2. Summary of Rana luteiventris detections for Target and Incidental sites, southeastern Oregon, 2009.... 22

Table 3. Detections of Rana luteiventris by habitat type for Target and Incidental sites in southeastern 

Oregon, 2009........................................................................................................................................................... 25
iv

Conversion Factors and Datums

Conversion Factors

SI to Inch/Pound

Multiply By To obtain

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft)

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

square meter (m2) 0.0002471 acre

square meter (m2) 10.76 square foot (ft2)

hectare (ha) 2.471 acre

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=(1.8×°C)+32

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows:

°C=(°F-32)/1.8

Datums

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). 

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Horizontal Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
1 

Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris) in 

Southeastern Oregon: A Survey of Historical Localities, 

2009

By Christopher A. Pearl, Stephanie K. Galvan, Michael J. Adams, and Brome McCreary

Abstract

The Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) occupies a large range in western North America 

and is comprised of at least three genetic units. Concern exists regarding the status of the Great Basin 

populations in Oregon, Idaho, and Nevada. We surveyed target and nearby alternate sites on public 

lands in southeastern Oregon where there was evidence that Columbia spotted frogs were historically 

present. We found the species at 59.5 percent (25 of 42) of target or nearby alternate sites. They were in 

15 of 23 permanent streams and 8 of 13 intermittent streams. Our surveys do not provide evidence of 

widespread population losses in our sites. Interpretation of status of Columbia spotted frogs in this study 

is limited by a lack of precision in some of the historical locations and by our inability to determine if 

locations where only adults were indicated in the historical record once had breeding populations. Our 

results support the need for continued investigation of these populations. 

Introduction 

The Columbia spotted frog (CSF, Rana luteiventris) is one of the most broadly distributed 

amphibians in the western United States. Recent investigations of genetic structure have identified at 

least three distinct units within R. luteiventris (Bos and Sites, 2001; Funk and others, 2008; U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 2009). The bulk of the species range falls within the Northern or Rocky Mountain 

Distinct Population Segment (DPS), which includes populations in northeastern Oregon, eastern 

Washington, northern Idaho, western Montana, the Canadian Rocky Mountains, and southern Alaska 

(Funk and others, 2008). The Great Basin DPS is thought to include R. luteiventris populations in 

southeastern Oregon, southwestern Idaho, and Nevada (Funk and others, 2008). The Great Basin DPS is 

known to have experienced declines in some portions of its range (Reaser, 2000; Wente and others, 

2005) and is a candidate for federal listing under the Endangered Species Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2009). 

There were two primary objectives to this study: 

1. Assess whether R. luteiventris is currently present at historical sites on public lands in 

southeastern Oregon. 

2. Gather and evaluate information that can help assess potential threats to the R. 

luteiventris population at each site. 
2 

An additional objective was to collect tissue samples for future analyses of R. luteiventris

phylogeography and gene flow in southeastern Oregon. This portion of work is ongoing and is not 

included in this report. 

Methods 

Our broad goal was to assess R. luteiventris presence at publically owned sites in southeastern 

Oregon where observations suggest the species was historically present. We began by assembling a list 

of sites with historical records of R. luteiventris. We included sites that may be north of the Great Basin 

DPS. The extent of the Great Basin DPS is not completely understood; it is documented from only four 

populations in Oregon (Funk and others, 2008). We conducted visual encounter surveys in the summer 

of 2009 to quantify habitat and biotic variables that could relate to site suitability for the species. For 

example, we used plots to quantify water depth, vegetation, and evidence of livestock use, and tallied 

invasive species, beaver (Castor canadensis) dams, and reservoirs across and upstream of the survey 

reach. We also used ESRI® ArcMap 9.3.1 to summarize landscape variables that can be stressors of 

amphibians. We examined metrics of agricultural land use and habitat isolation from other wetlands. 

Lastly, we solicited information on herbicide application for any sites near paved or improved unpaved 

roads. 

Developing a Pool of R. luteiventris Historical Sites for Surveys

We compiled a list of R. luteiventris historical sites primarily from the Oregon/Washington 

Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Geographic Biotic Observations database (GeoBOB). GeoBOB 

is a repository for biological records on BLM and other federal agency lands. The GeoBOB database 

includes observations by agency biologists, results of formal surveys on federal lands, and species 

locations verifiable from museum records. The GeoBOB list was supplemented with several reports by 

other federal biologists.

Our initial list of 48 Target sites was reduced to 42 after excluding sites on private land (n = 2; 

Cottonwood Creek and North Fork Malheur River #1); sites where access was problematic (n = 3; Twin 

Juniper Spring, Stinkingwater Creek, and North Fork Malheur River #2); and a site where presence of 

R. luteiventris was confirmed in 2008 (n = 1; South Cottonwood Reservoir). We surveyed habitats for R. 

luteiventris associated with all these 42 records. Results of these surveys are included in tables 1 and 2 

and appendix A. We had concerns about the validity of the original records or our survey location 

relative to the historical record for three of these sites (Big Trout Creek, Hog Creek, Willow Creek 

Reservoir): those concerns are detailed in their respective site descriptions in appendix A. 

Identification of Survey Locations for R. luteiventris from Historical Records

Historical records for R. luteiventris were used to verify areas to resurvey. Location information, 

however, was often imprecise. Most records were obtained from streams; other sites were identified by

township/range/section localities. We thus had to interpret some locations to generate reaches for revisit 

surveys. We use the term “Target” site to refer to our best estimate of where R. luteiventris were

located based on information in each historical record. We selected a central Universal Transverse 

Mercator (UTM) point for each Target site based on our best approximation of the location of the 

historical record. At times, this information was reasonably well-defined (for example, “confluence of 

creek X and creek Y” or “creek X at road crossing Y”). When site coordinates were provided in 

township/range/section format, we mapped the site to the finest resolution available (usually section, but 

sometimes quarter-section). When available, we used survey notes to further adjust the resolution of the 
3 

Target site. If the survey point did not fall on a water body, we repositioned the survey site to the 

nearest water body shown on USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) flowline and water body 

maps. We followed a similar procedure with geographic and projected coordinates. A water body was 

always in close proximity to the mapped coordinates, and there was never more than one water body to 

choose from. 

For the many historical records for sites located on streams, we defined the extent of the Target 

site to include 250-m upstream and 250-m downstream (total of 500 m) of the central UTM location 

described above. This Target site also included floodplain wetlands hydrologically associated with the 

stream. Where private land occurred within the selected reach, we offset the Target site with the goal of 

including 500 m of stream in the survey. For the few sites that were not located on streams, we surveyed

the entire wetland, shoreline, and peripheral shallows of ponds, lakes, or reservoirs. 

If R. luteiventris was not detected at the Target site, we surveyed potential habitat within 1 km of 

the center of the Target site (“Alternate” sites). Surveys of Alternate sites often resulted in surveying 

farther upstream or downstream of the Target stream reach. In the case of some small lakes, surveys of 

Alternate sites resulted in surveys of an inflow or outflow stream. Alternate sites were not surveyed for 

four Target sites where R. luteiventris was not detected. An Alternate site was surveyed for one Target 

site (Alder Creek) (reach immediately downstream of Target reach) despite detecting R. luteiventris at 

the Target reach. 

When time, location, and presence of aquatic habitat allowed, we opportunistically surveyed 

additional sites on public land that generally were suitable for R. luteiventris but where no records of R. 

luteiventris were known. These sites are referred to as “Incidental” sites.

Time constraints limited our surveys to one visit per site. However, unfavorable weather 

conditions (low temperatures, record precipitation events) and safety concerns during the initial survey 

of three sites prompted us to resurvey those sites later in the summer.

Field Surveys

Field surveys consisted of two- or three-person crews methodically searching flooded and 

saturated areas within the Target reach. The field surveys were essentially area-constrained (for 

example, up to 500-m reach for Target sites on streams) visual encounter surveys (VES) that included 

dip-netting in vegetation for escaping amphibians. Our lack of time precluded estimation of detection 

probabilities. We used Garmin® GPSMAP 60Cx GPS units (Garmin® International, Olathe, Kansas) to 

record tracks (UTM points every 15 m or less) that delineate the survey route for each site. During and 

at the end of surveys for all sites, we assessed habitat and stressor variables that may relate to 

persistence or abundance of amphibians including R. luteiventris. These were assessed at the scale of the 

whole site:

• Site type (intermittent stream, pool within intermittent stream, lake, marsh/wetland, 

permanent stream, pond, other) 

• Riparian vegetation type (aspen, willow/deciduous shrubs, juniper, Ponderosa pine, sage, 

other) 

• Upland vegetation type (aspen, willow/deciduous shrubs, juniper, Ponderosa pine, sage, 

other) 

• Number of livestock observed in survey reach (0, 1–5, 6–20, greater than 20) 

• Presence of road or track (yes/no) within 50 m of a site

• Type of road or track within 50 m [dirt, gravel, paved, two-track (ATV), none] 

• Percentage of site with surface water 

• Average length of survey site
4 

• Average width of survey site 

• Presence of any impoundments (yes/no) and whether impoundments were of 

anthropogenic or beaver origin 

• Beaver sign (beaver sighted, chewed trees, lodge, slide, tail slap) 

• Beaver influence (abandoned pond, active pond, none, other) 

In addition, we characterized what we could see of the habitat upstream of each survey reach. 

Crews looked for signs of impoundments (and their approximate size), beaver influence, presence or 

signs of livestock, and structures (road crossings, culverts, weirs, irrigation systems, etc.). 

At Target sites, we used plots to quantify habitat variables that could relate to R. luteiventris

habitat suitability and that could be reassessed in future comparisons. We characterized these plot-scale 

variables from 3 to 11 locations evenly distributed over the survey reach or around the perimeter of 

lentic sites. Each location included one terrestrial plot adjoining one aquatic plot, with the shared side 

aligned to the land-water interface. Terrestrial and aquatic plots were 7.5 m on a side (5 dip-net 

lengths). We located the first pair of plots at the beginning of the survey; remaining plot pairs were 

located after a standard time interval was scaled to the size of the site. This yielded an average of 7.4 ± 

1.6 [standard deviation, (SD)] plot pairs per Target site. We assessed the following variables on aquatic 

plots: wetted width, maximum depth, percentage of plot with vegetation, dominant substrate, and 

subdominant substrate (next most prevalent). Substrate types were mud, silt, sand, gravel, cobble, 

bedrock, or other. Variables assessed for terrestrial plots were bank height, number of cow pats, fresh 

pats (yes/no), disturbance type (soil, vegetation, none, other), disturbance category (cattle trampling, 

grazed vegetation, flooding, fire, tire tracks, road bed, other), and degree of vegetation and soil 

disturbance (low, medium, high). 

We attempted to capture all amphibians encountered to confirm species identifications and to 

gather demographic information on R. luteiventris (life stage, gender, length, mass). Frogs were 

photographed, and their locations were recorded by GPS (UTM, datum NAD 83). 

Because of the uncertainty associated with locations of a Target site relative to the original 

observation, we consider a Target site occupied if R. luteiventris were detected at that site or at any 

associated Alternate sites. Appendix A includes narrative descriptions of each Target, Alternate, and 

Incidental site. We also include a compilation of R. luteiventris observations for each site to illustrate 

their respective survey histories, and summarize the available evidence of R. luteiventris occupancy and 

breeding status. Survey descriptions in appendix A also include counts and life stages of amphibians 

encountered, discussion of local habitat, and a photograph of the Target site to further illustrate general 

habitat conditions. 

Landscape Metrics

We used ArcGIS 9.3.1 to quantify the composition and intensity of local land use, distance to 

nearest agriculture, total agriculture in watershed, and amount of nearby aquatic habitat. We used a 

Human Footprint raster dataset (Leu and others, 2008) to quantify land use within a 2-km radius around 

each Target site. The Human Footprint dataset covers the western United States in 180-m2 cells, and 

represents the synthesis of seven models in which human impact on the landscape is assigned a score

based on increasing anthropogenic disturbances ranging from low (1) to high (10). The models and 

raster scores incorporate data on human habitation, railroads, roads and highways, irrigation canals, 

power lines, agricultural land, campgrounds, landfills, oil and gas development, and human-induced 

fires (Leu and others, 2008). This score does not include some potentially widespread stressors on 

amphibians, such as livestock grazing and pollution (Leu and others, 2008). We calculated an average of 
5 

all Human Footprint scores weighted by their proportion of the buffer and used this weighted average as 

an impact score for each site (appendix B). 

We assessed the amount of agriculture near sites in three ways. For each method, we used data 

from the USGS National Land Cover Database (“NLCD”; Homer and others, 2004) and considered 

cells to be agricultural if categorized as ‘cultivated crops’ or ‘pasture/hay.’ First, we quantified the 

extent of selected land uses including agriculture as percentages of a 2-km buffer around each site

(appendices C and D). Second, we estimated the linear distance from our survey to the nearest 

agriculturally coded cells (appendix E). Third, we estimated the amount of agricultural land within the 

watershed immediately upstream of each site (that is, using the site as a “pour point” for the watershed) 

by overlaying each watershed on land-use data from the NLCD (appendix F). To delineate watershed 

boundaries upstream of survey sites, we used the NHDPlus dataset (Horizon Systems Corporation), 

which combines topographical and hydrological data to produce flow direction and accumulation grids. 

As a proxy for site isolation, we used the NHD to estimate the amount of mapped aquatic habitat 

near each site. The total length of all mapped streams and the total surface area of all mapped water 

bodies within a 1-km radius of each site are shown in appendix G. 

Local Herbicide Applications

To compile information on potential herbicide exposure of R. luteiventris, we requested records 

of herbicide applications near the Target sites from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), 

BLM, Malheur and Harney Counties, and Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (MNWR; appendix H). 

We requested that agencies review their records for applications within 1 km of the Target sites over the 

last 5–10 years. 

Results

We conducted surveys at 42 Target sites where historical records of R. luteiventris were 

available (fig. 1, table 1). Most of the Target sites occurred in clusters: Steens Mountain (3 sites at upper 

elevations, 6 sites toward the valley floor; fig. 2), Silver Creek (5 sites at upper elevations, 2 sites at low 

elevations; fig. 3), northern tributaries of the Malheur River (6 sites; fig. 4), Dry Creek (6 sites; fig. 5), 

southern tributaries to the Malheur River (numbers 2, 10, 14, and 38; fig. 1), and in tributaries of the 

upper Owyhee River (numbers 11, 13, and 45; fig.1)). Four sites were scattered along the mainstem or 

central tributaries of the Malheur River (numbers 9, 22, 23, and 39; fig.1). The Parsnip Creek site (#33 

in fig. 1) is an outlier to the southwest of most of the sites. The Big Trout Creek site (#6 in fig.1) is also 

isolated from other Target sites. Target sites were on lands managed by the BLM (n = 34 sites), U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuges (n = 4), U.S. Forest Service (n = 2), and the State 

of Oregon (n = 2). Elevations of Target sites ranged from 902 to 2,351 m above sea level. Incidental 

sites were on lands managed by the BLM (n = 2) and the U.S. Forest Service (n = 1), and ranged in 

elevation from 1,110 to 2,220 m above sea level.

R. luteiventris was detected at 25 of 42 sites with historical records. R. luteiventris was detected 

at 65.2 percent (15 of 23) of historical sites where we classified the Target as permanent stream; 61.5 

percent (8 of 13) at intermittent streams; 33.3 percent (1 of 3) at lakes/reservoirs; and 33.3 percent (1 of 

3) at ponds/wetlands (table 3). 

The number of R. luteiventris detected varied markedly among sites (0–151 individuals) and we 

detected < 40 individuals at most sites (fig. 6). We found evidence of reproduction (larvae, metamorphs, 

or young juveniles) at 20 sites (table 2). We found low numbers of adults (2, 2, and 1 frogs) at three of 

the other five sites where we found any R. luteiventris (Grove Creek, Rough Creek, South Fork of 
6 

Malheur River near Crane Creek confluence, respectively). It is possible that breeding was not occurring 

locally at these sites. Target sites where R. luteiventris was detected were similar in elevation to sites 

where the species was not detected (fig. 7).

Incidental surveys were conducted at three sites, all of which were associated with permanent 

streams that also had Target sites (McCoy Creek, Dry Creek, and Silver Creek). R. luteiventris was

detected only at the Silver Creek Incidental site.

Landscape data for the Target sites and buffers are included in appendixes B–G. General 

landscape conditions were remarkably consistent among sites in the study area. For example, Human 

Footprint scores were similar and clustered around a mean of 3.2 (± 0.6 SD; range 1.7–4.6). Shrub/scrub 

(predominantly sage or willow) was the dominant landscape type around survey sites (average 

percentage of buffer 85.1 ± 17.9 SD; range 28.9–100.0 percent). The only other landscape types with 

appreciable coverage were Evergreen Forest (average 7.1 ± 13.4 percent; range 0.0–71.1 percent) and 

Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands (average 3.4 ± 9.3 percent; range 0.0–42.3 percent). Only four sites had 

appreciable Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands in the buffer, and all these were in the lowlands around 

MNWR (Bridge Creek, Mud Creek, Page Springs, Silver Creek Lower MNWR). 

We received information on herbicide applications from the BLM, ODOT, and Harney County 

Weed Control (appendix H). These records documented applications within 1 km of eight Target sites 

and suggested that a subset of sites received regular applications (Calf Creek, Kingsbury Gulch, 

Rattlesnake Creek). Our understanding from talking with agency staff is that any Target sites not listed 

in appendix H are on Malheur National Wildlife Refuge land or did not have chemicals applied within 1 

km kilometer by Harney County, BLM, or ODOT.

Our results confirm other observations that several, relatively large population complexes persist 

for R. luteiventris in the region we examined. Frog abundance remains high in the Dry Creek system. 

Monitoring at the site was initiated in 2001 (Engle 2001) and continued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) La Grande Field Office. Data from visual encounter surveys by USFWS suggest that 

2009 probably was the most productive recruitment year for R. luteiventris in Dry Creek since 2001 

(Meyer, 2009). The upper Silver Creek basin also remains a relatively productive area; R. luteiventris

was detected at five of six sites in the basin. We did not survey another historical breeding site in the 

upper Silver Creek basin (Delintment Lake; Wente and others, 2005). 

Our surveys and other work also identified areas where R. luteiventris appears to be locally 

decreasing or at risk of local extinction. For example, we detected few frogs in Kingsbury Gulch in 

2009, and seven years of monitoring has shown an appreciable decrease in captures from high numbers 

detected in 2000–04 (U. S. Geological Survey, unpub. data). Fish Lake and Slough had a welldocumented history of supporting R. luteiventris breeding and post-metamorphic stages until around 

2002 or 2003. Surveys by Smyth (2004) failed to detect R. luteiventris in 2004, and we failed to detect

frogs during two surveys at Fish Lake and vicinity in 2009. This lake hosts many game fish, and the 

area is heavily used for recreation. 

The Rail Canyon sites have a well-documented record that identifies direct use of beaver 

influenced habitats by breeding R. luteiventris. We surveyed extensively in that area in 2009 and found 

neither R. luteiventris nor current beaver activity. This is consistent with a growing body of evidence 

that beaver-engineered habitats can be valuable or essential for both species of spotted frog in arid and 

semi-arid landscapes (St. John, 1994; Munger and Lingo, 2003; and Smyth, 2004). Further anecdotal 

support for a potentially positive role of beaver can be found in the Silver Creek basin where frogs 

persist with beaver in the upper basin, but frogs and active beaver were not found in the two lower basin 

sites. Additional study of sites with frogs and beaver (for example, Lake Creek, Little Fish Creek) could 

improve our understanding of the links between the two species. 
7 

Both Skull Creek and Dry Creek – King Brown Cabin are sites that have many frogs and heavy 

grazing. There is no way to know whether grazing at these sites has a positive, negative, or no effect, 

but the fact that grazing is a prominent land use at these sites suggests that potential effects on R. 

luteiventris need to be considered in future management plans. A possible course of action would be a 

management experiment to determine how a change in grazing at these sites affects frogs and their 

habitat.

Parsnip Creek in the Warner Mountains appears to be the westernmost and a particularly isolated 

population of R. luteiventris. Surveys of other sites in the vicinity of Parsnip Creek have not detected

spotted frogs (St. John, 1994; Hayes, 1997; Oertley and Frazier, 2006). Road construction affected parts 

of Parsnip Creek in 2010, so that site appears to be a good candidate for closer monitoring and potential 

conservation measures. 

Discussion

We detected R. luteiventris at 55.6 percent of the Target sites. We are aware of only one similar 

historical site revisit study for R. luteiventris (Wente and others, 2005). That study included sites in 

Nevada and a broader part of Oregon than our study and visited Oregon sites more than once. In that 

study, R. luteiventris was detected at 43.3 percent of 30 sites; when detectability was included, the 

estimate rose to 52.9 percent (43.5–62.3 percent, 95% confidence interval). Wente and others (2005) 

detected R. luteiventris at 66.7 percent of the 18 sites in Oregon. 

Other naïve occupancy estimates (unadjusted for detectability) from historical revisit studies of 

frogs around the western United States include Oregon spotted frog (R. pretiosa, the sister species of R. 

luteiventris) at 39.3 percent of sites in Oregon and California (Hayes, 1997); Northern leopard frog (R. 

pipiens) at 12 percent and Wood frog (R. sylvatica) at 69 percent of sites in Colorado (Corn and others, 

1989); R. cascadae at 34 percent, R. draytonii at 32 percent, and R. muscosa at 17 percent of sites in 

California (Davidson and others, 2002).

There are several things to consider when interpreting our results: 

1. We may have missed R. luteiventris that were present. We conducted single visits (with few 

exceptions) in a single calendar year. Most of our surveys were appropriately timed with 

regard to R. luteiventris phenology and seasonal surface activity, and conducted when frogs 

should be active (warm weather and water conditions). However, it is possible we missed R. 

luteiventris at non-breeding sites with small numbers of individuals. Doing multiple visits 

across more than one calendar year raises the chance surveyors will detect a focal species 

when it is present in the area (Skelly and others, 2003). Conducting repeat visits also allows 

an assessment of detectability of focal species, which can help provide a less biased estimate 

of occupancy. 

2. As previously described, many of the historical records included sparse or imprecise location 

data. We dealt with this by including a sizeable target area and alternate survey sites. We 

suggest surveyors collect data on UTM locations and life stages to facilitate more detailed 

revisit studies in the future. 

3. Many of the historical records lack information that could help assess whether a breeding 

population was present. Most records were for a few adult frogs. Failure to detect frogs at a 

site where only a few adults have been previously observed is less informative than not 

finding frogs at an historical breeding site (Skelly and others, 2003; Pearl and others, 2009). 

Adult R. luteiventris are thought to reuse breeding sites, and young life stages like eggs and 

larvae move little in contrast to post-metamorphic stages. Juvenile and adult R. luteiventris
8 

are among the most mobile of western ranids and are capable of making extensive moves 

across terrestrial habitats (Engle, 2001; Pilliod and others, 2002; Funk and others, 2005). 

4. Most of the historical records used in this study were relatively recent. For example, 56 

percent of the R. luteiventris records in GeoBOB were observations since 2000; only 6 

percent were prior to 1990. Recent records are not as useful for determining long-term 

changes in status. 

Fundamental questions remain as to how R. luteiventris use and persist in dry, high desert 

landscapes with limited, lentic waters. Little is known about R. luteiventris breeding habitats and 

movement patterns in stream-dominated landscapes. Most research on amphibian population declines 

has focused on pond-breeding species and primary stressors, such as habitat loss/alteration and invasive 

species, which are better understood. We know little about stressors acting on species like R. luteiventris

in stream environments where invasive species appear less prevalent and where habitat alterations differ

from those affecting ponds and lakes. A better understanding of R. luteiventris ecology in streamassociated habitats is needed (for example, comparative use and recruitment in oxbows, side channels, 

and beaver impoundments; ability of adult frogs to find breeding sites and ability of populations to 

persist as habitats are reorganized with floods, changes in beaver structures, irrigation withdrawals, or 

local livestock grazing). We know that complex hydrological changes, such as changes in beaver use 

and stream incision are occurring in these habitats, and we lack understanding of the responses of R. 

luteiventris to these changes. 

Summary 

The Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) has one of the largest native ranges of any North 

American frog of the family Ranidae. The species is comprised of at least three genetic units. The Great 

Basin Distinct Population Segment (DPS) is found in Oregon, Idaho, and Nevada, and population 

declines in this region are suspected. We compiled a list of 42 sites on public lands in southeastern 

Oregon where there was evidence that Columbia spotted frog were historically present. We used Visual 

Encounter Surveys at Target and associated Alternate sites in summer 2009 to assess the presence of 

Columbia spotted frogs. We also quantified a suite of variables that relate to habitat suitability for this 

and other amphibian species. Columbia spotted frogs were found at 25 sites and 20 of these had 

evidence of breeding. Columbia spotted frogs were detected at 15 of 23 permanent streams and 8 of 13 

intermittent streams. It is possible that we missed frogs at some sites where they were present. Some 

historical records were imprecise about location or did not provide information sufficient to determine 

whether a breeding population had existed. For these reasons, the lack of detections at some of the sites 

on our list does not provide convincing evidence of a decline. The non-detections suggest a need for 

further study and monitoring of the Great Basin DPS. 
9 

Acknowledgments

This work was made possible by a grant from the Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species 

Program (ISSSSP). We thank our field crews for their persistence and attention to detail: Jeff Frederick, 

Ross Hinderer, Amanda Kissell, and Matt Kluber. We extend particular thanks to Matt Obradovich 

(Bureau of Land Management, BLM Burns District), Michelle Caviness, Martin Espil, and Shaney 

Rockefeller (BLM Vale District) and their co-workers for logistical support for the field sampling 

efforts: they were integral to the success of this project, and we greatly appreciate their involvement. We 

thank Char Corkran, Chris Funk, Matt Obradovich, Al St. John, and Cynthia Tait for sharing their field 

notes and observations. This report benefitted from information and comments provided by Cynthia 

Tait, Matt Obradovich, Char Corkran, Wendy Wente, Kelli Van Norman, and Rob Huff. Patricia 

Haggerty (USGS, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center) provided valuable GIS assistance. 

We thank the following people for information on herbicide application: Jesse Barnes (Harney County 

Weed Control), Will Lackey (Oregon Department of Transportation), Caryn Meinicke (BLM Burns), 

and Gary Page (Malheur County Weed/Vector Department).

References Cited

Adams, M.J., Chelgren, N.D., Reinitz, D., Cole, R.A., Rachowicz, L.J., Galvan, S.K., McCreary, B., 

Pearl, C.A., Bailey, L., Bettaso, J., Bull, E.L., and Leu, M., 2010, Using occupancy models to 

understand the distribution of an amphibian pathogen, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis: Ecological 

Applications, v. 20, p. 289-302. 

Bangs, B.L., and Jones, K.K., 2009, Distribution of amphibians in wadeable streams and ponds in 

western and southeast Oregon: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Information Reports Number 

2009-02. 

Bos, D.H., and Sites Jr., J.W., 2001, Phylogeography and conservation genetics of the Columbia spotted 

frog (Rana luteiventris; Amphibia, Ranidae): Molecular Ecology, v. 10, p. 1499–1513. 

Bull, E.L., and Marx, D.B., 2002, Influence of fish and habitat on amphibian communities in high 

elevation lakes of northeastern Oregon: Northwest Science, v. 76, p. 240–248. 

Corn, P.S., Stolzenburg, W., and Bury, R.B., 1989, Acid precipitation studies in Colorado and 

Wyoming: interim report of surveys of montane amphibians and water chemistry: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Biological Report 80 (40.26) Washington, DC, USA, 56 p. 

Davidson, C., Shaffer, H.B., and Jennings, M.R., 2002, Spatial tests of the pesticide drift, habitat 

destruction, UV-B, and climate-change hypotheses for California amphibian declines: Conservation 

Biology, v. 16, p. 1588-1601. 

Engle, J.C., 2001, Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris) 2001 Monitoring Report, Dry Creek, 

Oregon. Prepared for the Vale District Bureau of Land Management, 11 p. + appendices. 

Funk, W.C., Blouin, M.S., Corn, P.S., Maxell, B.A., Pilliod, D.S., Amish, S., and Allendorf, F.W., 

2005, Population structure of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) is strongly affected by the 

landscape: Molecular Ecology, v. 14, p. 483-496. 

Funk, W.C., Pearl, C.A., Draheim, H.M., Adams, M.J., Mullins, T.D., and Haig, S.M., 2008, Rangewide phylogenetic analysis of the spotted frog complex (Rana luteiventris and Rana pretiosa) in 

northwestern North America: Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, v. 49, p. 198-210. 
10

Hayes, M.P., 1997, 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 rangewide synopsis of 

the species’ status: Final report prepared for The Nature Conservancy under contract to U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, 57 p. + appendices. 

Homer, C., Huang, C., Yang, L., Wylie, B., and Coan, M., 2004, Development of a 2001 National 

Landcover Database for the United States: Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 70, 

p. 829-840. 

Leu, M., Hanser, S.E., and Knick, S.T., 2008, The human footprint in the West—A large-scale analysis 

of anthropogenic impacts: Ecological Applications, v. 18, no. 5, p. 1119-1139. 

Meyer, M., 2009, Columbia spotted frog monitoring report, Dry Creek, Oregon: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, LaGrande Field Office. LaGrande, Oregon, 39 p. + appendices, accessed September 13, 

2010, at 

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/FieldOffices/LaGrande/SpottedFrogMonitoring/default.asp

Munger, J.C., and Lingo, H., 2003, Reintroduction of beaver to aid restoration of the spotted frog 

population of Stoneman Creek: Report on the FY2001 and FY2002 research funded by a challenge 

cost share agreement between Boise State University and the Bureau of Land Management, Boise, 

Idaho, February 10, 2003, 7 p. 

Oertley, J., and Frazier, B.D., 2006, Spotted frog inventory of southern Oregon: Combined report for 

2005 and 2006: US Forest Service Report for Fremont-Winema National Forest, Klamath Falls, 

Oregon, 29 p. 

Pearl, C.A., Adams, M.J., Bury, R.B., Wente, W.H., and McCreary, B., 2009, Evaluating amphibian 

declines with site revisits and occupancy models: status of montane anurans in the Pacific Northwest 

USA: Diversity, v. 1, p. 166-181. 

Pilliod, D.S., and Peterson, C.R., 2001, Local and landscape effects of introduced trout on amphibians 

in historically fishless watersheds: Ecosystems, v. 4, p. 322-333. 

Pilliod, D.S., Peterson, C.R., and Ritson, P.I., 2002, Seasonal migration of Columbia spotted frogs 

(Rana luteiventris) among complementary resources in a high mountain basin: Canadian Journal of 

Zoology, v. 80, p. 1849-1862. 

Reaser, J.K., 2000, Demographic analyses of the Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris): case study 

in spatiotemporal variation: Canadian Journal of Zoology, v. 78, p. 1158-1167. 

Skelly, D.K., Yurewicz, K.L., Werner, E.E., and Relyea, R.A., 2003, Estimating decline and 

distributional change in amphibians: Conservation Biology, v. 17, p. 744-751. 

Smyth, M., 1998, Final Report B Spotted Frog Survey Project, Contract Order No. 1422H-030-P98-

0055: Three Rivers Resource Area, Oregon, Bureau of Land Management, Burns District. 

Smyth, M., 2000, Final Report B 2000 Spotted Frog Survey Project: Challenge Cost Share Agreement 

Order No. HBP000009: Burns District, Oregon, Bureau of Land Management Andrews Resource 

Area, 11 p. 

Smyth, M., 2001, Final Report – 2001 Spotted Frog Survey Project, Work Order No. HBP0000231: 

Burns District, Oregon, Bureau of Land Management Andrews Resource Area, 12 p. 

Smyth, M., 2002, Final Report – 2002 Spotted Frog Survey Project, Contract No. HBP010046: Burns 

District, Oregon, Bureau of Land Management – Andrews Resource Area, 8 p.

Smyth, M., 2004, Final Report – 2004 Spotted Frog Survey Project, Contract No. HBP040028: Burns 

District, Oregon, Bureau of Land Management – Andrews Resource Area, 8 p.

St. John, A.D., 1994, The Spotted frog in the Lakeview District of Oregon: Prepared for the Bureau of 

Land Management Lakeview District Office, Coordinated by The Nature Conservancy Oregon Field 

Office, 14 p. + Appendices. 
11

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009, Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form for the 

Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris): Sacramento, California, Great Basin DPS, Region 8, 47 p. 

Available only online at http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candforms_pdf/r8/D027_V01.pdf. 

Wente, W.H., Adams, M.J., and Pearl, C.A., 2005, Evidence of decline for Bufo boreas and Rana 

luteiventris in and around the northern Great Basin, western USA: Alytes, v. 22, p. 95-108. 
12

Figure 1. Map showing Target and Incidental sites surveyed for Rana luteiventris in southeastern Oregon, 2009. 

Site numbers correspond to those shown in tables 1 and 2. 
13

Figure 2. Map showing Target and Incidental sites surveyed for Rana luteiventris around Steens Mountain, 2009. 

Number in parentheses is Site No. shown in tables 1 and 2.
14

Figure 3. Map showing Target and Incidental sites surveyed for Rana luteiventris around Silver Creek, 2009. 

Number in parentheses is Site No. shown in tables 1 and 2.
15

Figure 4. Map showing Target and Incidental sites surveyed for Rana luteiventris around Upper Malheur 

tributaries, 2009. Number in parentheses is Site No. shown in tables 1 and 2. 
16

Figure 5. Map showing Target and Incidental sites surveyed for Rana luteiventris around Dry Creek, 2009. 

Number in parentheses is Site No. shown in tables 1 and 2
17

(A) 

0

5

10

15

0 <5 10 15 20 25 30 More

Number of R. luteiventris adults at sites 

where we found the species in 2009

Frequency

(B) 

0

5

10

15

<10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 More

Number of R. luteiventris (all stages) at sites 

where we found the species in 2009

Frequency

Figure 6. Graphs showing numbers of Rana luteiventris detected at sites in southeastern Oregon, 2009: (A) 

adults, (B) total of all life stages. Y-axes are numbers of sites within each abundance category.
18

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Not Found Found

Elevation (m)

Figure 7. Graph showing elevation at sites with and without detections of Rana luteiventris in southeastern 

Oregon, 2009.
19

Table 1. Attributes of Target and Incidental sites surveyed for Rana luteiventris in southeastern Oregon, 2009.

[Site No.: Site locations are shown in figure 1. Target site ownership: BLM, Bureau of Land Management; USFS, U.S. Forest Service; USFWS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; NWR, National Wildlife Refuge; NF, National Forest; parenthetical text refers to the BLM district, national forest, or national wildlife refuge in which the site is 

located. Elevation is in meters above sea level. Site coordinates are in the North American 1983 datum]

Site

No. Site name

Number of 

Alternate sites

Survey 

type Target site ownership County Elevation

UTM

East

UTM

North UTM zone Site type

1 00 Spring 1 target USFWS (Malheur 

NWR)

Harney 1,257 311775 4794522 11 permanent stream

2 Alder Creek 2 target BLM (Burns) Harney 1,484 381841 4813121 11 marsh/wetland

3 Bear Creek 0 target USFS (Malheur NF) Grant 1,528 399121 4890532 11 permanent stream

4 Bendire Creek 1 target BLM (Vale) Malheur 1,227 412757 4874599 11 intermittent stream

5 Bendire Creek 

Slough

0 target BLM (Vale) Malheur 1,147 411433 4870269 11 permanent stream

6 Big Trout Creek1 1 target BLM (Burns) Harney 2,351 396625 4652184 11 permanent stream

7 Bridge Creek 0 target USFWS (Malheur 

NWR)

Harney 1,275 348098 4745482 11 intermittent stream

8 Butte Creek 0 target BLM (Vale) Malheur 1,210 441383 4816893 11 intermittent stream

9 Calf Creek 0 target BLM (Vale) Malheur 902 421063 4849982 11 permanent stream

10 Camp Creek 2 target BLM (Burns) Harney 1,557 385724 4769565 11 permanent stream

11 Castro Springs 

Reservoir

0 target BLM (Vale) Malheur 1,460 488979 4734710 11 lake

12 Claw Creek 1 target BLM (Burns) Harney 1,474 296333 4849239 11 intermittent stream

13 Coburn Creek 0 target BLM (Vale) Malheur 1,457 492374 4732208 11 permanent stream

14 Crane Creek 0 target BLM (Burns) Harney 1,608 379061 4818722 11 intermittent stream

15 Dry Creek 0 target State of Oregon Malheur 1,218 443708 4817964 11 permanent stream

16 Dry Creek – below 

Indian Trails

0 target BLM (Vale) Malheur 1,111 449592 4816799 11 permanent stream

17 Dry Creek – Hurley 

Flat

0 target BLM (Vale) Malheur 1,097 454385 4819448 11 intermittent stream
20

Site

No. Site name

Number of 

Alternate sites

Survey 

type Target site ownership County Elevation

UTM

East

UTM

North UTM zone Site type

18 Dry Creek – Hurley 

Flat Incidental

0 incidental BLM (Vale) Malheur 1,110 454343 4820290 11 cattle trough

19 Dry Creek – King 

Brown Cabin

0 target BLM (Vale) Malheur 1,214 440678 4817220 11 intermittent stream

20 Fish Lake and 

Slough

3 target State of Oregon Harney 2,247 365218 4733049 11 lake

21 Grove Creek 0 target BLM (Burns) Harney 2,203 362756 4730986 11 permanent stream

22 Hog Creek 1 0 target BLM (Vale) Malheur 911 439255 4850855 11 permanent stream

23 Kingsbury Gulch 0 target BLM (Vale) Malheur 1,007 405768 4847219 11 intermittent stream

24 Lily Lake 2 target BLM (Burns) Harney 2,214 363750 4733885 11 pond

25 Little Fish Creek 1 target BLM (Burns) Harney 2,143 362907 4729704 11 intermittent stream

26 Little Malheur River 0 target USFS (Malheur NF) Grant 1,468 399777 4899217 11 permanent stream

27 McCoy Creek 

Incidental

0 incidental BLM (Burns) Harney 2,220 365713 4735413 11 pond

28 McCoy Creek 

Meadow

3 target BLM (Burns) Harney 2,062 366771 4735384 11 marsh/wetland

29 McCoy Creek 

Upper

2 target BLM (Burns) Harney 2,164 367094 4732861 11 permanent stream

30 Mud Creek 1 target USFWS (Malheur 

NWR)

Harney 1,280 348306 4744549 11 permanent stream

31 Nicoll Creek 0 target BLM (Burns) Harney 1,359 284209 4840414 11 permanent stream

32 Page Springs 0 target BLM (Burns) Harney 1,292 347258 4741191 11 intermittent stream

33 Parsnip Creek 0 target BLM (Lakeview) Lake 1,626 743605 4677945 10 permanent stream

34 Rail Canyon 1 1 target BLM (Vale) Malheur 1,390 418692 4889554 11 permanent stream

35 Rail Canyon 4 2 target BLM (Vale) Malheur 1,460 417613 4891427 11 intermittent stream

36 Rattlesnake Creek 1 target BLM (Burns) Harney 1,402 354884 4842465 11 permanent stream

37 Rough Creek 0 target BLM (Burns) Harney 1,380 285914 4841598 11 permanent stream

38 SF Malheur near 

Crane Creek

Confluence

0 target BLM (Burns) Harney 1,119 395993 4801940 11 permanent stream
21

Site

No. Site name

Number of 

Alternate sites

Survey 

type Target site ownership County Elevation

UTM

East

UTM

North UTM zone Site type

39 SF Squaw Creek 1 target BLM (Vale) Malheur 958 441461 4841637 11 intermittent stream

40 Silver Creek 4150 

bridge

0 target BLM (Burns) Harney 1,363 287570 4842115 11 permanent stream

41 Silver Creek 

Incidental

0 incidental USFS (Ochoco NF) Harney 1,514 284253 4863327 11 permanent stream

42 Silver Creek Lower 

MNWR

2 target USFWS (Malheur 

NWR)

Harney 1,252 317583 4794355 11 permanent stream

43 Silver Creek RNA 0 target BLM (Burns) Harney 1,382 288643 4846768 11 permanent stream

44 Skull Creek 0 target BLM (Vale) Malheur 1,301 435535 4816569 11 intermittent stream

45 Willow Creek 

Reservoir 1

0 target BLM (Vale) Malheur 1,472 487563 4737015 11 lake

1

These are sites for which we have concerns about the validity of the original R. luteiventris records or the location of our survey relative to the historical record.
22

Table 2. Summary of Rana luteiventris detections for Target and Incidental sites, southeastern Oregon, 2009.

[Site No.: Site locations are shown in figure 1. Target site ownership: BLM, Bureau of Land Management; USFS, U.S. Forest Service; USFWS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; NWR, National Wildlife Refuge; NF, National Forest; parenthetical text refers to the BLM district, national forest, or national wildlife refuge in which the site is 

located]

Number of Rana luteiventris found1

Site 

No. Site name

No. of

Alternate 

sites Survey type Target site ownership Adults Juveniles

Larvae/

metamorphs Notes

1 00 Spring 1 target USFWS (Malheur NWR) 0 0 0 More surveys warranted

2 Alder Creek 2 target BLM (Burns) 1 0 1

3 Bear Creek 0 target USFS (Malheur NF) 18 12 1 Heavy grazing

4 Bendire Creek 1 target BLM (Vale) 0 0 0 30 frogs here in 1994

5 Bendire Creek Slough 0 target BLM (Vale) 0 1 0

6 Big Trout Creek2 1 target BLM (Burns) 0 0 0 

7 Bridge Creek 0 target USFWS (Malheur NWR) 4 2 0 

8 Butte Creek 0 target BLM (Vale) 1 8 0

9 Calf Creek 0 target BLM (Vale) 21 1 2

10 Camp Creek 2 target BLM (Burns) 0 0 0 

11 Castro Springs Reservoir 0 target BLM (Vale) 3 32 0 Appears isolated

12 Claw Creek 1 target BLM (Burns) 3 2 0

13 Coburn Creek 0 target BLM (Vale) 6 14 0 

14 Crane Creek 0 target BLM (Burns) 0 0 0

15 Dry Creek 0 target State of Oregon 13 138 0

16 Dry Creek – below Indian 

Trails

0 target BLM (Vale) 4 50 0 

17 Dry Creek – Hurley Flat 0 target BLM (Vale) 0 0 0 Dry

18 Dry Creek – Hurley Flat 

Incidental

0 incidental BLM (Vale) 0 0 0 

19 Dry Creek – King Brown Cabin 0 target BLM (Vale) 7+ 63+ 0
23

Number of Rana luteiventris found1

Site 

No. Site name

No. of

Alternate 

sites Survey type Target site ownership Adults Juveniles

Larvae/

metamorphs Notes

20 Fish Lake and Slough 3 target State of Oregon 0 0 0 Many historical records, 

heavy recreation, fish

21 Grove Creek 0 target BLM (Burns) 2 0 0

22 Hog Creek2 0 target BLM (Vale) 0 0 0

23 Kingsbury Gulch 0 target BLM (Vale) 1 1 0 

24 Lily Lake 2 target BLM (Burns) 3 0 0 Frogs 1 km from target site

25 Little Fish Creek 1 target BLM (Burns) 2 0 ~100 Active beaver

26 Little Malheur River 0 target USFS (Malheur NF) 10 0 0 

27 McCoy Creek Incidental 0 incidental BLM (Burns) 0 0 0 

28 McCoy Creek Meadow 3 target BLM (Burns) 0 0 0 Historical breeding

29 McCoy Creek Upper 2 target BLM (Burns) 0 0 0 Loss of beaver

30 Mud Creek 1 target USFWS (Malheur NWR) 1 1 1 

31 Nicoll Creek 0 target BLM (Burns) 13 3 1

32 Page Springs 0 target BLM (Burns) 1 4 0

33 Parsnip Creek 0 target BLM (Lakeview) 2 5 0 

34 Rail Canyon 1 1 target BLM (Vale) 0 0 0 Historical breeding, 

Loss of beaver

35 Rail Canyon 4 2 target BLM (Vale) 0 0 0 

36 Rattlesnake Creek 1 target BLM (Burns) 0 0 0 

37 Rough Creek 0 target BLM (Burns) 2 0 0

38 SF Malheur near Crane Creek 

Confluence

0 target BLM (Burns) 1 0 0 

39 SF Squaw Creek 1 target BLM (Vale) 0 0 0 Target reach dry

40 Silver Creek 4150 bridge 0 target BLM (Burns) 8 0 0 

41 Silver Creek Incidental 0 incidental USFS (Ochoco NF) 7 7 ~50

42 Silver Creek Lower MNWR 2 target USFWS (Malheur NWR) 0 0 0
24

Number of Rana luteiventris found1

Site 

No. Site name

No. of

Alternate 

sites Survey type Target site ownership Adults Juveniles

Larvae/

metamorphs Notes

43 Silver Creek RNA 0 target BLM (Burns) 8 20 1 Active beaver

44 Skull Creek 0 target BLM (Vale) 21 0 0 

45 Willow Creek Reservoir2 0 target BLM (Vale) 0 0 0 Target inaccessible

1

Numbers include animals found at both the Target and any Alternate sites surveyed.

2

These are sites for which we have concerns about the validity of the original R. luteiventris records or the location of our survey relative to the historical record.
25

Table 3. Detections of Rana luteiventris by habitat type for Target and Incidental sites in southeastern Oregon, 

2009. 

[See text for definitions of habitat types]

Habitat type Detected Not detected Total

Target sites

Permanent stream 15 8 23

Intermittent stream 8 5 13

Lake/reservoir 1 2 3 

Pond/wetland 1 2 3

Total 25 17 42

Incidental sites

Permanent stream 1 0 1

Intermittent stream 0 0 0

Lake/reservoir 0 0 0

Pond/wetland 0 2 2

Total 1 2 3 
26

Appendix A. Descriptions of Target, Alternate, and Incidental Surveys

The following descriptions include survey results and other notes from field visits for each 

Target, Alternate, and Incidental site. Site numbers correspond to those in tables 1 and 2 and figures 1–

5. 
27

1. 00 Spring

Site information: USFWS, Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Harney County, OR; elevation 1,257 m. 

Historical Records: 

1. 6/29/1939, 1 adult, 3 juvenile, 16 larval R. luteiventris collected by R.R. and R.G. Miller 

(UMMZ # 0 86099). 

2. 08/17/1993, 30 adult R. luteiventris (observer = Bowers; source = G. Keister, ODFW). 

Survey Results: Target and Alternate sites were surveyed on 6/15/09. No R. luteiventris were detected 

at Target or Alternate sites.

We surveyed approximately 500 m 

along the Target site, which was 

characterized as a permanent stream 

impounded with a gravel road and 

culvert. Riparian vegetation was 

characterized as willow/deciduous 

shrub. No livestock was observed 

during survey. There was no evidence 

of beaver activity. Fish and crayfish 

were observed. 

We scored habitat variables on nine 

paired plots; data were not collected 

from one of the terrestrial plots due to 

exceedingly dense vegetation. Bank 

height averaged 0.75 ± 0.17 m (mean 

± standard deviation) (range 0.5-1 m). 

Cow pats were found on three of eight terrestrial plots (averaged 0.4 ± 0.5, range 0-1 per plot). 

Disturbance on terrestrial plots was of past fire (three plots). Vegetation cover on aquatic plots averaged 

23.9 ± 29.9 percent (range 5-100 percent). Wetted width averaged 43.3 ± 24.5 m (range 20-80 m). 

Maximum water depths on aquatic plots averaged 0.6 ± 0.2 m (0.35-0.8 m). Dominant substrate on eight 

of nine aquatic plots was silt.

00 Spring, Alternate 1: Alternate site is associated with Barnyard Spring, and is located ca. 1 km 

southeast of the Target site. The site was an impounded wetland, with exposed mud flats and limited 

riparian vegetation outside of the area inundated at the time of survey. We did not take pH 

measurements on site, but the crew wondered whether the site could be saline or alkaline, based on the 

exposed flats and lack of vegetation. Site was within 50 m of gravel road; no livestock were observed. 

No R. luteiventris found. 

Remarks: Target site and surroundings supported dense local stands of bulrush (Scirpus). This may 

have reduced efficiency of visual encounter surveys. There was extensive potential habitat around the 

Target site that we did not survey; the low topographic relief in this area suggests that the amount and 

type of wetland habitat may vary significantly with water year.
28

Because of the extensive habitat in the area, the limited scope of our survey, and the potential 

difficulties with frog detection in habitats like this, with dense vegetation and deep water, we are 

hesitant to conclude that this site is unoccupied by R. luteiventris. We recommend additional surveys in 

this area, and inspections for egg masses may be particularly helpful since they precede most vegetation 

growth.
29

2. 

Site information: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Burns Resource Area, Harney County, OR, 

elevation 1,484 m. 

Alder Creek

Historical Records: 

1. 7/31/2004, 1 adult R. luteiventris observed at north end of meadow (Smyth, 2004). 

2. 8/2/2007, R. luteiventris (no count or life stage data) by ODFW fisheries survey (Bangs and 

Jones, 2009) 

Survey Results: Target and Alternate sites were surveyed on 6/27/09. We found 1 R. luteiventris

tadpole in the target reach of Alder Creek, near an old beaver dam. We found 1 adult female R. 

luteiventris in Alternate 2 (downstream of Target). 

Target site was marsh/wetland in a broad 

floodplain (up to 150 m). Main riparian 

vegetation was willow/deciduous shrub, 

and mostly very shallow water (less than 5 

cm). Some water impounded behind each 

of several old beaver dams, but no 

evidence of current or recent beaver 

activity was recorded. Livestock (1-5) 

were observed in the area. No roads were 

recorded within 0.5 km of site. 

We scored habitat variables on three 

paired plots. Bank heights averaged 0.03 ± 

0.06 m (range 0-0.1 m). We recorded no 

cow pats or disturbance of soil or 

vegetation on terrestrial plots. Aquatic 

plots had high coverage of vegetation (average 93.3 ± 11.5 percent; range 80-100 percent). Sedges were 

the dominant plant on all aquatic plots. Wetted width averaged 2.2 ± 2.2 m (range 0.25-4.5 m). 

Maximum depth on aquatic plots averaged 0.3 ± 0.2 (range 0.18-0.6 m). Silt was the dominant substrate 

on all aquatic plots. 

Alder Creek Alternate 1: This is the reach of Alder Creek immediately upstream of the Target reach. 

Habitat was characterized as a narrow intermittent stream (ca. 1-m wide). No evidence of beaver or 

impounded water reported. Primary riparian vegetation was willow/deciduous shrub. 1-5 livestock 

observed in area. No roads were recorded within 0.5 km of site. We found no R. luteiventris. 

Alder Creek Alternate 2: This is the reach of Alder Creek immediately downstream of the Target 

reach. Habitat was characterized as a narrow permanent stream (ca. 1-m wide). Proximal vegetation was 

sage. No evidence of beaver or impounded water reported in this reach. 1-5 livestock observed in area. 

No roads were recorded within 0.5 km of site. We found one adult female R. luteiventris (79 mm, 38.6 

g) at the site.
30

Remarks: Our single day survey indicates that there was a small population breeding in the area in 

2009. We conducted surveys of alternate sections of the creek because we had time and found only one

animal during Target survey.
31

3. 

Site information: USDA Forest Service (Malheur National Forest), Grant County, OR, elevation 1,528 

m.

Bear Creek

Historical Records: 

8/9/2007, R. luteiventris (no data on numbers or life stages) detected by ODFW fisheries survey crew 

(Bangs and Jones, 2009) 

Survey Results: Target site surveyed on 7/21/09; we found 18 adult, 12 juvenile, and 1 larval R. 

luteiventris. 

Target site was permanent stream (average 2 

m width). Riparian vegetation was mainly 

sage; upland vegetation was mainly 

Ponderosa pine. No livestock were seen 

during survey. Target reach was less than 50 

m from a dirt road. There were six small log 

dams in the survey reach, each of which 

impounded a very small amount of creek. 

We found no evidence of beaver activity. 

We did observe fish and garter snakes on the 

Target reach.

We scored habitat variables on seven paired 

plots. Bank height averaged 1.2 ± 1.4 m 

(range 0.2-4 m). Cow pats were present on 

all seven plots (average 4.3 ± 3.0; range 1-10 

per plot). We noted evidence of terrestrial substrate disturbance on four of seven plots (2 trampling, 1 

flooding, 1 tire track). Vegetation coverage on aquatic plots averaged 37.9 ± 24.8 percent (range 20-75 

percent). Sedges were the dominant cover in six of seven aquatic plots. Wetted width of stream 

averaged 5.0 ± 4.7 m (range 1.5-15 m). Maximum depth on aquatic plots averaged 0.4 ± 0.1 m (range 

0.2-0.6 m). We encountered R. luteiventris in two of seven plots. 

Remarks: We found R. luteiventris relatively evenly spread across the whole survey reach. The 

abundance of adults and presence of all life stages suggest a relatively robust local population of 

breeding R. luteiventris in 2009. Most of these juvenile frogs were recently transformed. 
32

4. 

Site information: BLM Vale Resource Area, Malheur County, OR, elevation 1,227 m. 

Bendire Creek

Historical Records: 

1. 9/1/1994, 15 adult, 8 subadult, and 7 R. luteiventris with no stage specified (C. Tait)

2. 7/2/2008, 2 adult male R. luteiventris (Funk and others, 2008; USGS unpublished) 

Survey Results: Target site and Alternate sites were surveyed on 7/25/09; we found no R. luteiventris at 

Target or Alternate sites.

Habitat was characterized as intermittent 

stream with cobble and gravel substrate 

and no impoundments in survey reach. 

Riparian vegetation was dominated by 

grasses; upland vegetation was mainly 

sage. No livestock were seen during 

survey. The Target reach was within 50 

m of a dirt road, which crosses the stream 

within the survey reach. We saw no 

evidence of beaver activity in Target

reach. Habitat upstream of the survey 

reach was mostly dry creek bed, with no 

impoundments or signs of beaver 

activity. 

We scored habitat variables on nine 

paired plots. Bank height averaged 1.2 ± 1.1 m (range 0.2-4 m). Cow pats were present on all plots 

(average 6.2 ± 3.8, range 1-13 per plot). Six of nine (66 percent) terrestrial plots had some disturbance, 

including livestock trampling (3 plots) and flooding (2 plots). Vegetation cover on aquatic plots 

averaged 37.8 ± 24.9 percent (range 20-100 percent). Sedges were the most common dominant plant (5 

plots). Wetted width averaged 1.6 ± 0.5 m (range 0.45-2.3 m). Maximum depths on aquatic plots 

averaged 0.2 ± 0.1 m (range 0.07-0.28 m). Cobble was the dominant substrate in eight aquatic plots. 

We found Pacific treefrog (Pseudacris regilla) tadpoles (n = 25) and juveniles (~ 25 individuals) in the 

survey reach. Garter snakes and trout were also seen.

Bendire Creek Alternate 1: We surveyed about 750 m of Bendire Creek immediately downstream of 

the Target reach. Habitat was characterized as a narrow permanent stream (ca. 1 m wide). The narrow 

band of riparian vegetation was mainly grass (Poaceae). Upland vegetation was mainly sage. This reach 

had no impoundments. No roads were recorded within 0.5 km of site. We did not detect livestock or 

evidence of beaver during the survey. No R. luteiventris were found. Pacific treefrogs (Pseudacris 

regilla) were common (~25 each of metamorphic and juvenile stages). We found one garter snake and 

one gopher snake.
33

Remarks: There is an additional record of R. luteiventris from ca. 3 km east of Bendire Creek near 

Wilson Spring (C. Tait, 9/1/1994; no life stage specified). That site is associated with Willow Creek, a 

tributary of Bendire Creek, and was described as “shallow, degraded creek with thick algal mats, no 

riparian vegetation”. The Target reach on Bendire Creek is approximately 5 km north and upstream of 

the ‘Bendire Creek Slough’ Target site. Murphy Reservoir occupies approximately 1.2 km of the creek 

valley between the two Target sites.
34

5. 

Site information: BLM Vale Resource Area, Malheur County, OR, elevation 1,147 m. 

Bendire Creek Slough

Historical Records: 

6/22/1995, 3 juvenile, 3 subadult R. luteiventris (C. Tait, L. Hatley).

Survey Results: Target site surveyed on 7/25/09. We found 1 juvenile R. luteiventris (38 mm, 4.7 g). 

The Target site was specifically identified as the 

slough at the confluence of Bendire Creek and 

an unnamed tributary that enters from the west. 

The Target slough itself was dry. We surveyed 

approximately 450 m of Bendire Creek (average 

width 1.5 m) around the location of the slough, 

but could not get past a rock slide. Riparian 

vegetation was mainly deciduous shrubs (alder); 

upland vegetation is mainly sage. We found no 

impoundments or roads within 50 m of the 

Target site. No livestock seen during survey. 

We scored habitat variables on eight paired 

plots. Bank height averaged 3.8 ± 3.5 m (range 

1-12 m). Cow pats were found on seven plots (average 0.6 ± 1.1 per plot; range 0-3). Evidence of 

disturbance was noted on three of eight terrestrial plots. Vegetation coverage on aquatic plots averaged 

20.6 ± 14.5 percent (range 5-50 percent of plot). Dominant vegetation types were sedges (4 plots) and 

grasses (3 plots). Wetted width averaged 5.2 ± 3.3 m (range 2-12 m). Maximum depth on aquatic plots 

averaged 0.6 ± 0.2 m (range 0.2-0.9 m). Cobble was the dominant substrate on seven of eight aquatic 

plots. 

Remarks: This site is south and downstream of the Bendire Creek Target site by approximately 5 km. 

Murphy Reservoir is ca. 1 km upstream of Target reach. USGS surveys of this area in 2002 and 2003 

did not detect R. luteiventris (Wente and others, 2005; USGS unpublished). The low numbers of frogs 

encountered in this area in recent years suggest a low number of breeding adults or that frogs may be 

moving through this reach from breeding habitat further afield. Additional surveys are needed to 

identify potential breeding sites and to clarify status of R. luteiventris in the vicinity.
35

6. 

Site information: BLM (Burns), Harney County, OR, elevation 2,351 m. 

Big Trout Creek

Historical Records: 

Observation in BLM files from one year between 2003 and 2006. 

Survey Results: Target and Alternate sites surveyed on 8/22/09. We found no R. luteiventris.

Target site is a permanent stream (average 

width 1 m), with relatively fast flow. 

Target bounded by private land at upper 

boundary. Riparian vegetation was mainly 

sedges; upland vegetation was mainly sage. 

We observed no impoundments or 

evidence of beaver activity. No livestock 

were observed. Target reach was within 50 

m of a 2-track (ATV) dirt road. We 

observed garter snakes and trout in the 

survey reach. We were not able to assess 

upstream habitat due to private land. 

We scored habitat variables on seven

paired plots. Bank height averaged 0.8 ± 

0.4 (range 0.4-1.5 m). Cow pats were 

found on all seven plots (average 3.6 ± 2.1, range 1-8 per plot). Evidence of disturbance was found on 

two terrestrial plots (tire tracks, grazing/flooding). Vegetation cover on aquatic plots was low (average 

7.9 ± 5.7 percent, range 5- 20 percent); sedges were the dominant cover on six of seven plots. Wetted 

width of stream averaged 1.4 ± 0.9 m (range 0.5-3.1 m). Maximum depth on aquatic plots averaged 0.1 

± 0.1 m (range 0.04-0.15 m). Cobble was the dominant substrate on six plots. 

Big Trout Creek Alternate 1: We surveyed ca. 750 m immediately downstream of the Target reach. 

Habitat was similar to Target reach – stream was permanent, shallow (ca 0.1 m), narrow (ca. 1 m), and 

cool (~ 18°C), with relatively fast moving water and cobble and boulder substrate. Many trout were 

present in this reach. There was little vegetation in water other than bases of sedges. We did not observe 

livestock, impoundments, or signs of beaver activity in this reach. There was a gravel road within 50 m 

of this reach near its downstream end. We found no R. luteiventris. 

Remarks: The cold fast-flowing water, high trout density, and lack of warm, still, off-channel habitat 

makes this reach of Big Trout Creek unfavorable as breeding habitat for R. luteiventris. No photographs 

and few details were available on the historical observation, so it is difficult to confirm that the site was 

ever occupied by R. luteiventris. Biologist M. Obradovich (BLM) indicated this report was an anecdotal 

observation by a BLM employee before they started work with the agency. A follow-up visit by BLM in 

2008 failed to find frogs or habitat that was particularly suitable for R. luteiventris. 
36

7. 

Site information: USFWS (Malheur National Wildlife Refuge), Harney County, OR, elevation 1,275 

m.

Bridge Creek

Historical Records: 

a. 5/11/02, 1 adult R. luteiventris (Wente and others, 2005; USGS, unpublished); 

b. 8/12/03, 2 adult, 5 larval R. luteiventris (Wente and others, 2005; USGS, unpublished). 

Survey Results: Target site surveyed on 6/5/09. We found 4 adult and 2 juvenile R. luteiventris. 

Target site was characterized as pools within an 

intermittent stream. Riparian vegetation was 

mainly deciduous shrub (willows); upland 

vegetation was mainly sage. No impoundments 

or livestock in reach during survey. A gravel 

road parallels the site immediately next to the 

site for the length of survey reach less than 25 

m. There is a canal on other side of road. No 

evidence of beaver activity.

We scored habitat variables on six paired plots. 

Bank height averaged 1.1 ± 0.6 m (range 0.5-1.7 

m). We found cow pats on one plot (average 0.3 

± 0.8, range 0-2 per plot). Disturbance noted on 

three terrestrial plots (associated with road or 

erosion). Vegetation coverage on aquatic plots averaged 55.0 ± 25.9 percent (range 20-90 percent); 

rushes (Juncus sp.) were the dominant plant on six of seven plots. Wetted width averaged 5.8 ± 2.3 m 

(range 2-7.5 m). Maximum depth averaged 0.3± 0.2 m (range 0.15-0.65 m). The dominant substrate on 

all six aquatic plots was silt. 

Remarks: Air (14-17° C) and water (11-13° C) temperatures were low during our survey, so frog 

detectability was probably low. This site is within 1 km of Mud Creek (a Target site) and it is likely that 

R. luteiventris adults and juveniles can move within this complex (hydrologically connected, open flat 

topography, moist soil units). Bridge Creek, Mud Creek, and Page Springs may be the peripheral 

remnants of a much broader historical population along the western foot of Steens Mountain. Additional 

surveys in the habitats in between these three sites could improve our understanding of connectivity 

among them. 
37

8. 

Site information: BLM (Vale), Malheur County, OR, elevation 1,210 m. 

Butte Creek

Historical Records: 

7/1/2003, 1 R. luteiventris (no life stage provided) (Dick Brainerd) 

Survey Results: Target site surveyed on 8/7/09. We found 1 adult and 28 juvenile R. luteiventris.

Target site characterized as intermittent 

stream (average width 1.5 m); 

approximately 65 percent of Target reach 

had standing water. Butte Creek flows into 

Dry Creek near the bottom of the Target

reach. Riparian vegetation was mainly 

grasses and sage; upland vegetation was 

mainly sage. No livestock in Target reach at 

time of survey, but evidence of past 

livestock on and upstream of the reach. We 

found no impoundments or evidence of 

beaver in the Target reach. There was a 2-

track (ATV) dirt road within 50 m of much 

of the Target reach. There are mining claims 

upstream of survey reach where stream bed 

was completely dry. We observed fish in 

Target reach but were not able to identify them.

We scored habitat variables on five paired plots. Bank height averaged 0.4 ± 0.2 m (range 0.1-0.7 m). 

Cow pats (many fresh) were found on all five plots (average 14.4 ± 5.7, range 6-21 per plot). All five 

terrestrial plots showed grazing and trampling disturbance. Vegetation cover on aquatic plots averaged 

51.0 ± 32.1 percent (range 10-85 percent); dominant taxa were algae (2 plots), duckweed (2 plots), and 

sedges (1 plot). Wetted width (water levels were high, perhaps due to recent rain) averaged 4.2 ±1.5 m 

(range 1.7-5.5 m). Maximum depth averaged 0.2 ± 0.1 m (range 0.13 –0.45 m). Dominant substrate on 

four aquatic plots was cobble. We encountered R. luteiventris in two plots. 

Remarks: None
38

9. 

Site information: BLM (Vale), Malheur County, OR, elevation 902 m 

Calf Creek

Historical Records:

1. 8/23/77, “Many” R. luteiventris recorded during BLM Fisheries Inventory (no counts or life 

stages provided); 

2. 7/12/07, R. luteiventris detected (no counts or life stages) by ODFW fisheries survey (Bangs and 

Jones, 2009) 

Survey Results: Target site surveyed on 7/9/09. We found 21 adult (12 female, 9 male), one 

metamorphic, and two larval R. luteiventris. 

The Target site was a permanent stream 

(average width 1.5 m). Riparian vegetation 

was mainly deciduous shrub. Upland 

vegetation was mainly sage. We observed 

no impoundments or signs of beaver 

activity on Target reach. Livestock were not 

observed during the survey. Target reach 

was not within 50 m of road. Our visual 

inspection of the creek upstream of the 

Target reach did not reveal any 

impoundments or sign of beaver activity; 

the stream channel became a series of 

disconnected pools. We observed crayfish 

and Pacific treefrogs (Pseudacris regilla; 4 

juvenile, 5 larval, 6 adult). 

We scored habitat variables on nine paired plots. Bank height averaged 1.6 ± 0.8 m (range 0.25-3.0 m). 

We recorded cow pats on seven of nine plots (average 2.7 ± 2.3, range 0-6 per plot). Six terrestrial plots 

showed disturbance by grazing and/or livestock trampling. Vegetation cover on aquatic plots averaged 

45.0 ± 32.0 percent (range 5-90 percent); horsetails (Equisetum sp.) were dominant on three plots. 

Wetted width averaged 4.4 ± 5.9 m (range 0.85-20 m). Maximum depth on aquatic plots averaged 0.3 ± 

0.2 m (range 0.09- 0.6 m). Cobble was the dominant substrate size on seven of nine plots. We found R. 

luteiventris on two of nine plots. 

Remarks: None.
39

10. 

Site information: BLM (Burns), Harney County, OR, elevation 1,557 m 

Camp Creek

Historical Records: 

7/9/2007, R. luteiventris (no counts or life stage data) detected during ODFW fisheries survey (Bangs and 

Jones, 2009). 

Survey Results: Target and Alternate sites surveyed on 6/28/09. We found no R. luteiventris. 

 

Target site was a permanent stream (average 

width 1 m). Riparian vegetation was mainly 

grasses; upland vegetation was mainly sage. 

No impoundments were found in the Target 

reach. We observed no livestock during our 

survey. The Target reach was within 50 m of a 

dirt road. We found no evidence of beaver 

activity. We found three larval and one adult 

Pseudacris regilla in the Target reach. The 

reach immediately upstream of Target was 

very shallow and rocky (see Alternate Site 1).

We scored habitat variables on six paired 

plots. Bank height averaged 1.2 ± 0.7 (range 

0.5-2 m). Cow pats were detected on five plots 

(averaged 4.7 ± 5.8, range 0-13 per plot). 

Disturbance (soil trampling or grazing) was 

evident on five terrestrial plots. Vegetation cover on aquatic plots averaged 30.0 ± 20.0 percent (range 10-60 

percent); algae scored as dominant cover on five of six plots. Wetted width averaged 1.7 ± 0.8 m (range 1-3 

m). Maximum depth averaged 0.2 ± 0.1 m (range 0.15-0.23 m). Cobble was the dominant substrate on four 

of six aquatic plots. We encountered P. regilla on two plots.

Camp Creek Alternate 1: We surveyed approximately 330 m of Camp Creek immediately upstream of the 

Target reach. This reach appeared to have permanent water. Riparian vegetation was mainly grasses; upland 

vegetation was mainly juniper and sage. We found no impoundments or evidence of beaver activity. No 

livestock were observed. A dirt road was less than 50 m from this reach. We found no R. luteiventris. 

Camp Creek Alternate 2: We surveyed approximately 430 m of Camp Creek immediately downstream of 

Target reach. This reach had permanent water. Riparian vegetation was mainly grasses; upland vegetation 

was mainly juniper and sage. We found no impoundments or evidence of beaver activity. No livestock were 

observed. A dirt road was less than 50 m from this reach. We found P. regilla throughout the shallow, 

slower parts of this reach. We found no R. luteiventris. 

Remarks: We found very little slower, off-channel habitat in these sections of Camp Creek. This site was 

relatively isolated from our other historical records. 
40

11. 

Site Information: BLM (Vale), Malheur County, OR, elevation 1,460 m. 

Castro Springs Reservoir

Historical Records: 

1. 8/15/1995, 2 adult, 1 subadult R. luteiventris (C. Tait, A. Bammann ) 

2. 9/5/1995, 16 adult and juvenile R. luteiventris (C. Tait, A. Bammann) 

3. 5/8/1996, 7 egg masses and some larvae (C. Tait) 

4. 9/06/2000, 2 adult, 10 juvenile R. luteiventris (C. Tait)

5. 9/06/2000, 2 adult, 18 juvenile R. luteiventris (Wente and others, 2005; USGS, unpubl.) 

6. 10/25/2005, 1 adult, 5 metamorphic R. luteiventris (Adams and others, 2010) 

Survey Results: Target site surveyed on 7/21/09. We found 3 adult and 31 juvenile R. luteiventris. 

The Target site was a small reservoir (ca. 80 × 

50 m). Riparian vegetation was deciduous shrub 

(willow); upland vegetation was mainly sage. 

No livestock were observed at the Target site, 

but several were nearby. The Target was less 

than 50 m from of a dirt 2-track ATV road. 

There was at least one pipe in the reservoir, 

which may feed water from the spring (C. Tait, 

pers. comm.). We saw no evidence of beaver 

activity. We found 9 P. regilla. 

We scored habitat variables on eight paired 

plots. Bank height averaged 0.8 ± 0.4 m (range 

0.5-1.5 m). We found cow pats on seven of 

eight plots (average 2.3 ± 2.3, range 0-7 per plot). Evidence of disturbance was found on seven of eight

plots: most prominent were tire tracks (4 plots) and livestock grazing (3 plots). Vegetation coverage on 

aquatic plots averaged 83.1 ± 4.6 percent (range 80-90 percent); most frequently noted dominant plants 

were algae (4 plots) and cattail (3 plots). Maximum depth on all aquatic plots was 1.5 m, indicating 

consistently steep slope around the basin. The dominant substrate on all aquatic plots was silt. 

Remarks: Castro Springs Reservoir, along with Coburn and Willow Creeks, is in the headwaters of 

Owyhee River basin in the far southeastern corner of Oregon. These sites are distant from the rest of our 

Target sites. Additional surveys can help clarify the level of isolation from other R. luteiventris

populations. Rainbow trout were noted as present in surveys by BLM in 1995 and 1996; however, trout 

were not detected in several site inspections up until 2006 (C. Tait., pers. comm.). 
41

12. 

Site Information: BLM (Burns), USFS (Ochoco NF), Harney County, OR, elevation 1,474 m 

Claw Creek

Historical Records: 

8/3/06, 2 R. luteiventris (no life stage data) (S. Dowlan, M. Obradovich) 

Survey Results: Target and Alternate sites were surveyed on 9/02/09. We found a total of five R. 

luteiventris (3 adult, 1 juvenile, 1 metamorph). 

Target site was a dry creek bed at time of survey. 

We surveyed about 520 m of channel and found 

no surface water. Riparian vegetation was mainly 

deciduous shrubs (willows). Upland vegetation 

was mainly juniper. The Target reach was less 

than 50 m from dirt road (2-track ATV). No 

livestock were seen during our survey, but there 

was evidence of heavy past use (trampling and 

pats). We did not score data for habitat plots at 

this site. We found no R. luteiventris on the 

Target reach.

Claw Creek Alternate 1: We surveyed 

approximately 400 m of Claw Creek immediately downstream of the Target reach. We estimated that 30

percent of that reach of creek bed had surface water. We noted no livestock or evidence of beaver. This 

reach was not within 50 m of any road. We found three large adult females, one juvenile, and one 

metamorphic R. luteiventris. 

We scored habitat variables on five paired plots. Bank height averaged 0.8 ± 0.5 m (range 0.3-1.5 m). 

We found no cow pats on plots. The only signs of disturbance on the terrestrial plots were from 

flooding. Vegetation coverage on aquatic plots averaged 21.0 ± 8.9 percent (range 10-30 percent). 

Wetted width averaged 1.4 ± 0.8 m (range 0.6-2.6 m). Maximum depth on aquatic plots averaged 0.3 ± 

0.2 m (range 0.1-0.5 m). Cobble was the dominant substrate on three of five aquatic plots. We 

encountered one R. luteiventris on one plot. 

Remarks: Claw Creek is in the upper Silver Creek basin. It flows into Silver Creek near the “Silver 

Creek 4150 Bridge” Target site (#40). 
42

13. 

Site Information: BLM (Vale), Malheur County, OR, elevation 1,457 m 

Coburn Creek

Historical Records: 

1. 05/28/1996, 1 subadult R. luteiventris (T. Koch) 

2. 5/26/1999, 13 adult, 3 subadult, 20 juvenile R. luteiventris; tadpoles seen above the road (C. 

Tait) 

3. Since 1999, two records in GeoBob database documented R. luteiventris breeding, but no counts 

or other specific data (C. Tait)

Survey Results: Target site surveyed on 7/21/09. We found six adult (4 females, 2 males) and 14 

metamorphic and new juvenile R. luteiventris. 

Most of the Target reach was sizeable stream 

(average width 1.75 m). Approximately 100 m of 

the creek within the 500-m survey reach lacked 

surface water. The Target reach had its upstream 

limit at a fence indicating private property. Riparian 

and upland vegetation were mainly sage. We did not 

observe livestock in survey reach but saw seven

horses. No impoundments or evidence of beaver 

were seen in survey reach or immediately upstream. 

The Target reach was within 50 m of a 2-track ATV 

road. 

We scored habitat variables on seven paired plots. 

Bank height averaged 1.1 ± 1.1 m (0.1-3.0 m). We 

found cow pats and grazing disturbance on five of seven terrestrial plots (average 4.3 ± 4.8 per plot, 

range 0-14). Vegetation coverage on aquatic plots averaged 68.6 ± 12.1 percent (range 60-90 percent); 

algae were the dominant coverage on four of seven aquatic plots. Wetted width averaged 2.6 ± 1.4 m 

(range 0.75-5.0 m). Maximum depth on aquatic plots averaged 0.3 ± 0.1 m (range 0.15-0.45 m). 

Dominant substrates at aquatic plots were a mix of cobble (2 plots), gravel (2 plots), silt (2 plots), and 

boulder (1 plot). 

Remarks: None.
43

14. 

Site Information: BLM (Burns), Harney County, OR, elevation 1,608 m 

Crane Creek

Historical Records: 

6/27/2007, R. luteiventris detected during ODFW fisheries survey (Bangs and Jones, 2009). No counts 

or life stage data provided. 

Survey Results: Target site surveyed on 6/25/09. We found no R. luteiventris. 

We surveyed approximately 100 m along the 

Target reach (average width 2 m). This reach was 

intermittent stream, and had water over its whole

length at the time of the survey. Riparian 

vegetation was mainly sage; upland vegetation 

was mainly juniper. We observed no 

impoundments and no evidence of beaver in 

Target reach, or in the reach immediately 

upstream of Target reach. We observed a few (1-

5) livestock on Target reach during our survey. 

We observed significant trampling along the reach 

immediately upstream of the Target. A 2-track 

ATV road was present and located more than 50 m 

from the Target reach. More than 100 P. regilla 

larvae and greater than 25 garter snakes (Thamnophis sp) were observed on the Target reach.

We scored habitat variables on seven paired plots. Bank height averaged 0.8 ± 1.0 m (range 0.2-3.0 m). 

Trampling disturbance and cow pats were observed on all seven terrestrial plots (average pats 7.7 ± 3.4, 

range 3-11 per plot). Vegetation cover on aquatic plots averaged 60.0 ± 24.5 percent (range 20 -100 

percent); rushes were noted as the dominant cover on all seven plots. Wetted width averaged 3.8 ± 1.5 

m (range 2.2-6 m). Maximum depth on aquatic plots averaged 0.3 ± 0.2 m (range 0.1-0.65 m). Silt was 

the dominant substrate size on all aquatic plots. 

Remarks: We found little slower, off-channel habitat that is preferred by R. luteiventris for breeding. 

This site was relatively isolated from our other historical records.
44

15. 

Site Information: State-owned land, Malheur County, OR, elevation 1,218 m 

Dry Creek

Historical Records: 

7/29/1976, 27 R. luteiventris recorded (no stage information) (C. Maser)

Survey Results: Target site surveyed on 8/5/09. We found 13 adult (6 females, 7 males) and 138 

juvenile and recent metamorphic R. luteiventris. 

We surveyed approximately 250 m of this 

permanent stream to the property line/fence. 

Riparian vegetation was mainly sage; upland 

vegetation was also mainly sage. We found no 

impoundments or sign of beaver activity in the 

Target reach. No roads were within 50 m of 

Target. No livestock were observed in Target

reach, but livestock were present above the fence 

at the property line. Fish were observed in the 

creek. Habitat immediately above the fence 

appeared similar to Target reach (no 

impoundments or beaver sign observed). 

We scored habitat variables on eight paired plots. 

Bank height averaged 0.8 ± 0.4 m (range 0.3-1.5 m). We found cow pats on seven of eight terrestrial 

plots (average 4.8 ± 3.3 per plot, range 0-10 per plot). Trampling of soil and vegetation was evident on 

seven of eight plots. Vegetation coverage on aquatic plots averaged 28.1 ± 14.4 percent (range 5-45 

percent). Water parsley (Oenanthe sp.) was the dominant cover on four of eight plots. Cobble was the 

dominant substrate size on seven of eight aquatic plots. We encountered R. luteiventris on one plot. 

Remarks: This reach of Dry Creek is roughly midway between our upper (Skull Creek) and lower 

(Hurley Flat) Target sites in the Dry Creek basin. This reach of Dry Creek has also been extensively 

surveyed in past by Janice Engle and as part of ongoing monitoring by the USFWS La Grande office 

(Meyer, 2009). 
45

16. 

Site Information: BLM (Vale), Malheur County, OR, elevation 1,111 m 

Dry Creek – below Indian Trails

Historical Records: 

6/26/1996, one adult and many larval R. luteiventris (C. Tait) 

Survey Results: Target site surveyed on 9/04/2009. We found four adult (3 female, 1 male) and 50 

juvenile R. luteiventris. 

 

Target reach was a permanent stream (average 

width 2 m). Riparian and upslope vegetation was 

mainly sage. We found no impoundments and no 

evidence of beaver activity on the Target reach. 

Cattle were present on the site and on the drive 

into the site. There was no road within 50 m of 

the Target reach. We saw no impoundments or 

evidence of beaver upstream of the survey reach.

We scored habitat variables on seven paired plots. 

Bank height averaged 0.7 ± 0.4 (range 0.3-1.3 m). 

Recent cow pats were found on all seven

terrestrial plots (average 17.3 ± 8.8 per plot, range 

6-30). All seven plots had evidence of vegetation 

grazing and soil trampling. Vegetation cover on aquatic plots averaged 54.3 ± 15.9 percent (range 30-75 

percent); dominant taxa were unidentified submerged macrophytes and algae. Wetted width averaged 

6.0 ± 3.8 m (range 3.4 -12 m). Maximum depth averaged 0.4 ± 0.4 m (range 0.1-1.3 m). Dominant 

substrate sizes on aquatic plots were silt (3 plots), cobble (3 plots), and gravel (1 plot). 

Remarks: None 
46

17. 

Site information: BLM (Vale), Malheur County, OR; elevation 1,097 m 

Dry Creek – Hurley Flat

Historical Records: 

6/26/1996, at least one juvenile and one adult R. luteiventris (C. Tait)

Survey results: Target and Incidental sites surveyed 9/3/09. No R. luteiventris found. 

We surveyed the Target site of 500 m and 

extended this search to the 1000 m buffer. We 

found no surface water in this reach and did not 

characterize habitat variables on plots. There is a 

small area where water can be impounded by road 

crossing when the channel is flowing. Riparian 

and upslope vegetation is mainly sage. We saw no 

livestock during the survey. We found no evidence 

of beaver activity. This reach is within 50 m of a 

dirt two-track road. 

The channel was dry immediately upstream of our 

survey reach. We found some standing water 

farther up the drainage, outside of the 1000 m 

buffer.

Remarks: This site was the lowest of the six areas we surveyed in the Dry Creek basin. This area is 

outside of the reach monitored by the USFWS La Grande office (Meyer, 2009). 
47

18. 

We conducted an Incidental survey at a pipe-fed cattle tank. It was less than 50 m from the dry stream 

bed and just beyond the terminus of the Target reach at Dry Creek – Hurley Flat. This pool was 

approximately 10 × 10 m surface area and had wetland vegetation. We did not find any R. luteiventris at 

this site, but did find approximately 10 Pacific treefrogs (P. regilla).

Dry Creek – Hurley Flat Incidental
48

19. 

Site Information: BLM (Vale), state-owned land, Malheur County, OR, elevation 1,214 m 

Dry Creek – King Brown Cabin

Historical record: 

4/30/1996, 10 R. luteiventris (no stage given) (C. Tait, B. Olson) 

Survey results: Target site surveyed 8/7/2009. We found 7 adult and 63 juvenile R. luteiventris in first 

20 minutes of survey; frogs were found after that but were not tallied. 

This reach of Dry Creek was characterized 

as intermittent with pools (average width 2 

m). Riparian and upslope vegetation were 

mainly sage. We found no impoundments 

and no evidence of beaver activity. No 

livestock were observed. This reach was 

within 50 m of a dirt road. Water was 

present above the Target reach. We found 

evidence of substantial grazing of the Target

survey reach. No impoundments or evidence 

of beaver were found upstream of the Target

reach.

We scored habitat variables on six paired 

plots. Bank height averaged 0.9 ± 0.5 m 

(range 0.1 -1.5 m). We found cow pats on 

all plots (average 6.3 ± 2.8 per plot; range 3-

10), and fresh pats on three plots. There was evidence of disturbance on all terrestrial plots (vegetation 

was grazed on all six plots; livestock trampling was found on three plots). On five aquatic plots (1 was 

dry), vegetation coverage averaged 53.0 ± 28.4 percent (range 25-90 percent). Dominant vegetation 

types were a mix of algae, bur reed (Sparganium sp.), and sedges (Carex sp.). Wetted width averaged 

3.6 ± 2.3 m (range 0-5.5 m). Maximum depth on aquatic plots averaged 0.4 ± 0.4 m (range 0-0.37 m). 

Dominant substrate sizes on aquatic plots were gravel (2 plots), cobble (2 plots), and silt (1 plot). We 

encountered R. luteiventris on one plot. 

Remarks: The Dry Creek - King Brown Cabin site is approximately 1 km upstream of the Target site 

near the confluence of Butte Creek and Dry Creek. Our Dry Creek - King Brown Cabin Target reach 

represents the upstream terminus of the reaches monitored by USFWS La Grande (Meyer, 2009). 
49

20. 

Site Information: State-owned land, Harney County, OR, elevation 2,247. 

Fish Lake and Slough

Historical record: 

1. 6/30/47, R. luteiventris specimen in OSU Collection (Acc. # 849; collector R.M. Yancey) 

2. 6/27/2000, 2 adult, 12 larval R. luteiventris from Fish Lake (Wente and others, 2005; USGS, 

unpubl.) 

3. 8/8/2000, 16 juvenile R. luteiventris from Fish Lake (Wente and others, 2005; USGS, unpubl.) 

4. 7/7/01, 27 larval R. luteiventris from Fish Lake (Wente and others, 2005; USGS, unpubl.) 

5. 8/5/01, 4 juvenile, 2 adult, 11 larval R. luteiventris from “Fish Lake Slough”, noted as 50 × 10 m 

at time of survey (Wente and others, 2005; USGS, unpubl) 

6. 6/18/02, 16 larval R. luteiventris from “SW corner of Fish Lake” (Wente and others, 2005; USGS, 

unpubl.) 

7. 8/11/03, 3 adult R. luteiventris (2 in marshy inflow; 1 on lake near the side channel [=slough]) 

(Wente and others, 2005; USGS, unpubl). 

8. 7/7/04, No R. luteiventris found (Smyth, 2004) 

Survey results: Target and Alternate sites surveyed 6/10/09 and 8/18/09. We found no R. luteiventris

across all sites and visits.

We surveyed the entire perimeter of this 

small lake on both visits. The ‘slough’ is a 

small marshy area on the south side of the 

lake where an island separates the marsh 

from open water of the lake. The first visit 

was during cool early season conditions. 

Riparian vegetation was mainly deciduous 

shrub; upland vegetation was mainly aspen. 

We found no impoundments associated with 

the lake, and saw no livestock during either 

survey. The site is within 50 m of a gravel 

road. Beaver sign was present on the south 

side of lake (lodge, many chewed trees, 

slides, cuttings). Evidence of recreational 

use (camping, fishing) was widespread. We 

found multiple dead fish along the bank and 

trash scattered in the water. Fish were seen throughout the site.

We scored habitat variables on nine paired plots during the August survey. Bank height averaged 2.0 ± 

1.1 m (0.5-3 m). We did not find cow pats on any plots. We found evidence of disturbance on eight of 

ten plots: disturbances were human trail (6 plots), erosion (2 plots), and campsite (1 plot). Vegetation 

coverage on aquatic plots averaged 28.3 ± 28.6 percent (range 5-90 percent); sedges were the dominant 

cover type on eight plots. Maximum depth on aquatic plots averaged 0.6 ± 0.1 m (range 0.4-0.75 m). 

Dominant Substrates on aquatic plots were silt (6 plots) and cobble (3 plots).
50

Fish Lake and Slough Alternate 1: This Alternate survey included the remainder of Fish Lake that 

was not in Target survey of the slough area. Similar to the Target area, riparian vegetation was mainly 

deciduous shrub (willow) and upland vegetation was mainly aspen. We observed no livestock. There 

was infrequent evidence of beaver activity around the lake (a few chewed trees) and an active dam/pond 

complex was present upstream (Alternate 2). The campground and road crossing/culvert are upstream of 

the beaver impoundment. We found significant amounts of trash in and around this lake. We also 

observed live trout as well as several dead fish. We did not find R. luteiventris. 

Fish Lake and Slough Alternate 2: This Alternate survey started at the confluence of the inflow 

stream of Fish Lake and extended upstream through the beaver complex approximately 700 m to near its 

spring origin. As noted above, the stream flows through campground and road/culvert. The beaver 

complex had active lodge, slides, and recently chewed trees. We did not find R. luteiventris. 

Fish Lake and Slough Alternate 3: We surveyed approximately 500 m (June) and 414 m (August) of 

the permanent stream that flows out of Fish Lake. Its average width was ca. 2 m in June and 0.5 m in 

August. The stream was rocky with fast current, and was braided in some areas. We found no 

impoundments on the stream below the culvert/road crossing at its egress from Fish Lake. Riparian 

vegetation was mainly deciduous shrub (willow); upland vegetation was mix of sage and aspen. This 

reach was within 50 m of a gravel road (upper end of survey reach). We found no evidence of beaver 

activity in either survey. We did not find R. luteiventris. 

Remarks: Multiple observations confirm the historical presence of breeding R. luteiventris in the Fish 

Lake complex. Surveys consistently detected R. luteiventris between 2000 and 2003. A survey in 

summer 2004 failed to detect R. luteiventris (Smyth, 2004), and none of our 2009 surveys revealed any 

life stages of R. luteiventris. Fish Lake gets intensive recreational use and has stocked trout, which are 

implicated in reduced R. luteiventris in other portions of its range (Pilliod and Peterson, 2001; Bull and 

Marx, 2002). Further surveys should be conducted to determine whether Fish Lake has lost its breeding 

population; expanded surveys around the area would be helpful toward evaluating potential for 

recolonization from other sites. The nearest frogs we found were on Lake Creek (see Lily Lake 

Alternate site) and it was unclear whether any breeding was present. 
51

21. 

Site Information: BLM (Burns), Harney County, OR, elevation 2,203 m 

Grove Creek

Historical record: 

6/28/2001, 2 adult R. luteiventris (Smyth, 2001) 

Survey results: Target surveyed on 8/21/09. We found 2 adult R. luteiventris. 

Target reach included permanent water in Grove 

Creek, as well as multiple braided channels that 

appeared to hold water only during high flows. The 

main creek averaged 1-m wide. Riparian vegetation 

was mainly deciduous shrub (willow); upland 

vegetation was mainly aspen. We found no 

impoundments or livestock in the Target reach. 

There were no roads within 50 m of Target reach. 

We found no sign of beaver activity. The Target

was difficult to survey due to thick willow cover. 

Note that we did not detect any R. luteiventris on 

the first pass, but found two adults on a second pass 

near starting point.

We scored habitat variables on seven terrestrial and six aquatic plots (one aquatic plot was inaccessible 

due to dense willows; the channel was dry at that point). Bank height averaged 0.6 ± 0.4 m (range 0.2-

1.5 m). We found no cow pats or signs of grazing disturbance. There were signs of past flooding on 

three terrestrial plots. Vegetation coverage on aquatic plots averaged 59.2 ± 27.5 percent (range 10-80 

percent). Wetted width of the main channel averaged 1.8 ± 0.7 m (range 0.7-2.6 m). Maximum depth on 

aquatic plots averaged 0.1 ± 0.0 m (range 0.05-0.16 m). Silt was the dominant substrate on five of the 

six aquatic plots. 

Remarks: Both our 2009 survey and the 2001 survey by Smyth (2001) found small numbers of adult 

frogs. This is a spring-fed system and water temperatures were cool even in late August (10-12° C in 

morning). Parts of the creek were heavily shaded with willow. Our survey did not find obvious still 

water breeding habitat on Grove Creek. Our 1-km buffer centered on Grove Creek includes a reach of 

Little Fish Creek. That site historically and in 2009 supported breeding R. luteiventris in a beaver 

complex. Given their proximity and fact that Grove Creek flows into Little Fish Creek less than 1 km 

downstream, adults on Grove Creek could be from the Little Fish Creek breeding site. We recommend 

surveying the lower reach of Grove Creek below our Target site and the reach of Little Fish Creek 

around and upstream of the confluence with Grove Creek to identify extant or potential R. luteiventris

breeding habitat. 
52

22. Hog Creek

Site Information: BLM (Vale), Malheur County, OR, elevation 911 m 

Historical record: 

10/4/77, “many spotted frogs“ (M. Crouse, observer; Fisheries Inventory). Record notes “some 

potential for misID” (C. Tait).

Survey results: Target site surveyed on 7/8/09. We found no R. luteiventris. 

We surveyed approximately 500 m on this 

stream (average width 1.5 m). The 

immediate survey area appeared permanent, 

but areas upstream and downstream of the 

Target reach were at least partially 

intermittent. Riparian vegetation was mainly 

deciduous shrub (willow); upland vegetation 

was mainly sage. We found no 

impoundments, livestock, or signs of beaver 

activity in the Target reach. There was no 

road within 50 m of Target reach. Many 

rainbow trout were seen in the Target reach. 

We found no impoundments or beaver sign 

upstream of the Target reach. 

We scored habitat variables on nine paired 

plots. Bank height averaged 3.9 ± 2.4 m (range 1-7 m). We found one cow pat on one plot. The only 

evidence of ground disturbance on terrestrial plots was past flooding (6 plots). Vegetation coverage on 

aquatic plots averaged 15.4 ± 12.2 percent (range 2-30 percent). Dominant plants were cattail (Typha

sp), sedges (Carex sp.), dock (Rumex sp.), and duckweed. Maximum depth on aquatic plots averaged 

0.4 ± 0.3 m (range 0.15-0.95 m). Cobble was the dominant substrate size on eight of nine plots. 

Remarks: Hog Creek was in the GeoBob database but our later conversations with Dr. Cynthia Tait 

lead us to consider the original identification of R. luteiventris doubtful or erroneous. Dr. Tait 

questioned the 1977 observer, Mike Crouse, and came away moderately to highly confident that these 

were adult Pacific treefrogs (P. regilla) (C. Tait, pers. comm., 2010). She also noted that Hog Creek at 

that time did not appear to be suitable habitat for R. luteiventris. Our survey was limited in scope and we 

did not survey alternate sites associated with Hog Creek. 
53

23. Kingsbury Gulch

Site Information: BLM (Vale), Malheur County, OR, elevation 1,007 m 

Historical record: 

1. 6/18/2001, 2 juvenile, 11 adult R. luteiventris (USGS, unpublished) 

2. 10/30/2001, 3 R. luteiventris, no life stage information (A. Bammann) 

3. 5/16-17/2002, 58 adult, 2 larval R. luteiventris (USGS, unpubl.) 

4. 6/19, 21/2002, 61 adult, 5 larval R. luteiventris (USGS, unpubl.) 

5. 7/23/2002, 60 adult R. luteiventris (USGS, unpubl.) 

6. 8/19/2002, 44 adult R. luteiventris (USGS, unpubl.) 

7. 4/23/2003, 38 adult R. luteiventris (USGS, unpubl.) 

8. 9/10/2003, 72 adult, 3 juvenile R. luteiventris (USGS, unpubl.) 

9. 9/17/2004, 94 adult, 14 juvenile R. luteiventris (USGS, unpubl.) 

10. 8/31/2005, 84 adult, 2 juvenile R. luteiventris (USGS unpubl.) 

11. 9/1/2006, 21 adult, 10 juvenile R. luteiventris (USGS unpubl.) 

12. 8/27, 8/29/2007, 9 adult, 2 juvenile R. luteiventris (USGS unpubl.) 

13. 8/19, 8/21/2008, 13 adult, 5 juvenile R. luteiventris (USGS unpubl.) 

Survey results: Target site surveyed on 7/10/2009. We found one adult and one juvenile R. luteiventris. 

We surveyed approximately 150 m along the 

channel. Surface water covered less than 40

percent of this reach. Riparian vegetation was 

mainly deciduous shrub (willow); uplands 

were mainly sage. We found no 

impoundments or livestock in the Target

reach. We found no evidence of beaver 

activity. The Target reach was within 50 m of 

a paved road (OR Hwy 20). Our inspection of 

the reach upstream of the Target revealed no 

surface water, signs of beaver activity, or 

impoundments. The stream channel crosses 

under the road via culverts at least two times 

upstream of the Target reach.

We scored habitat variables on five paired 

plots. Bank height averaged 5.4 ± 5.6 m (range 0.75-15 m). We found no cow pats. We found evidence 

of past livestock grazing on one plot, and soil erosion on three plots. Vegetation on aquatic plots 

averaged 85.0 ± 30.8 percent (30-100 percent); cattails were the most commonly noted dominant taxon 

(2 plots). Wetted width averaged 2.4 ± 1.3 m (range 1-4 m). Maximum depth on aquatic plots averaged 

0.1 ± 0.1 m (range 0.02-0.25 m). Silt was the dominant substrate size on all aquatic plots. 
54

Remarks: The two R. luteiventris were found in a small pool north of OR Highway 20. Surface water 

was limited to two pools at the time of our survey. The above photograph shows part of a pool that had 

surface water during our July visit. The center of the Target reach was a very dense stand of cattails. 

USGS ARMI Monitoring of this site since 2001 has paralleled a reduction of open water. This reduction 

in open water has been pronounced at the presumed hibernaculum pool. Depending on year and timing, 

water can be present in a few pools upstream of the area where we found water in 2009 (USGS, 

unpublished). 
55

24. Lily Lake

Site Information: BLM (Burns), Harney County, OR, elevation 2,214 m. 

Historical record: 

1995 (no date), R. luteiventris found (no life stage or numbers) (M. Smyth). 

Survey results: Surveyed 6/11/2009 and 8/23/09. We found no R. luteiventris at Lily Lake and four 

seasonal ponds nearby. We found three adult R. luteiventris at one Alternate site (a beaver pond 

complex on Lake Creek). 

We surveyed Lily Lake proper in both June 

and August. This site is a shallow, heavilyvegetated lake (approximately 120 × 110 m 

during the August survey). Riparian 

vegetation was mainly deciduous shrub 

(willow); upland vegetation was mainly 

sage. We found no impoundments, livestock 

or evidence of beaver activity. There was a 

gravel road within 50 m of the Target site. 

We found P. regilla adults and larvae. Our 

surveys did not detect fish, nor did earlier 

surveys by Smyth (2001, 2004). 

We scored habitat variables on six paired 

plots during the August survey. Bank height 

averaged 0.5 ± 0.4 m (range 0.01-1.0 m). No 

cow pats were noted in August survey, but some cattle use has occurred (evidenced by our observation 

of 3 pats on 2 of 8 plots in June). Evidence of disturbance on terrestrial plots in August was limited to 

signs of past flooding on five plots and a human trail on one plot. Vegetation cover on aquatic plots 

averaged 84.2 ± 4.9 percent (range 85- 90 percent); spike rush (Eleocharis sp.) was the main dominant 

plant on four plots. Maximum depth on aquatic plots averaged 0.3 ± 0.1 m (range 0.15-0.55 m). Silt was 

the dominant substrate on all plots. 

Lily Lake Alternate 1: We surveyed four small ponds along the road and adjacent to Lily Lake. In 

June, the total surface area of habitat in the four ponds was estimated at 100 × 5 m; maximum depth 

was approximately 0.5 m. These ponds were dry in August. Riparian vegetation was deciduous shrub 

(willow); upland vegetation was a mix of aspen and sage. No R. luteiventris were found.
56

Lily Lake Alternate 2: In June (but not August), we surveyed approximately 1200 m of Lake Creek 

below and south of Lily Lake. Lake Creek is the outflow from Fish Lake and is not directly connected to 

Lily Lake; it is less than 1.0 km away and downhill of Lily Lake. Our June survey of this Alternate site 

was positioned immediately downstream of the Alternate 3 survey associated with Fish Lake. This site 

is a permanent stream with multiple seasonally flowing braided channels. Most of this reach is 

approximately 1-m wide, but there is a sizeable beaver wetland complex (maximum width 

approximately 40 m) at the lower end of Lily Lake Alternate 2 reach. The beaver complex appeared to 

be active: it included a lodge and multiple slides and chewed trees. Riparian vegetation was mainly 

deciduous shrub (willow); upland vegetation was a mix of sage and aspen. We found no livestock 

during our survey, but there was evidence of past livestock use along the stream. There were no roads 

within 50 m of this reach. 

We found three adult R. luteiventris (1 female, 2 males) in the main beaver complex or the 

slough adjacent to the beaver complex. 

Remarks: Lily Lake is probably the most frequently surveyed among our study group. Available 

information suggests R. luteiventris may use it infrequently or sporadically, and there is no data to 

indicate recent breeding. Lily Lake was apparently surveyed in 1996 by M. Smyth with no R. 

luteiventris found (M. Obradovich, pers. comm); we could not find this report. Smyth (2001) reported 

finding no R. luteiventris at Lily Lake in 2001. USGS crews surveyed Lily Lake each year from 2000-

2003 without finding R. luteiventris (Wente and others, 2005). From July 2004, Smyth (2004) reported 

‘a peripheral observation of a juvenile frog, likely spotted frog, was noted at the west end of the lake’. 

Smyth’s (2001, 2004) reports make no mention of earlier R. luteiventris sightings at Lily Lake. 

During the writing of this report, we learned of a R. luteiventris observation by Dr. Chris Funk 

(Colorado State University; pers comm. 2010), who found and photographed one large adult female R. 

luteiventris at Lily Lake in August of 2006. It appears that the site has not recently hosted R. luteiventris

breeding, and it is unclear whether it has ever supported breeding. Smyth, Funk, and our 2009 crew all 

reported an abundance of P. regilla spanning the last 10+ years, so the site remains suitable for breeding 

by that species. Lily Lake is well within movement capability of R. luteiventris that might be coming 

from breeding sites on Lake Creek (0.8 km) or Fish Lake (1.6 km). We recommend resurveys of Lily 

Lake proper, as well as the beaver complex on lower Lake Creek to better understand potential breeding 

sites in the vicinity. Due to the dense summer vegetation in Lily Lake, an early season survey for egg 

masses would complement summer surveys for tadpoles or juvenile frogs. 
57

25. Little Fish Creek

Site Information: BLM (Burns), Harney County, OR, elevation 2,143 m 

Historical record: 

6/28/2001, 12 adults, 3 juvenile, greater than 400 larval R. luteiventris (Smyth, 2001) 

Survey results: Target and Alternate sites were surveyed 8/20/2009. We did not find R. luteiventris in 

the Target reach, but documented two adult, two juvenile, and ~100 larval R. luteiventris in the reach 

immediately upstream of the Target. 

We surveyed 500 m on the Target reach 

of this intermittent stream. We estimated 

that 65 percent of the Target reach had 

surface water. Riparian vegetation was 

mainly deciduous shrub (willow); upland 

vegetation was mainly aspen. We found 

no impoundments or livestock in the 

Target reach. There were no roads within 

50 m of the Target reach. We observed 

no evidence of beaver activity. Much of 

this stream had thick willow canopy that 

shaded the channel. An active beaver 

complex upstream of the Target reach 

included at least one impoundment and a 

large lodge. This reach was surveyed in 

the Alternate site (below).

We scored habitat variables on six paired plots. Bank height averaged 1.3 ± 0.5 m (range 0.75-2 m). We 

found cow pats on two terrestrial plots (overall average 0.7 ± 1.0 per plot). These pats were not fresh, 

and we did not record ground disturbance on any terrestrial plots. Vegetation cover on aquatic plots 

averaged 5.8 ± 5.8 percent (range 0-15 percent); aquatic mosses including Fontinalis sp. were the most 

common dominant cover. Wetted width averaged 2.0 ± 0.9 m (range 0.7-3.1 m). Maximum depth on 

aquatic plots averaged 0.2 ± 0.1 m (range 0.02-0.34 m). Dominant substrate in aquatic plots was cobble 

(3 plots), silt (1 plot), gravel (1 plot), and bedrock (1 plot).

Little Fish Creek Alternate 1: We surveyed approximately 700 m (average width 2 m) of Little Fish 

Creek immediately upstream of the Target reach. Riparian vegetation was mainly deciduous shrub 

(willow); upland vegetation was mainly aspen. There was a beaver complex that included an active 

pond and several active dams on this stretch of creek. We found chewed trees and sighted a live beaver. 

The main beaver impoundment was ca. 30 m wide. We observed no livestock during the survey, and no 

roads were found within 50 m. This section of stream includes areas of very thick willow. We found two 

adult R. luteiventris (not captured) and approximately 100 R. luteiventris tadpoles. Many (~ 1000’s) P. 

regilla larvae were observed in the main beaver complex.
58

Remarks: The description of the beaver complex where we found R. luteiventris in our 2009 survey 

matches the description of the original location by Smyth (2001). Both our survey and the one 

conducted by Smyth (2001) did not detect R. luteiventris or other amphibians outside of the beaver 

complex on Little Fish Creek.
59

26. Little Malheur River

Site Information: USFS (Malheur NF), Grant County, OR, elevation 1,468 m 

Historical record: 

1. 8/15/1999, 1 adult R. luteiventris (C. Tait)

2. 9/26/2000, 3 adult R. luteiventris (A. Bammann)

3. 7/2, 7/15/2008, 3 and 7 adult R. luteiventris respectively (Funk and others, 2008; USGS, unpubl) 

Survey results: Target was surveyed 7/21/2009. We found nine adult and one juvenile R. luteiventris. 

We surveyed 500 m of this large permanent stream. 

Riparian vegetation was mainly deciduous shrub 

(willow); upland vegetation was mainly Ponderosa 

pine. We found no impoundments in the Target

reach. We found no livestock but there was 

evidence of past use. There was a gravel road in the 

vicinity but not less than 50 m from the Target

reach. We saw signs of old beaver activity (chewed 

trees), but it was not fresh and we saw no active 

beaver structures. Our inspection of the reach 

immediately upstream of the Target revealed no 

impoundments or evidence of beaver activity.

We scored habitat variables on seven paired plots. 

Bank height averaged 0.8 ± 0.3 m (range 0.4-1.1 m). We found cow pats on four plots (average 1.3 ± 

1.8 per plot; range 0-5 per plot). Evidence of disturbance to soil or vegetation was found in all seven 

plots: cattle trampling (2 plots), human camps (2 plots), flooding (2 plots), and fire (2 plots). Vegetation 

coverage was very sparse on aquatic plots (average cover 1.0 ± 1.0 percent). Wetted width averaged 7.1 

± 2.6 m (range 4.4-12 m). Maximum depth averaged 0.4 ± 0.1 m (range 0.3-0.55 m). Cobble was the 

dominant substrate size on all plots. We found R. luteiventris in one plot. 

Remarks: None
60

27. McCoy Creek Incidental

On 6/12/09, we surveyed a small pond (ca. 50 × 20 m) that was approximately 1 kilometer east of 

McCoy Creek Meadow and ca. 500 feet higher in elevation. Riparian vegetation was sage and aspen 

types; upslope vegetation was mainly sage with some aspen. The pond was bisected by a dirt road that 

impounded part of the pond. We saw no obvious streams or inflows to the pond and it appeared to dry in 

summer most years. We found no livestock at time of survey but there was evidence of substantial past 

trampling by cattle. We found no evidence of beaver activity. We found one adult P. regilla, but no R. 

luteiventris. 
61

28. McCoy Creek Meadow

Site Information: BLM (Burns), Harney County, OR, elevation 2,062 m 

Historical record: 

1. 6/23/2001, No R. luteiventris (Smyth, 2001) 

2. 6/20/2002, 1 juvenile, 1 larval R. luteiventris (Smyth, 2002) 

3. 7/8/2004, 1 adult R. luteiventris (Smyth, 2004) 

Survey results: Target and Alternate sites were surveyed 6/12/09. We found no R. luteiventris at any 

of these five sites.

We surveyed this marshy wetland 

associated with McCoy Creek early in 

summer soon after snowmelt. The area of 

inundation was approximately 200 m long 

and 1-25 m wide. Riparian vegetation was 

mainly deciduous shrub (willow); upland 

vegetation was mainly sage. We observed 

no impoundments or livestock in the Target

reach. There were no roads within 50 m of 

the Target. There was one abandoned 

beaver pond and a small number of chewed 

trees, but no sign of active beaver use of 

this site. We found signs of past livestock 

use upstream of the Target reach. No 

impoundments or beaver activity were 

detected upstream of the Target reach.

We scored habitat variables on six paired plots. Bank height averaged 0.8 ± 0.3 m (Range 0.4-1.3 m). 

We found cow pats on all terrestrial plots (average 4.7 ± 2.3 per plot; range 3-9). We found cow pats on 

two aquatic plots. Signs of soil and vegetation disturbance due to trampling were evident on four of six

terrestrial plots. Vegetation cover on aquatic plots averaged 56.7 ± 32.7 percent (range 10-80 percent

coverage). Grasses were the dominant cover on four plots and sedges on two plots. Wetted width 

averaged 9.3 ± 6.1 m (range 1.5-20 m). Maximum depth on aquatic plots averaged 0.2 ± 0.2 m (range 

0.05-0.55 m). Silt was the dominant substrate on all aquatic plots. 

McCoy Creek Meadow, Alternate 1: We surveyed another marshy wetland (ca. 100 × 50 m) 

associated with McCoy Creek. This wetland was located approximately 200 m downstream (north) of 

the Target site. The wetland was shallowly flooded (0.1 m maximum depth) and probably dries in most 

years. Riparian vegetation was mainly grasses and other herbaceous taxa; upslope vegetation was 

mainly sage. We found no impoundments or sign of beaver activity. We did not see livestock at the time 

of survey but there was evidence of past heavy cattle grazing/trampling. There were no roads within 50 

m of this wetland. We found no R. luteiventris. 
62

McCoy Creek Meadow, Alternate 2: We surveyed a marshy wetland (ca. 40 × 20 m) associated with 

McCoy Creek. Alternate #2 was located almost directly opposite McCoy Creek from the Target site. 

Water was shallow (0.3 m). Riparian vegetation was mainly deciduous shrub (willow); upslope 

vegetation was mainly sage. We found no anthropogenic impoundments or signs of current beaver use. 

Past beaver activity was evidenced by older chewed trees and an abandoned beaver pond: much of this 

area appears to have been flooded as part of this pond in the past. We did not see livestock during 

survey but there were abundant cow pats from prior years. There were no roads within 50 m. We found 

no R. luteiventris. 

McCoy Creek Meadow, Alternate 3: We surveyed approximately 300 m (average width 1 m) of an 

intermittent stream that runs parallel to McCoy Creek. This stream had very shallow water (0.4 m 

maximum depth). Riparian vegetation in the area was a mix of deciduous shrub and sage; upslope 

vegetation was sage with some aspen. We found no impoundments or evidence of beaver activity. We 

found no livestock at the time of survey, but there was evidence of past cattle trampling. We found no R. 

luteiventris. 

Remarks: McCoy Creek Meadow and Alternate sites are approximately 2.5 km downstream of the 

McCoy Creek Upper sites (see following Remarks).
63

29. McCoy Creek Upper

Site Information: BLM (Burns), Harney County, OR, elevation 2,166 m 

Historical record: 

7/28/1998, 1 R. luteiventris (no life stage) (G. Sheeter)

Survey results: Target and Alternate sites were successfully surveyed 8/19/09. We did not find R. 

luteiventris at any of the three sites.

We conducted a full survey (500 m) of 

this permanent stream on 8/19/09. 

Riparian vegetation was deciduous shrub 

(willow) with some aspen; upland 

vegetation was a mix of sage and aspen. 

Sections of this Target reach had thick 

willows on both banks that made it 

difficult to survey. We found no 

impoundments or evidence of beaver 

activity. We did not see livestock on the 

Target reach during June or August visits. 

The Target reach was not within 50m of 

any road. This stream was very rocky 

with little aquatic vegetation. We initially 

visited the site on 6/13/09 but water was 

too high to survey. 

We scored habitat variables on nine paired plots. Bank height averaged 2.1± 1.2 m (range 0.5-4.0 m). 

We found six fresh cow pats on one plot and no cow pats on the other eight plots (overall average 0.7 ± 

2.0 per plot, range 0-6). We found evidence of cattle trampling on three plots; no ground disturbance 

was noted on four plots. Aquatic vegetation was sparse and only noted on two aquatic plots (average 

coverage 1.1 ± 2.2 percent; range 0-5 percent). Wetted width of the stream averaged 3.3 ± 1.3 m (range 

2.2-6.5 m). Maximum depth on aquatic plots averaged 0.2 ± 0.1 m (range 0.13-0.46 m). Bedrock (6 

plots) and cobble (3 plots) were the dominant substrates. 

McCoy Creek Upper, Alternate 1: We surveyed approximately 750 m (average stream width 0.75 m) 

of McCoy Creek immediately upstream of the Target reach. This section was permanent water. Riparian 

vegetation was similar to Target reach – relatively dense deciduous shrub (willow) that was closed over 

the stream for the distal half of this survey site. Upslope vegetation was mainly aspen. We saw no 

livestock during surveys, but did hear one cow in the distance. We found no anthropogenic 

impoundments on this reach, but we did find an abandoned beaver dam and lodge. We found no R. 

luteiventris. 
64

McCoy Creek Upper, Alternate 2: We surveyed about 1000 m of an unnamed tributary of McCoy 

Creek immediately upstream of the Target reach and to the west of Alternate 1. Average width was 

approximately 2 m, and the stream appeared to be permanent. Riparian vegetation was mainly 

deciduous shrub (willow); upland vegetation was mainly aspen. We found no impoundments and no 

livestock. There were no roads within 50 m of the reach. We found one abandoned beaver lodge, but no 

evidence of recent activity. This stream was very rocky with little vegetation. We found no R. 

luteiventris. 

Remarks: Between Target and Alternate sites for McCoy Creek Meadow and Upper McCoy Creek, we 

covered a significant portion of the upper basin. There was approximately 2.1 km of stream valley 

habitat between our two surveys that we did not investigate. Available historical observations suggest 

small numbers of R. luteiventris have been present and breeding as recently as 2002 (Smyth, 2002). 

However, we found no frogs and very little habitat that could be suitable for breeding in 2009. Repeated 

surveys in portions of this drainage yielded few (0, 2, 1 R. luteiventris in 2001, 2002, 2004, respectively; 

Smyth 2001, 2002, 2004) or no R. luteiventris (0,0,0,0 in 2000-2003; Wente and others, 2005; USGS, 

unpublished). We found abandoned beaver ponds on three of the seven stream-associated sites in this 

basin and other evidence of past beaver activities at another of the stream-associated sites. This suggests 

that there was significantly more potential breeding habitat for R. luteiventris in this area in the past. 

Without beaver ponds, potential breeding habitat for frogs is very limited in this relatively highgradient, narrow canyon. Given its remoteness and abundance of willows, the McCoy Creek drainage 

looks like a very suitable site for beaver reestablishment.

Surveys of the reach between our sites would help locate any remaining beaver ponds in this vicinity 

that could provide breeding habitat for R. luteiventris. There are several small ponds south/southeast and 

upslope of our McCoy Creek Upper Target site. Pate Lake and several ponds west/northwest of the 

McCoy Creek Upper Target site could also host suitable habitat for R. luteiventris. 
65

30. Mud Creek

Site Information: USFWS (Malheur National Wildlife Refuge), Harney County, OR, elevation 1,280 

m 

Historical record: 

1. 8/1/1996. R. luteiventris collected by Refuge staff, attributed to MS (presumably M. Smyth). 

GeoBob database says ‘Vouchers’. No data on numbers or stages. 

2. 8/15/1996, 10 juvenile R. luteiventris found during USFWS survey (G. Lampman, Burns BLM). 

3. 5/9/2002, 2 adult, 1 juvenile, 4 larval R. luteiventris (Wente and others, 2005, USGS unpubl.) 

4. 8/19/2003, 1 adult, 14 larval R. luteiventris (Wente and others, 2005, USGS unpubl.) 

5. 8/3/2006, 14 juvenile R. luteiventris (Adams and others, 2010; E. Materna, USFWS) 

Survey results: Target and Alternate sites were surveyed on 6/4/2009. We found no R. luteiventris at 

our Target site, but found one of each sub-adult, juvenile and larval R. luteiventris in the adjoining 

Alternate site.

We surveyed approximately 500 m on the 

Refuge section of lower Mud Creek. This 

segment of Mud Creek was partially 

channelized, relatively wide, low-gradient, 

and permanent. We surveyed this reach in 

June when water was high and cold (13-14° 

C; see photo), and it is likely that these 

conditions reduced frog activity and 

detectability. Riparian vegetation was 

mainly deciduous shrub (willow) with 

significant coverage by invasive reed 

canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). 

Upland vegetation was mainly sage. We 

saw no livestock during our survey. The 

Target reach is paralleled by a gravel road 

(less than 50 m away) and berm 

immediately west of the creek. We noted one beaver lodge in the Target reach. Both active and inactive 

beaver dams were present on the Target reach or very close to it on tributaries that enter from the east. 

Water control structures were present in and above the Target reach: these appear to impound water in 

summer low flows. 

We scored habitat variables on seven paired plots. Bank height averaged 1.2 ± 0.5 m (range 0.5-2 m). 

We found cow pats on two plots (average 0.6 ± 1.0, range 0-2 per plot). Four plots had soil disturbance 

in the form of the gravel road. Vegetation cover on aquatic plots averaged 22.9 ± 7.6 percent (range 10 -

30 percent). Reed canary grass was the dominant cover on six plots. Wetted width of the stream 

averaged 7.6 ± 3.3 m (range 5-14 m). Maximum depth averaged 1.3 ± 0.5 m (range 0.65-2 m). 

Dominant substrates on aquatic plots were silt (3 plots) and cobble (3 plots). 
66

Mud Creek Alternate 1: We surveyed a small pond (approximately 50 × 20 m) immediately west of 

the gravel road. This pond receives water from the Target reach of Mud Creek via a culvert/weir 

beneath the road. Reed canary grass is the dominant vegetation around the pond. Deciduous shrubs are 

present but lesser cover. We saw no livestock. We did not observe evidence of beaver activity 

associated with the pond, although activity was evident at multiple locations on the creek. Water 

temperatures in the pond (up to 22° C) were considerably warmer than the creek. We found one subadult, one juvenile, and one larval R. luteiventris.

Remarks: The pond is hydrologically connected to the creek. Most of the historical records do not 

identify the location of breeding sites. The pond habitat was more typical of R. luteiventris breeding 

habitat, and juvenile and adult frogs can easily move to the creek from the pond. It is common for adult 

R. luteiventris to move from breeding ponds to streams in summer. 

This site is within 1 km of the Bridge Creek site and likely that R. luteiventris adults and juveniles can 

move throughout this complex (hydrologically connected, open flat topography, moist soil units). Mud 

Creek, Bridge Creek, and Page Springs may be the peripheral remnants of a much broader historical 

population along the western foot of Steens Mountain. Additional surveys in the habitats in between 

these three sites could improve our understanding of connectivity among them. 
67

31. Nicoll Creek

Site Information: BLM (Burns), Harney County, OR, elevation 1,359 m 

Historical record:

1. 8/13/1998, 1 R. luteiventris (no stage provided) (P. Bowers) 

2. 7/18/2004, 1 juvenile R. luteiventris (M. Smyth) 

3. 7/5/2007, 1 R. luteiventris (no stage data) (M. Obradovich) 

Survey results: Target surveyed on 7/12/09. We found 13 adult, 3 juvenile, one larval R. luteiventris

We surveyed 500 m of this permanent stream 

in the upper Silver Creek basin. Riparian 

vegetation was mainly deciduous shrub 

(willow); upland vegetation was mainly sage. 

We did not find impoundments or livestock in 

the Target reach. There was a gravel road 

within 50 m of the Target. We did not see 

evidence of any beaver activity. Private 

property abutted the upstream end of the 

Target reach. Our visual inspection did not 

detect impoundments or beaver activity 

immediately upstream of the Target reach. 

We scored habitat variables on eight paired 

plots. Bank height averaged 1.0 ± 0.9 m 

(range 0.2-2.5 m). We found cow pats on five 

plots (average 1.6 ± 2.4, range 0-7 per plot). Two terrestrial plots showed signs of soil disturbance (1 

livestock trampling, 1 road). Vegetation cover on aquatic plots averaged 31.9 ± 12.5 percent (range 20-

60 percent); dominant cover was a mix of sedge and algae, with lesser amounts of spikerush (Eleocharis

spp.). Wetted width averaged 2.7 ± 1.6 m (range 1.1-6.5 m). Maximum depth of aquatic plots averaged 

0.6 ± 0.5 m (range 0.15-1.7 m). Dominant substrates in aquatic plots were mainly silt (6 plots) with 

some cobble (2 plots). One R. luteiventris (dead) was found on a plot. 

Remarks: The 2007 observation was made approximately 1 km downstream of the 2004 sighting. The 

2007 R. luteiventris observation was on Nicoll Creek just above its confluence with Silver Creek. The 

Nicoll Creek sites are 4-5 km from the Silver Creek 4150 Bridge and Rough Creek (another tributary of 

Silver Creek) Target sites.
68

32. Page Springs

Site Information: BLM (Burns), Harney County, OR, elevation 1,292 m. 

Historical record:

1. 6/14/1993, 5 adult R. luteiventris (M. Smyth) 

2. 6/25/1996, 2 adult R. luteiventris (M. Smyth) 

3. 8/17/1996, 1 metamorphic, 10 adult/juvenile R. luteiventris (M. Smyth) 

4. 8/09/2000, 4 adult R. luteiventris (Wente and others, 2005; USGS unpublished) 

5. 4/18/2001, 16 egg masses, 22 adult and juvenile R. luteiventris (Wente and others, 2005; USGS 

unpubl) 

6. 7/15/2002, 1 adult R. luteiventris (Page Springs small stream) (M. Obradovich) 

7. 3/28/2003, 30 adult R. luteiventris and breeding in progress in “Page Springs pond” (M. 

Obradovich) 

8. 4/18/2003, 11 R. luteiventris near Page Springs Temp Probe (M. Obradovich) 

9. 5/7/2003, ~100 larval R. luteiventris at Page Springs pond (M. Obradovich) 

10. 5/11/2003, 17 R. luteiventris (Wente and others, 2005; USGS unpubl) 

11. 6/19/2003, 17 R. luteiventris (Wente and others, 2005; USGS unpubl) 

12. 8/11/2003, 10 larval, 7 adult R. luteiventris (Wente and others, 2005; USGS unpubl) 

13. 8/18/2003, 16 larval, 1 adult R. luteiventris (Wente and others, 2005; USGS unpubl) 

Survey results: Target was surveyed on 6/4/2009. We found one adult and four juvenile R. luteiventris. 

We surveyed approximately 500 m along 

this water way below and including Page 

Springs. This reach flows through Page 

Springs BLM campground. We considered 

this reach to be an intermittent stream, but it 

looks like it can have persistent surface 

water in some years. It was partially 

impounded by road crossings and culverts. 

Riparian vegetation was mainly deciduous 

shrub (willow); upland vegetation was 

mainly juniper. Most of the Target reach was 

within 50 m of the gravel road that runs to 

the campground. We did not observe 

livestock during our survey. We did not see 

any beaver dams, but did observe chewed 

trees. We found approximately 25 juvenile 

P. regilla. 
69

We scored habitat variables on 9 paired plots. Bank height averaged 1.5 ± 0.4 m (range 0.7-2 m). We 

did not find any cow pats. Evidence of ground or vegetation disturbance was found on 6 terrestrial plots 

(mowing on 5; campsite on 1). Vegetation cover on aquatic plots averaged 76.1 ± 30.8 percent (range 

15-100 percent). Dominant vegetation on 3 plots was sedge; dominants on the other aquatic plots were a 

mix of cattail, spike rush, duckweed and reed canary grass. Wetted width averaged 8.6 ± 6.3 m (range 1- 

17 m). Maximum depth averaged 0.5 ± 0.3 m (range 0.1-0.9 m). Silt was the dominant substrate on all 

aquatic plots. 

Remarks: Available historical data indicate consistent adult and breeding use of the Page Springs area 

by R. luteiventris. Wetlands were historically extensive along the western foot of Steens Mountain 

northward into Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. This suggests that the populations now referred to as 

Mud Creek, Bridge Creek, and Page Springs may be the peripheral remnants of a broader historical 

population. We recommend additional surveys in the habitats in between these three sites to better 

understand connectivity among them. 
70

33. Parsnip Creek

Site Information: BLM (Lakeview), Lake County, OR, elevation 1,626 m. 

Historical record: 

1. 6/26/1994, 6 adult, 1 juvenile R. luteiventris (St John, 1994) 

2. 8/24/2005, 7 R. luteiventris (Oertley and Frazier, 2006) 

3. 7/8/2006, 20 larval R. luteiventris (Adams and others, 2010) 

Survey results: Target was surveyed on 6/3/09. We found two adult (1 female, 1 male) and five 

juvenile R. luteiventris. 

We surveyed approximately 500 m of this 

permanent stream, including several smaller 

side channels that held water. Riparian 

vegetation was mainly deciduous shrubs 

(alder); upland vegetation was mainly sage. 

We did not see livestock at the time of 

survey, but there was ample evidence of 

past use (see also St John, 1994). There 

were no anthropogenic or beaver 

impoundments on Target reach, but we did 

encounter trees chewed by beaver (not clear 

how recent). The Target reach is less than 

50 m from Oregon State Highway 140. We 

found no impoundments or signs of beaver 

upstream of the Target. 

We scored habitat variables on nine paired 

plots. Bank height averaged 0.8 ± 0.4 m (range 0.3-1.5 m). We found cow pats on six plots (average 1.6 ± 

1.7; range 0-4 per plot). Three terrestrial plots showed signs of disturbance (2 were livestock trampling from 

previous years). Vegetation coverage on aquatic plots averaged 26.1 ± 13.9 percent (range 10-50 percent). 

Sedges were the dominant cover on eight plots. Wetted width averaged 2.6 ± 1.5 m (range 1.25-6 m). 

Maximum depth on aquatic plots averaged 0.5 ± 0.1 m (range 0.4-0.76 m). The dominant substrate on five 

aquatic plots was cobble; gravel was dominant on four plots. We found R. luteiventris on two plots. 

Remarks: Documentation of spotted frogs at this section of Parsnip Creek dates to surveys conducted by Al 

St. John in the summer of 1994. That survey found adults and one smaller post metamorphic frog (total of 7 

encounters on 3 dates) in a long grassy meadow on BLM land near where we found frogs in 2009. St John’s 

(1994) report mentions that BLM had rested that reach from livestock grazing since 1989. This population 

appears to be very isolated: surveys by St. John (1994) in eight drainages in the surrounding Warner 

Mountains and Winter Ridge area failed to find spotted frogs. Surveys by others around that area also failed 

to detect spotted frogs (Hayes, 1994; Oertley and Frazier, 2006). The nearest known R. luteiventris in 

Oregon are approximately 117 km away. The nearest population in Nevada is approximately 430 km. Road 

construction affected portions of Parsnip Creek in 2010 (Dr. Chris Funk, pers. comm.). Monitoring could 

help understand potential effects of this action on R. luteiventris. 
71

34. Rail Canyon 1

Site Information: BLM (Vale), Malheur County, OR, elevation 1,390 m 

Historical record: 

1. 9/11/1998, 1 adult R. luteiventris (3”) from a beaver pond on Rail Canyon Creek approximately 

50 m upstream of its confluence with Clover Creek (C. Tait). This observation was made 

between our Target reaches of Rail Canyon 1 (which is 550 m downstream of this observation) 

and Rail Canyon 4 (which is 2000 m upstream of this observation). 

2. 9/08/1999, 2 metamorphic R. luteiventris (1 in beaver pond, 1 in creek upstream of beaver 

pond). Same location as 9/11/1998 record (Al Bammann) 

3. 9/16/1999, 1 adult, 4 metamorphic R. luteiventris “in creek” near the confluence of Clover Creek 

and South Clover Creek (A. Bammann). This was the center of our Target survey. 

4. 9/16/1999, 16 metamorphs in pond, 4 metamorphs nearby in stream from “old beaver pond 

between South Clover and main Clover Creeks (A. Bammann). This site was approximately 150 

m west of the previous record from this date. 

5. 5/02/2000, 1 subadult (2”), 1 adult R. luteiventris at “Rail Creek and Clover Creek junction, old 

beaver pond” (Al Bammann). This appears to be similar or same location as 9/11/1998 record 

above. 

6. 4/19/2005, 10 R. luteiventris egg masses; calling males also present (no number) at “mouth of S 

Clover Creek in old beaver pond” (Megan Brown). This is similar or same as the record from 

9/16/99 above. 

Survey results: Target and Alternate sites were surveyed on 7/23/09. We found no R. luteiventris. 

We surveyed approximately 500 m on South 

Clover Creek in this area known as Rail 

Canyon. Our Target reach included the 

confluence of Clover Creek and South Clover 

Creek. Riparian vegetation was mainly 

deciduous shrubs (alder); upland vegetation was 

mainly juniper. We found no impoundments on 

the Target reach. Livestock were present during 

survey (6-20 head). The Target reach is less 

than 50 m from a gravel road. Evidence of past 

beaver use was an old lodge and few chewed 

trees. We did not find impoundments or signs of 

beaver use immediately upstream of the Target

reach. 
72

We scored habitat variables on six paired plots. Bank height averaged 2.9 ± 1.9 m (range 0.7-5 m). We 

found cow pats on five plots (average 2.5 ± 2.1; range 0-5 per plot). Some type of soil or vegetation 

disturbance was evident on all terrestrial plots (grazing 4 plots, trampling 4 plots, erosion 3 plots). 

Vegetation cover on aquatic plots averaged 16.2 ± 11.9 percent (range 2-30 percent). Dominant cover 

was a mix of grasses, sedges, horsetails and unidentified vegetation. Wetted width averaged 1.6 ± 0.3 m 

(range 1.3-2.2 m). Maximum depth on aquatic plots averaged 0.2 ± 0.1 m (range 0.1-0.25 m). Sand was 

the dominant substrate on four aquatic plots; gravel was secondary substrate on five plots. 

Rail Canyon 1, Alternate 1: We surveyed approximately 600 m on Clover Creek (average width 1 m) 

immediately upstream of the Target reach. Riparian vegetation was mainly deciduous shrub (willow); 

uplands were mainly juniper. We found no impoundments in this reach. Livestock (1-5 head) were 

present in area at time of survey. This reach was within 50 m of a gravel road. We found no evidence of 

active beaver use; there was presence of past activity in several old dams and a few chewed trees. We 

found no R. luteiventris. 

Remarks: See comments for Rail Canyon 4. 
73

35. Rail Canyon 4

Site Information: BLM (Vale), Malheur County, OR, elevation 1,460 m. 

Historical record: 

1. 9/11/1998, 1 adult R. luteiventris (3”) from a beaver pond on Rail Canyon Creek approximately 

50 m upstream of its confluence with Clover Creek (C. Tait). This record is the same one 

referenced for Rail Canyon 1 Target reach (see above). 

2. 5/2/2000, 1 adult R. luteiventris (A. Bammann). This was the center of Rail Canyon 4 Target

reach.

Survey results: Target and Alternates were surveyed on 7/23/09. We found no R. luteiventris. 

We surveyed approximately 500 m on Rail 

Canyon Creek which appears to be an 

intermittent stream with some permanent pools. 

The Target site included an area with thick 

sedge cover that was dry at the time of survey 

but probably ponds water earlier in year. 

Riparian vegetation was a mix of thistle and 

willow; upland vegetation was mainly juniper. 

Portions of this area burned several years ago. 

There was a recently constructed road crossing 

with culvert that impounds a small area of the 

stream. We found no evidence of current 

beaver activity, but there were older chewed 

trees and an area that appeared to be a 

senescent beaver pond complex. The Target

reach was within 50 m of a gravel road. The 

habitat upstream of the Target reach (included in Alternate 1) had no impoundments or signs of recent 

beaver activity. We found one garter snake and one rattlesnake. 

We scored habitat variables on seven paired plots. Bank height averaged 1.3 ± 1.0 m (range 0.3-2.5 m). 

We found cow pats on one plot (average 0.3 ± 0.8; range 0-2 per plot). We noted soil or vegetation 

disturbance on all terrestrial plots: fire (3 plots), flooding (2 plots), erosion (1 plot), road grade (1 plot), 

and tire tracks (1 plot). Vegetation cover in aquatic plots averaged 79.3 ± 23.2 percent (range 30-100 

percent). Sedges were the most common dominant cover (4 plots). Wetted width averaged 4.9 ± 7.1 m 

(range 0.3-20 m). Maximum depth on aquatic plots averaged 0.2 ± 0.1 m (range 0.1-0.3 m). Silt was the 

dominant substrate on all aquatic plots.
74

Rail Canyon 4, Alternate 1: We surveyed approximately 125 m upstream and north of the Target reach 

on Rail Canyon Creek Both this reach and the stream channel above it were classified as intermittent; 

the entire stream bed was dry above 125 m. Riparian vegetation was mainly thistle; upslope vegetation 

was mainly juniper. We observed no impoundments or beaver activity in the alternate reach or upstream 

of it. We saw no livestock during the survey. This reach is within 50 m of gravel road. No R. luteiventris

were found. 

Rail Canyon 4, Alternate 2: We surveyed 750 m (average width 0.5 m) of intermittent channel 

immediately downstream and south of the Target reach on Rail Canyon Creek. Riparian vegetation was 

mainly deciduous shrubs; upland vegetation was mainly juniper. This area had been intensively grazed 

and trampled by livestock; there were abundant cow pats and livestock were present (6-20 cattle). There 

were no impoundments in this reach, and no sign of current beaver use. Several old chewed trees 

evidenced past beaver activity. This reach is less than 50 m from a gravel road. No R. luteiventris found. 

Remarks regarding the cluster of Rail Canyon sites: We failed to detect R. luteiventris around this 

area despite surveying more than 2.5 km of riparian habitats. Survey conditions were favorable on both 

the timing and the dates of field investigation. There is thus the possibility that R. luteiventris is no 

longer present in these reaches. This contrasts markedly with the local historical record which 

documents broad distribution and considerable breeding in the area within the last 10 – 15 years. Habitat 

for R. luteiventris breeding appears very limited in this area at present. Grazing pressure in this area was 

considerable. In contrast to the records of where frogs had been found, we found no active beaver 

impoundments. The historical record for this site is unique among our Target sites in that there were 

solid records of R. luteiventris breeding and use of beaver ponds, as well as descriptions of multiple 

beaver ponds in this area. Photographs taken during those earlier surveys could be informative and 

illustrate changes in beaver-associated R. luteiventris breeding habitat over time. The thistle invasion in 

the riparian zones is consistent with fallen water tables (a common by-product of loss of beaver), ground 

disturbance, and a consistent source of propagules (both of which could be related to intensive 

livestock). 
75

36. Rattlesnake Creek

Site Information: BLM (Burns), Harney County, OR, elevation 1,402 m 

Historical record: 

6/8/2000, 4 adult R. luteiventris (Smyth, 2000) 

Survey results: Target and Alternate sites were surveyed on 7/11/09. We found no R. luteiventris. 

We surveyed approximately 500 m of this 

permanent stream. Riparian vegetation was 

mainly deciduous shrubs (alder); upland 

vegetation was mainly Ponderosa pine. We 

found no impoundments or current beaver 

activity in the Target reach, but did see a few 

chewed trees as evidence of past activity. A 

paved road (County Road 102) is within 50 m 

of the Target reach. We did not observe 

livestock during our survey. Considerable 

human use of the area was evidenced by 

motor oil, soda and beer containers, and used 

toilet paper along stream. No impoundments 

or beaver sign was detected upstream of 

Target reach (see Alternate Site 1). We 

observed crayfish (Pacifastacus sp.) in the 

stream.

We scored habitat variables on nine paired plots. Bank height averaged 1.4 ± 1.4 m (range 0.2-1.5 m). 

We found cow pats on five plots (average 1.9 ± 2.7; range 0-8 pats per plot). All terrestrial plots 

demonstrated signs of disturbance (7 with cattle trampling, 2 with erosion, one with road grade). 

Vegetation cover on aquatic plots was consistently low (average 10.6 ± 7.7 percent, range 0-20 percent). 

Grasses other than reed canary grass were the dominant cover on three plots; reed canary grass was 

dominant cover on one plot. Wetted width averaged 2.9 ± 1.6 m (range 1.9-7 m). Maximum depth on 

aquatic plots averaged 0.3 ± 0.1 m (range 0.1-0.48 m). Dominant stream substrate was cobble (5 plots) 

and gravel (3 plots). 

Rattlesnake Creek Alternate 1: We surveyed approximately 500 m (average width 1.5 m) of 

Rattlesnake Creek immediately upstream (north) of the Target reach. Riparian vegetation was mainly 

deciduous shrubs (alder); upland vegetation was mainly Ponderosa pine. We observed no 

impoundments or livestock during our survey. There was evidence of heavy livestock trampling along 

parts of the stream and we found one dead cow along the stream. The survey reach was less than 50 m 

from a paved road. We found no evidence of current beaver use, but evidence of older use was chewed 

trees and an old lodge. Heavy trampling extended upstream of the Alternate reach; no impoundments 

were observed upstream. We found no R. luteiventris. 
76

Remarks: A resurvey of this area by the same team that documented R. luteiventris in 2000 revealed no 

frogs in 2004 (Smyth, 2004). The 2000 survey noted the presence of R. luteiventris in and near a blown 

out beaver pond. No beaver pond was noted in the 2004 survey, so it is possible that it had disintegrated 

beyond functionality and recognition in the intervening years (Smyth 2000, 2004). This reach of 

Rattlesnake Creek was very rocky with cool water temperatures (11-17° C), cool spring inflows, and 

significant shading by alder. Signal crayfish (Pacifastacus sp.) are often associated with cooler waters 

with rock substrate. Without beaver impoundments or off channel oxbow sorts of habitat, this reach 

appeared unsuitable for R. luteiventris breeding. 
77

37. Rough Creek

Site Information: BLM (Burns), Harney County, OR, elevation 1,380 m 

Historical record: 

1. 1998, R. luteiventris detected (no date, life stages, or counts) (Smyth, 1998) 

2. 6/20/2000, 1 adult, 4 subadult R. luteiventris (M. Smyth)

3. 7/1/2000, R. luteiventris detected (no life stage or counts) (W. Wente, USGS, unpublished) 

4.

Survey results: Target site was surveyed on 6/24/09. We found two adult R. luteiventris.

We surveyed approximately 500 m on this 

permanent stream. Riparian vegetation was 

a mix of deciduous shrubs and sage; upland 

vegetation was mix of sage, juniper, and 

Ponderosa pine. We observed no 

impoundments or livestock during the 

survey. There were no roads within 50 m of 

the Target. We found some old tree chews, 

but no signs of active beaver presence. We 

observed no impoundments upstream of 

Target reach or signs of recent beaver 

presence. We did see evidence of grazing 

upstream of the Target reach. 

We scored habitat variables on nine paired 

plots. Bank height averaged 1.4 ± 0.8 m 

(range 0.4-3 m). We found no cow pats on terrestrial plots, and five terrestrial plots showed no sign of 

disturbance. Soil disturbance on the other four terrestrial plots was trails (mainly used by wildlife), 

flooding or erosion (2 plots). Vegetation cover on aquatic plots averaged 27.2 ± 21.5 percent (range 5-

60 percent). Sedges were the dominant cover on seven aquatic plots. Wetted width averaged 2.1 ± 1.2 m 

(range 1.1 -5 m). Maximum depth averaged 0.3 ± 0.1 m (range 0.2-0.45 m). The dominant substrates on 

aquatic plots were cobble (4 plots) and gravel (4 plots).

Remarks: Our Target reach was relatively near the Nicoll Creek (1.9 km) and Silver Creek 4150 Bridge 

(1.7 km) Target sites. The Target reach was located based on the 7/1/2000 record, and began ca. 100 m 

upstream of the confluence with Silver Creek. The other two historical observations were further 

upstream of our Target reach by 500-1000 m. These observations are consistent with the others across 

the upper Silver Creek basin and suggest a historically broad distribution of R. luteiventris in the area. 
78

38. South Fork Malheur River, near Crane Creek confluence

Site Information: BLM (Burns), Harney County, OR, elevation 1,119 m. 

Historical record: 

6/19/1998, 1 R. luteiventris (no stage) (Smyth, 1998) 

Survey results: Target site was surveyed on 6/26/09. We found one adult R. luteiventris. 

We surveyed approximately 500 m along 

this large permanent stream. Riparian 

vegetation was mainly deciduous shrub 

(willow) with significant cover of grasses; 

upland vegetation was mainly sage. We 

found no impoundments on the Target

reach and did not observe livestock during 

survey. We found no evidence of beaver 

activity. Fish were observed in the Target

reach, including probable redside shiners. 

The Target reach appears to be very 

productive, with abundant submerged 

aquatic vegetation and many dragonflies 

and garter snakes. We found one P. regilla

egg mass and about 25 P. regilla hatchling 

tadpoles. We did not detect beaver activity 

or impoundments immediately upstream of Target reach.

We scored habitat variables on nine paired plots. Bank height averaged 1.3 ± 1.1 m (range 0.5-4 m). We 

found cow pats on five plots (average 1.7 ± 2.2; range 0-6 per plot). Signs of disturbance on terrestrial 

plots were mainly related to flooding (8 plots); two plots showed signs of grazing and trampling. 

Vegetation coverage on aquatic plots averaged 56.7 ± 19.4 percent (range 30-90 percent). Elodea spp. 

was most commonly noted dominant vegetation (4 plots); sedges and algae were dominant cover on two

plots each. Wetted width averaged 10.2 ± 5.5 m (range 0.55-20 m). Maximum depths on aquatic plots 

averaged 0.7 ± 0.3 m (range 0.35-1.2 m). Dominant aquatic substrates were boulder (6 plots) and 

bedrock (3 plots); secondary substrate types were cobble (6 plots) and silt (2 plots). 

Remarks: The South Fork Malheur River Target site was relatively isolated from our other Target sites. 

The nearest Target sites in our 2009 sample were on Alder and Crane creeks (18.1, 24 km straight line 

distance, respectively), both of which drain into the South Fork Malheur River. 
79

39. South Fork Squaw Creek

Site Information: BLM (Vale), Malheur County, OR, elevation 958 m 

Historical record: 

8/21/1975, 2 R. luteiventris from ‘pond; off South Fork of Squaw Creek’ (C. Tait) 

Survey results: Target and Alternate sites were surveyed on 7/7/09. We found no R. luteiventris. 

The entire 500 m of the Target reach was 

dry. We also surveyed approximately 

500 m above and 500 m below the 

Target section of the creek – no surface 

water was present in this vicinity. We 

found no surface water until ca. 1 km 

downstream of the end of our Target

reach, near the confluence with North 

Fork Squaw Creek. Riparian vegetation 

and upland vegetation are mainly sage. 

We found no impoundments in the 

Target reach, but there is an 

anthropogenic impoundment ca. 500 m 

upstream of the Target reach (see 

Alternate 1). The Target reach was 

within 50 m of dirt road. We observed 

no signs of beaver activity in Target reach, nor upstream of the Target reach. No habitat plots were 

evaluated. 

South Fork Squaw Creek, Alternate site 1: We surveyed the entire perimeter of Squaw Creek 

Reservoir. We estimated the surface are of this anthropogenic impoundment was 100 × 60 m. A narrow 

band of riparian vegetation around the reservoir was mainly deciduous shrub (willow); upland 

vegetation was mainly sage. We found no livestock during our surveys. This site was within 50 m of a 

dirt road. We found no evidence of beaver activity. Vegetation was thick and much of the reservoir had 

steep banks, so our ability to detect frogs may have been reduced. We found no R. luteiventris. 
80

40. Silver Creek 4150 bridge

Site Information: BLM (Burns), Harney County, OR, elevation 1,363 m 

Historical record: 

1. 7/1/2002, R. luteiventris detected (no date, numbers, stage) (Wente and others, 2005; USGS, 

unpubl.) 

2. 8/21/2008, 20 juvenile R. luteiventris (Funk and others, 2008; USGS, unpubl.) 

Survey results: Target was surveyed on 6/23/09. We found four adult male and four sub-adult R. 

luteiventris. 

We surveyed approximately 500 m on this 

permanent stream. Our Target reach was 

offset approximately 200 m downstream to 

avoid private land. Riparian vegetation was 

mainly deciduous shrub (willow); upland 

vegetation was mix of juniper and sage. We 

observed no impoundments on the Target

reach. The 4150 Road bridge had ample 

conveyance and does not appear to 

impound water. Most of the Target reach 

was greater than 50 m from any road. Fish 

and garter snakes were observed in Target

reach, as was one western rattlesnake. We 

found no evidence of beaver activity. We 

saw no impoundments or evidence of 

beaver upstream of the Target reach. 

We scored habitat variables on nine paired plots. Bank height averaged 0.9 ± 0.6 m (range 0.2-2 m). We 

found cow pats on four plots (average 0.6 ± 0.7; range 0-2 per plot). Disturbance was noted on four 

terrestrial plots, mostly from a small trail with slight erosion. Vegetation cover on aquatic plots 

averaged 35.6 ± 16.7 percent (range 10-70 percent). Sedges were the dominant cover on six plots, and 

spikerush (Eleocharis) was dominant on two plots. Wetted width averaged 6.2 ± 3.7 m (range 3.2-14.5 

m). Maximum depth averaged 0.6 ± 0.2 m (0.38-0.85 m). The dominant substrate on all aquatic plots 

was cobble; gravel was secondary on all plots. 

Remarks: None.
81

41. Silver Creek Incidental

We surveyed an Incidental site in the upper Silver Creek basin about 15 km upstream of the Silver 

Creek RNA and 20 km upstream of the 4150 Bridge Target sites. We surveyed approximately 190 m 

along Silver Creek just downstream of USFS Road 45 in the Ochoco National Forest. This reach had 

permanent water and averaged about 1.5 m wide. Riparian vegetation was mainly sage, with Ponderosa 

pine in surrounding uplands. We found no impoundments on the survey reach, nor did we observe 

livestock during the survey. Much of the survey reach was within 50 m of a gravel road. We found no 

evidence of beaver activity on the survey reach or upstream of the survey reach to the road. Small fish 

were observed in the survey reach. We captured seven adult male R. luteiventris, as well as seven

juveniles/subadults and eight tadpoles. Another ~50 tadpoles were observed but not captured. 
82

42. Silver Creek, Lower (Malheur National Wildlife Refuge)

Site Information: USFWS (Malheur NWR), Harney County, OR, elevation 1,252 m 

Historical record: 

7/1/2002, 1 post-metamorphic R. luteiventris seen (W. Wente, USGS, unpubl.) 

Survey results: Target and Alternate sites were surveyed on 6/14/09. We found no R. luteiventris. 

We surveyed approximately 500 m of 

this wetland that had attributes of both 

pond and permanent stream. Riparian 

and upland vegetation was mainly sage. 

Much of the Target reach had dense 

bulrush (Scirpus spp.) on one bank, and 

little vegetation on the other. We 

observed no livestock during the survey. 

This reach was within 50 m of a gravel 

road. A large volume of water is 

impounded immediately upstream of the 

Target reach, above the road crossing 

and weir that controls water supply in 

Target reach and lateral canals. We saw 

no sign of beaver on the Target reach or 

immediately upstream. Several old 

oxbow pools were present along the Target reach (Alternate Sites 1 and 2, below). These appeared to be 

mostly disconnected from the main flow through the Target reach.

We scored habitat variables on 11 paired plots. Bank height averaged 1.5 ± 0.6 m (range 0.8-2.5 m). We 

found cow pats on seven plots (average 2.2 ± 3.0; range 0-10 per plot). Evidence of disturbance (cattle 

trampling, road grade, erosion) was found on five terrestrial plots. Vegetation cover on aquatic plots 

averaged 17.5 ± 14.8 percent (range 0-15 percent). Bulrush was dominant on six plots. Wetted width 

averaged 14.5 ± 3.2 m (range 7.5-20 m). Maximum depth on aquatic plots averaged 1.3 ± 0.5 (range 

0.6-2 m). Silt was the dominant substrate on all aquatic plots. 

Silver Creek, Lower, Alternate 1: We surveyed an oxbow pond (50 × 10 m) on the east side of the 

south-flowing Target reach. The oxbow was less than 50 m from Silver Creek, with no obvious surface 

water connection to the creek during normal water levels. The surrounding vegetation was mainly sage. 

We saw no livestock or evidence of beaver activity. This Alternate site was not within 50 m of any 

roads. We found no R. luteiventris. 
83

Silver Creek, Lower, Alternate 2: We surveyed an oxbow pond (40 × 40 m) on the west side of southflowing Target reach. This oxbow was less than 50 m from Silver Creek, but we saw no obvious surface 

water connection to creek during normal water levels. Both riparian and upland vegetation was mainly 

sage. We saw no livestock at the time of the survey, but found evidence of past heavy livestock use. We 

found no evidence of beaver. This oxbow was not within 50 m of any roads. We found no R. 

luteiventris. 

Remarks: None. 
84

43. Silver Creek Research Natural Area (RNA)

Site Information: BLM (Burns), Harney County, OR, elevation 1,382 m 

Historical record: 

1. 1998, (No date), 9 juvenile R. luteiventris (Smyth, 1998) 

2. 7/02/2000, 3 adult R. luteiventris (Smyth, 2000) 

3. 7/18/2004, 5 R. luteiventris (Smyth, 2004) 

Survey results: Target site was surveyed on 8/9/2009. We found eight adult, twenty juvenile/metamorphic, 

and one larval R. luteiventris. We also surveyed an Incidental site in the upper Silver Creek basin on 

7/12/2009 (remarks below), during which we found seven adult, seven juvenile/subadults, and greater than 

50 larval R. luteiventris. 

We surveyed approximately 500 m of this 

permanent stream. Riparian vegetation was 

mainly deciduous shrub (Alnus spp.); upland 

vegetation was sage. Beaver were active in 

the area (many chewed trees, slides, 

impoundment), including one new dam 

under construction. Livestock were present 

at time of survey (1-5 cattle). The Target 

was not within 50 m of a road. Upstream 

habitat also had a beaver impoundment. 

We scored habitat variables on six paired 

plots. Bank height averaged 0.9 ± 0.4 m 

(range 0.4-1.5 m). We found cow pats (n = 4 

pats) on one plot. Two of the six terrestrial 

plots showed evidence of disturbance (cattle 

trampling, grazing, trail). Vegetation cover 

on aquatic plots averaged 18.3 ± 12.1 percent (range 5 -35 percent). Sedges (Carex sp.) and spikerush 

(Eleocharis sp.) were noted as dominant cover on three plots each. Wetted width averaged 5.6 ± 1.4 m 

(range 4-7.5 m). Maximum depth on aquatic plots averaged 0.5 ± 0.3 m (range 0.2-0.95 m). Dominant 

substrates were gravel (3 plots), sand (2 plots), and cobble (1 plot). 

Remarks: We found R. luteiventris distributed along most of the Silver Creek RNA Target reach, including 

evidence of local reproduction. Beaver were active in that reach in 2009. Evidence of beaver included a dam 

that was under construction, a slide, and many chewed trees. Earlier surveys of the same reach noted 

relatively few frogs (9 juveniles, 1 adult in 1998; 3 adults in 2000; 5 adults/subadults in 2004) and no 

evidence of local reproduction in 2000 and 2004 (Smyth 2000, 2004). Smyth’s 2004 report noted that 

habitats that may have supported R. luteiventris breeding in previous survey years had lost water depth or 

were gone altogether. Smyth’s reports from 2000 and 2004 did not note beaver activity. Descriptions of 

other sites surveyed by Smyth included documentation of beaver activity, so beaver may be expanding in 

this reach of Silver Creek in 2009 after years of absence. This could be a useful case study for monitoring 

relationships between R. luteiventris and expanding beaver influence. 
85

44. Skull Creek

Site Information: BLM (Vale), Malheur County, OR, elevation 1,301 m. 

Historical record: 

1. 5/10/1996, “many age classes (50 animals)” (B. Olson, C. Tait) 

2. 7/9/1997, 10 juvenile R. luteiventris “in pool (20 × 20 × 1’ deep) above the road” (A. Bammann) 

Survey results: Target site was surveyed on 8/5/2009. We found 21 adult (17 female, 4 male) R. 

luteiventris. 

We surveyed approximately 415 m on this 

intermittent tributary of Dry Creek. 

Approximately 280 m of the Target reach 

were dry. We found no impoundments on 

the Target reach. Riparian and upland 

vegetation were mainly sage with some 

riparian clusters of emergent herbaceous 

and deciduous shrub vegetation (willows). 

No livestock were seen during survey on 

Target reach. The Target reach was within 

50 m of a small dirt 2-track road. We saw 

no evidence of beaver. We found 

approximately 25 juvenile and 25 larval P. 

regilla. The upstream end of Target reach 

was at private property boundary; the 

channel was dry above the property 

boundary. 

We scored habitat variables on six paired plots. Bank height averaged 1.1 ± 0.8 m (range 0.2-2 m). We 

found cow pats on all terrestrial plots (average 11.2 ± 0.8, range 10-12 per plot). Disturbance was 

evident on all terrestrial plots: grazed vegetation (5 plots), livestock trampling (4 plots), erosion (1 plot), 

tire tracks/road grade (1 plot). Vegetation cover on aquatic plots averaged 78.3 ± 22.1 percent (range 

35-95 percent). Dominant plant cover was rushes (2 plots), duckweed (2 plots), and algae (1 plot). 

Wetted width averaged 3.7 ± 2.6 m (range 0 [dry]-7 m). Maximum depth on aquatic plots averaged 0.1 

± 0.1 m (range 0 [dry]-0.3 m). Dominant substrates on aquatic plots were silt (4 plots) and sand (2 

plots). 

Remarks: The historical records (recorded as ‘Skull Spring’ and ‘Dry Creek at Skull Spring’) were 

from a pond on Skull Creek mapped on USGS Topographic maps as ‘Skull Spring’. This site is on 

private land, so we displaced our surveys upstream ca. 0.7 km to the nearest public land. That public 

holding lies between two private parcels but was adequate for us to survey almost the desired 500 m 

length on Skull Creek.
86

45. Willow Creek Reservoir

Site Information: BLM (Vale), Malheur County, OR, elevation 1,472 m 

Historical record: 

8/15/1995, 2 juvenile R. luteiventris from Willow Creek on the road crossing near Frank Maher Flat 

(C. Tait). See Remarks. 

Survey results: Surveyed on 7/22/09. No R. luteiventris found. 

We surveyed the entire perimeter of 

Willow Creek Reservoir. The size of the 

flooded basin at time of the survey was 

estimated at 450 × 100 m. Riparian 

vegetation was mainly deciduous shrub 

(willow); upland vegetation was mainly 

sage. We found no livestock during the 

survey. The site is within 50 m of a twotrack dirt path. We found no evidence of 

beaver activity.

We scored habitat variables on eight paired 

plots. Bank height averaged 1.0 ± 0.7 

(range 0.3-2.5 m). We found cow pats on 

four plots (average 3.4 ± 5.3, range 0-15 

per plot). Disturbance was evident on all 

terrestrial plots: flooding (6 plots) and livestock trampling (5 plots). Vegetation cover on aquatic plots 

averaged 5.6 ± 1.8 percent (range 5 -10 percent). We did not estimate wetted width due to large size. 

Most of the reservoir had steep sides: maximum depth on aquatic plots averaged 4.5 ± 1.5 m (range 

0.62-5 m). Dominant substrate on aquatic plots was silt (5 plots), gravel (2 plots), and cobble (1 plot). 

Remarks: The historical record was along Willow Creek on private land downstream of this reservoir. 

We displaced our survey upstream approximately 2 km to reach public land to survey, which resulted in 

our surveying the reservoir rather than creek/riparian habitat. The reservoir had a negligible amount of 

habitat typically favored by R. luteiventris such as vegetated shallows. We did not note fish presence, 

but large reservoirs usually are stocked with game fish and they can be difficult to detect without 

sampling directly for them. We were also not able to survey alternate sites: fence lines on both sides of 

the reservoir were interpreted by our field crew as private property. The distance between the sites, the 

probability of stocked fish in the reservoir and the contrast in habitat types precludes any conclusion on 

R. luteiventris status on the stream below the reservoir based on a survey above the dam. A fuller 

understanding of R. luteiventris status at this site would benefit from surveying the private land 

downstream of the reservoir where the historical observations were made.
87

Appendix B. Human Footprint Scores for Target Sites 

Site name Average (weighted) Human Footprint score within 2-

kilometer radius of survey centroid (1–10)

00 Spring 3.6

Alder Creek 4.0

Bear Creek 1.7

Bendire Creek 2.4

Bendire Creek Slough 2.3

Big Trout Creek 3.7

Bridge Creek 3.3

Butte Creek 3.4

Calf Creek 2.9

Camp Creek 3.5

Castro Springs Reservoir 3.5

Claw Creek 3.1

Coburn Creek 3.3

Crane Creek 4.3

Dry Creek 3.4

Dry Creek – below Indian Trails 2.5

Dry Creek – Hurley Flat 3.1

Dry Creek – King Brown Cabin 3.4

Fish Lake and Slough 3.5

Grove Creek 2.6

Hog Creek 2.1

Kingsbury Gulch 4.1

Lily Lake 3.3

Little Fish Creek 3.0

Little Malheur River 2.2

McCoy Creek Meadow 2.9

McCoy Creek Upper 2.9

Mud Creek 3.5

Nicoll Creek 3.1

Page Springs 3.5

Parsnip Creek 4.6

Rail Canyon 1 2.3

Rail Canyon 4 2.3

Rattlesnake Creek 3.7

Rough Creek 3.2

SF Malheur at Crane Creek Confluence 3.0

SF Squaw Creek 3.5

Silver Creek at 4150 Bridge 3.5

Silver Creek Lower MNWR 3.3

Silver Creek RNA 3.5

Skull Creek 3.3

Willow Creek Reservoir 3.7
88

Appendix C. Land Use Around Target Sites (Percentage of 2-kilometer Radius Buffer) 

[Land use descriptions shown in Appendix D.] 

Site name

Open 

Water

Developed,

Open Space

Developed,

Low Intensity

Barren Land

(Rock/Sand/

Clay)

Evergreen

Forest

Shrub/

Scrub

Grassland/

Herbaceous

Pasture

/ 

Hay

Cultivated

Crops

Woody

Wetlands

Emergent

Herbaceous

Wetlands

00 Spring 2.0 0.0 0.0 19.4 0.9 66.7 0.3 6.1 0.3 0.1 3.9

Alder Creek 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.8 79.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5

Bear Creek 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.9 70.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bendire Creek 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 96.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.3

Bendire Creek Slough 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 98.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Big Trout Creek 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 8.3 90.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bridge Creek 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 54.8 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.0 42.3

Butte Creek 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 99.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Calf Creek 0.1 4.5 0.6 0.0 0.1 94.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0

Camp Creek 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.6 85.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2

Castro Springs 

Reservoir

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 99.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3

Claw Creek 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Coburn Creek 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 93.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.6 5.6 

Crane Creek 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Dry Creek 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 99.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dry Creek – below 

Indian Trails

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 99.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dry Creek – Hurley 

Flat

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 91.8 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dry Creek – King 

Brown Cabin

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 99.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Fish Lake and Slough 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 86.7 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5

Grove Creek 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.8 84.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5

Hog Creek 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 99.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Kingsbury Gulch 0.0 3.4 0.9 0.5 0.0 84.3 10.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
89

Site name

Open 

Water

Developed,

Open Space

Developed,

Low Intensity

Barren Land

(Rock/Sand/

Clay)

Evergreen

Forest

Shrub/

Scrub

Grassland/

Herbaceous

Pasture

/ 

Hay

Cultivated

Crops

Woody

Wetlands

Emergent

Herbaceous

Wetlands

Lily Lake 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.5 87.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5

Little Fish Creek 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 92.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5

Little Malheur River 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.8 32.9 29.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

McCoy Creek 

Meadow

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 95.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

McCoy Creek Upper 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 92.4 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2

Mud Creek 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 60.9 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 37.2

Nicoll Creek 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 96.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Page Springs 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 81.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.0 16.6

Parsnip Creek 0.0 2.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 96.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.2

Rail Canyon 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 92.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rail Canyon 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 91.5 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rattlesnake Creek 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.1 28.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rough Creek 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 95.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

SF Malheur at Crane 

Creek Confluence

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SF Squaw Creek 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 67.5 32.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Silver Creek at 4150 

Bridge

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 88.4 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 8.7

Silver Creek Lower 

MNWR

1.9 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.1 46.4 0.0 13.7 8.4 0.0 20.8

Silver Creek RNA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 98.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5

Skull Creek 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Willow Creek 

Reservoir

0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 97.1 0.3 1.6 0.0 0.3 0.2
90

Appendix D. Definitions for Land Cover Data (from Homer and others, 2004). 

Land-use category Description

Open Water All areas of open water, generally with less than 25% cover or vegetation or 

soil

Developed, Open Space Includes areas with a mixture of some constructed materials, but mostly 

vegetation in the form of lawn grasses. Impervious surfaces account for less 

than 20% of total cover. These areas most commonly include large-lot singlefamily housing units, parks, golf courses, and vegetation planted in developed 

settings for recreation, erosion control, or aesthetic purposes

Developed, Low Intensity Includes areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation. 

Impervious surfaces account for 20-49% of total cover. These areas most 

commonly include single-family housing units.

Barren Land 

(Rock/Sand/Clay)

Barren areas of bedrock, desert pavement, scarps, talus, slides, volcanic 

material, glacial debris, sand dunes, strip mines, gravel pits and other 

accumulations of earthen material. Generally, vegetation accounts for less than 

15% of total cover.

Evergreen Forest Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall, and greater than 

20% of total vegetation cover. More than 75% of the tree species maintain their 

leaves all year. Canopy is never without green foliage.

Shrub/Scrub Areas dominated by shrubs; less than 5 meters tall with shrub canopy typically 

greater than 20% of total vegetation. This class includes true shrubs, young 

trees in an early successional stage or trees stunted from environmental 

conditions.

Grassland/Herbaceous Areas dominated by graminoid or herbaceous vegetation, generally greater 

than 80% of total vegetation. These areas are not subject to intensive 

management such as tilling, but can be utilized for grazing.

Pasture/Hay Areas of grasses, legumes, or grass-legume mixtures planted for livestock 

grazing or the production of seed or hay crops, typically on a perennial cycle. 

Pasture/hay vegetation accounts for greater than 20% of total vegetation.

Cultivated Crops Areas used for the production of annual crops, such as corn, soybeans, 

vegetables, tobacco, and cotton, and also perennial woody crops such as 

orchards and vineyards. Crop vegetation accounts for greater than 20% of total 

vegetation. This class also includes all land being actively tilled.

Woody Wetlands Areas where forest or shrub land vegetation accounts for greater than 20% of 

vegetative cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or 

covered with water.

Emergent Herbaceous 

Wetlands

Areas where perennial herbaceous vegetation accounts for greater than 80 % of 

vegetative cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or 

covered with water.
91

Appendix E. Distance to Nearest Agriculture for Target Sites

Site name

Distance to nearest agriculture 

(kilometers)

00 Spring 0.12

Alder Creek 4.33

Bear Creek 2.98

Bendire Creek 1.61

Bendire Creek Slough 1.99

Big Trout Creek 7.01

Bridge Creek 0.86

Butte Creek 4.41

Calf Creek 1.33

Camp Creek 4.91

Castro Springs Reservoir 2.85

Claw Creek 15.65

Coburn Creek 3.99

Crane Creek 5.77

Dry Creek 2.06

Dry Creek – below Indian Trails 4.15

Dry Creek – Hurley Flat 2.43

Dry Creek – King Brown Cabin 3.91

Fish Lake and Slough 6.66

Grove Creek 9.81

Hog Creek 7.43

Kingsbury Gulch 5.99

Lily Lake 7.62

Little Fish Creek 10.30

Little Malheur River 5.50

McCoy Creek Meadow 4.37

McCoy Creek Upper 5.00

Mud Creek 0.07

Nicoll Creek 1.91

Page Springs 0.00

Parsnip Creek 0.55

Rail Canyon 1 9.14

Rail Canyon 4 6.86

Rattlesnake Creek 3.75

Rough Creek 3.39

SF Malheur at Crane Creek confluence 3.24

SF Squaw Creek 4.86

Silver Creek at 4150 Bridge 4.39

Silver Creek Lower MNWR 0.19

Silver Creek RNA 9.43

Skull Creek 3.09

Willow Creek Reservoir 0.40
92

Appendix F. Agriculture in Watershed for Target Sites 

Pasture/hay Cultivated crops

Site name

Watershed Area 

(hectares)

Area 

(hectares)

Percentage of 

watershed

Area

(hectares)

Percentage of 

watershed

00 Spring 219,483.5 96.0 0.0 2.1 0.0

Alder Creek 1,546.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bear Creek 3,056.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bendire Creek 4,680.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bendire Creek Slough 10,537.2 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

Big Trout Creek 546.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bridge Creek 15,247.1 2.0 0.0 0.6 0.0

Butte Creek 28,807.7 58.9 0.2 0.0 0.0

Calf Creek 7,592.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Camp Creek 620.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Castro Springs Reservoir 934.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Claw Creek 2,208.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Coburn Creek 2,727.2 0.5 0.0 11.6 0.4

Crane Creek 783.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dry Creek 49,558.0 59.9 0.1 0.0 0.0

Dry Creek – below Indian Trails 57,692.4 60.4 0.1 0.0 0.0

Dry Creek – Hurley Flat 3,450.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dry Creek – King Brown Cabin 16,472.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Fish Lake and Slough 66.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Grove Creek 126.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Hog Creek 4,746.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Kingsbury Gulch 6,431.5 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Lily Lake 22.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Little Fish Creek 291.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Little Malheur River 8,443.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

McCoy Creek Meadow 1,955.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

McCoy Creek Upper 1,203.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mud Creek - - - - - 

Nicoll Creek 9,540.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Page Springs 54,205.5 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

Parsnip Creek 1,644.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rail Canyon 1 2,895.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rail Canyon 4 455.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rattlesnake Creek 3,380.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rough Creek 3,530.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SF Malheur at Crane Creek confluence 107,680.8 997.8 0.9 413.1 0.4

SF Squaw Creek 1,060.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Silver Creek at 4150 Bridge 54,261.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Silver Creek Lower MNWR 216,116.2 10,230.0 4.7 1,611.4 0.7

Silver Creek RNA 20,028.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Skull Creek 5,021.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Willow Creek Reservoir 2,296.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
93

Appendix G. Total Mapped Water within 1-kilometer Radius Buffers for Target 

Sites

[Total stream length refers to the total distance of mapped streams, measured in kilometers, within a 1-kilometer radius of the 

Target site. Total waterbody area refers to the total surface area of mapped waterbodies, measured in hectares, within a 1-

kilometer radius of the Target site.]

Site name

Total stream length 

(kilometers)

Total waterbody area 

(hectares)

00 Spring 3.71 44.58

Alder Creek 5.01 7.10

Bear Creek 4.09 0.06

Bendire Creek 4.17 0.00

Bendire Creek Slough 3.62 0.08

Big Trout Creek 6.49 0.00

Bridge Creek 13.56 156.04

Butte Creek 8.20 0.73

Calf Creek 4.41 0.00

Camp Creek 4.58 0.07

Castro Springs Reservoir 4.70 0.56

Claw Creek 4.23 0.00

Coburn Creek 9.49 0.00

Crane Creek 5.41 0.10

Dry Creek 7.61 0.89

Dry Creek – below Indian Trails 5.22 0.00

Dry Creek – Hurley Flat 5.36 0.00

Dry Creek – King Brown Cabin 6.38 0.21

Fish Lake and Slough 2.82 11.96

Grove Creek 3.69 0.00

Hog Creek 9.21 0.00

Kingsbury Gulch 3.54 0.00

Lily Lake 2.81 1.62

Little Fish Creek 2.07 0.00

Little Malheur River 4.54 0.00

McCoy Creek Meadow 4.30 0.00

McCoy Creek Upper 4.72 0.34

Mud Creek 11.82 124.19

Nicoll Creek 7.06 0.00

Page Springs 6.20 16.53

Parsnip Creek 4.04 0.19

Rail Canyon 1 8.00 0.00

Rail Canyon 4 5.22 0.04

Rattlesnake Creek 2.62 0.06

Rough Creek 6.46 0.00

SF Malheur at Crane Creek Confluence 4.74 0.00

SF Squaw Creek 6.17 0.84

Silver Creek at 4150 Bridge 8.41 0.00

Silver Creek Lower MNWR 11.38 1.55

Silver Creek RNA 4.88 0.00

Skull Creek 5.18 0.07

Willow Creek Reservoir 6.83 10.10
94

Appendix H. Recent Herbicide Applications near Selected Target Sites 

[Agency: BLM, Bureau of Land Management; ODOT, Oregon Department of Transportation; HCWC, Harney County Weed 

Control]

Date Product sprayed within 1 kilometer of site Agency

Alder Creek1

7/8/2008 Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K and Gordon’s Farm® Hi-Dep® BLM

Calf Creek

6/7/2005 2,4 Amine 4 (manufacturer unknown) and Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K ODOT

7/18/2005 UAP Timberland PlatoonTM and Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K ODOT

8/29/2005 UAP Timberland PlatoonTM and DuPontTM Telar® DF ODOT

4/19/2006 DuPontTM LandmarkTM MP and Diuron 4L (manufacturer unknown) ODOT

4/20/2006 DuPontTM LandmarkTM MP and Diuron 4L (manufacturer unknown) ODOT

5/10/2006 Nufarm Weedone® LV4 Solventless and Nichino America Edict® ODOT

5/11/2006 Nufarm Weedone® LV4 Solventless and Nichino America Edict® ODOT

5/25/2006 UAP Timberland PlatoonTM and Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K ODOT

5/25/2006 UAP Timberland PlatoonTM and Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K ODOT

6/7/2006 DuPontTM LandmarkTM MP and Diuron 4L (manufacturer unknown) ODOT

8/3/2006 UAP Timberland PlatoonTM, DuPontTM Telar® DF and Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K ODOT

8/10/2006 Riverdale® Veteran® 720 ODOT

10/23/2006 UAP Timberland PlatoonTM and Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K ODOT

4/19/2007 Riverdale® AquaNeat® ODOT

7/18/2007 UAP Timberland PlatoonTM and Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K ODOT

4/17/2008 DuPontTM Krovar® I DF and DuPontTM Oust® XP ODOT

5/5/2008 UAP Timberland PlatoonTM and Riverdale® AquaNeat® ODOT

5/19/2008 Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K and Nichino America Edict® ODOT

8/4/2008 UAP Timberland PlatoonTM, Riverdale® Veteran® 720 and Nichino America Edict® ODOT

8/5/2008 UAP Timberland PlatoonTM, Riverdale® Veteran® 720 and Nichino America Edict® ODOT

8/14/2008 UAP Timberland PlatoonTM, Riverdale® Veteran® 720 and Dow AgroSciencesTM Vista® ODOT

4/6/2009 DuPont TM Landmark® XP and Vegetation Manager® Diuron 80 DF ODOT

5/18/2009 UAP Timberland PlatoonTM and Riverdale® AquaNeat® ODOT

6/1/2009 Riverdale® Veteran® 720 ODOT

6/2/2009 Riverdale® Veteran® 720 ODOT

7/16/2009 Riverdale® Veteran® 720 and Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K ODOT

3/11/2010 DuPontTM Landmark® XP and DuPontTM Karmex® XP ODOT

4/21/2010 DuPontTM Landmark® XP and DuPontTM Karmex® XP ODOT
95

Date Product sprayed within 1 kilometer of site Agency

4/22/2010 UAP Timberland PlatoonTM and Riverdale® AquaNeat® ODOT

Crane Creek

7/11/2007 Gordon’s Farm® Hi-Dep® and Riverdale® Diablo® BLM

7/8/2007 Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K and Gordon’s Farm® Hi-Dep® BLM

8/11/2009 Gordon’s Farm® Hi-Dep® and Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K BLM

Fish Lake and Slough

8/30/2007 Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K and Gordon’s Farm® Hi-Dep® BLM

8/14/2008 Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K and Gordon’s Farm® Hi-Dep® BLM

Kingsbury Gulch

6/10/2005 2,4 amine 4 (manufacturer unknown) and Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K ODOT

7/6/2005 Riverdale® Veteran® 720 ODOT

4/19/2006 DuPontTM Landmark MPTM and Diuron 4L (manufacturer unknown) ODOT

4/20/2006 UAP Timberland PlatoonTM and Monsanto AquaMasterTM ODOT

6/7/2006 DuPontTM LandmarkTM MP and Diuron 4L (manufacturer unknown) ODOT

6/13/2006 Riverdale® Veteran® 720 ODOT

4/12/2007 Riverdale® AquaNeat® ODOT

4/19/2007 Riverdale® AquaNeat® ODOT

6/12/2007 UAP Timberland PlatoonTM and Riverdale® AquaNeat® ODOT

6/13/2007 UAP Timberland PlatoonTM and Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K ODOT

4/8/2008 DuPontTM Krovar® I DF and DuPontTM Oust® XP ODOT

5/5/2008 UAP Timberland PlatoonTM and Riverdale® AquaNeat® ODOT

6/18/2008 UAP Timberland PlatoonTM ODOT

8/1/2008 Riverdale® Veteran® 720 ODOT

9/25/2008 Riverdale® Veteran® 720 ODOT

3/19/2009 DuPontTM Landmark® XP and Vegetation Manager® Diuron 80 DF ODOT

5/18/2009 UAP Timberland PlatoonTM and Riverdale® AquaNeat® ODOT

3/10/2010 DuPontTM Landmark® XP and DuPontTM Karmex® XP ODOT

Rattlesnake Creek

6/26/2006 Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K BLM

6/27/2006 Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K BLM

7/17/2007 Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K and Nufarm Weedar® 64 BLM

7/17/2007 Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K and Nufarm Weedar® 64 BLM

5/9/2008 Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K, Monsanto Roundup Pro® and Nufarm Weedar® 64 BLM

6/9/2008 Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K and Nufarm Weedar® 64 BLM

7/25/2008 Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K, Nufarm Weedar® 64 and Riverdale® Diablo® BLM

4/22/2009 Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K and Nufarm Weedar ® 64 BLM
96

Date Product sprayed within 1 kilometer of site Agency

5/28/2009 Nufarm Weedar® 64and Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K BLM

6/16/2009 Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K and Nufarm Weedar® 64 BLM

7/1/2009 Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K, UAP Timberland PlatoonTM and Riverdale® Diablo® BLM

4/22/2009 Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K and Nufarm Weedar® 64 (also Loveland Industries PhaseTM 

as an adjuvant)

HCWC

5/28/2009 Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K and Nufarm Weedar® 64 (also Loveland Industries PhaseTM 

as an adjuvant)

HCWC

6/9/2008 Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K and Nufarm Weedar® 64 (also Loveland Industries PhaseTM 

as an adjuvant)

HCWC

6/10/2009 Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K and Nufarm Weedar® 64 (also Loveland Industries PhaseTM 

as an adjuvant)

HCWC

6/16/2009 Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K, Gordon’s Farm® Hi-Dep® and Riverdale® Diablo® (also 

Loveland Industries PhaseTM as an adjuvant)

HCWC

7/1/2009 Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K, UAP Timberland PlatoonTM and Riverdale® Diablo® (also 

Loveland Industries PhaseTM as an adjuvant)

HCWC

SF Malheur near Crane Creek

8/3/2009 Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K BLM

Silver Creek at 4150 Bridge

7/14/2008 Gordon’s Farm® Hi-Dep® and Dow AgroSciencesTM Tordon® 22K BLM

1 Gordon’s Farm® Hi-Dep® and BASF Clarity® were applied upstream of site on 7/7/2008 and 7/14/2009. 
Publishing support provided by the U.S. Geological Survey

Publishing Network, Tacoma Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning the research in this report, contact the 

Director, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, 

U.S. Geological Survey, 777 NW 9th Street 

Corvallis, Oregon 97330

http://fresc.usgs.gov
Pearl and others— Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris) in Southeastern Oregon: A Survey of Historical Localities, 2009— Open-File Report 2010–1235