Herpetofauna of the Lower Snake River Habitat Management Units

Transcription

Herpetofauna of the Lower Snake River
Habitat Management Units
Results from the 2008 Field Season
A Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District
Covering the following HMUs
Villard Ponds
Big Flat
Lost Island
Hollebeke
Skookum
55-Mile
Ona S. V. Alminas, Peter L. Gibert, Andrew Engilis Jr.
Museum of Wildlife and Fish Biology
December 2009
USACE Lower Snake River HMUS
Herpetofaunal surveys, 2008 Interim Report
Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology
University of California, Dav
Herpetofauna of the Lower Snake River Habitat
Management Units
Results from the 2008 Field Season
A Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District
December 2009
Covering the following HMUs
Villard Ponds
Big Flat
Lost Island
Hollebeke
Skookum
55-Mile
By
Ona S. V. Alminas, Andrew Engilis Jr., Peter L. Gibert
University of California, Davis
Suggested citation.
Alminas, O. S. V., P. L. Gibert and A. Engilis, Jr. 2009. Herpetofauna of the Lower Snake River
Habitat Management Units - Results from the 2008 Field Season. A report to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Walla Walla District. Museum of Wildlife and Fish Biology, Dept of Wildlife, Fish and
Conserv. Biology, University of California, Davis.
2
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... 5
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 6
Methods........................................................................................................................................ 7
General Results .......................................................................................................................... 13
Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 16
Species Accounts ....................................................................................................................... 22
Long-toed Salamander ........................................................................................................... 22
Woodhouse’s Toad ................................................................................................................ 27
Pacific Treefrog ..................................................................................................................... 31
American Bullfrog ................................................................................................................. 33
Western Skink ........................................................................................................................ 37
Rubber Boa ............................................................................................................................ 38
Western Yellow-bellied Racer ............................................................................................... 39
Gopher Snake ......................................................................................................................... 43
Wandering Garter Snake ........................................................................................................ 47
Northern Pacific Rattlesnake ................................................................................................. 48
Literature Cited .......................................................................................................................... 55
3
List of Tables
Table 1. Walla Walla District HMUs surveyed for reptiles and amphibians in 2008 field season. ..........8
Table 2. Potential Washington state special status herpetofuanal species for the study area. ...................8
Table 3. Coverboard effort per HMU surveyed. ....................................................................................12
Table 4. Summary of effort and results by method. ...............................................................................13
Table 5. Number of confirmed species identifications by survey method. ............................................14
Table 6. Checklist of reptiles and amphibians detected at 6 HMUs, all methods combined. ................15
Table 7. Phenology of Long-toed Salamanders in guzzlers at 55-Mile HMU. ......................................25
Table 8. Phenology of Long-toed Salamanders in guzzlers at Skookum HMU. ....................................26
Table 9. Detections of Woodhouse’s Toad at Big Flat HMU. ...............................................................28
Table 10. Detections of Woodhouse’s Toad at Lost Island HMU. .........................................................29
Table 11. Detections of Pacific Treefrogs at Villard Ponds HMU. .........................................................32
Table 12. Detections of American Bullfrog, Villard Ponds HMU. .........................................................34
Table 13. Detections of American Bullfrog at Big Flat HMU. ...............................................................35
Table 14. Detections of Western Yellow-bellied Racer, Big Flat HMU. ................................................40
Table 15. Detections of Western Yellow-bellied Racer, 55-Mile HMU. ................................................41
Table 16. Detections of Gopher Snakes, 55-Mile HMU. ........................................................................44
Table 17. Detections of Gopher Snakes, Skookum HMU. ...................................................................... 45
Table 18. Detections of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, Big Flat HMU. ..................................................49
Table 19. Detections of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, Lost Island HMU. .............................................51
Table 20. Detections of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, Hollebeke HMU. ...............................................51
Table 21. Detections of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, 55-Mile HMU. ..................................................52
Table 22. Detections of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, Skookum HMU. ................................................53
Appendix A. Species list for Walla Walla District HMUs, entire study area (lower Snake River) .......57
Appendix B. Snakeskin molt identifications ...........................................................................................58
Appendix C. Big Flat HMU detection coordinates .................................................................................59
Appendix D. Lost Island HMU detection coordinates ............................................................................60
Appendix E. Hollebeke HMU detection coordinates ..............................................................................60
Appendix F. Skookum HMU detection coordinates ...............................................................................61
Appendix G. 55-Mile HMU detection coordinates .................................................................................62
Appendix H. Villard Ponds HMU detection coordinates ........................................................................63
Appendix I. Big Flat HMU coverboard descriptions and coordinates ...................................................64
Appendix J. Lost Island HMU coverboard descriptions and coordinates ..............................................67
Appendix K. Hollebeke HMU coverboard descriptions and coordinates ..............................................69
Appendix L. Skookum HMU coverboard descriptions and coordinates ................................................71
Appendix M. 55-Mile HMU coverboard descriptions and coordinates ................................................73
Appendix N. Villard Ponds HMU coverboard descriptions and coordinates .........................................76
Appendix O. List of scientific names for plant species used in this report ............................................77
4
Acknowledgements
We would first and foremost like to thank Edith P. Jovel of the Museum of Wildlife and Fish Biology
(MWFB) whose long hours in the field contributed tremendously to the field aspect of this project. The
assistance of Robert Thomson and Levi Gray with the Shaffer Lab (UC Davis, Dept. of Evolution and
Ecology) has been invaluable for this project. Robert provided support with taxonomy
recommendations and genetic analyses of tadpole tail clips. Both Robert and Levi provided feedback
on survey method tips, species identification, and confirmed identification of snakeskin molts we
collected in the field. Michael Guilfoyle of the Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC)
arranged for the research to be coordinated through the Walla Wall District office, obtained our
Washington state scientific collecting permit and assisted in the field. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wildlife Biologist Mark Halupczok of the Walla Walla District arranged field site access and assisted
with logistics for truck and boat transportation to remote sites. Pete Ober and Mark Plummer, Fisheries
Biologists with the Walla Walla District also assisted with vehicle and boat transportation to remote
sites. Research associate Mana Hattori, Collections Manager Irene E. Engilis, Ornithologist John
Trochet with the Museum of Wildlife and Fish Biology at UC Davis contributed records of incidental
herp sightings from previous small mammal trapping efforts. MWFB Biologist Avery Cook assisted
with construction of tables for this report. Irene Engilis assisted with ordering supplies and worked to
coordinate the small mammal trapping efforts. We also thank the workers from De Ruwe Habitat
Management for taking the time to share their experiences with herpetofauna at the HMUs, and Carlos
Alvarado, who assisted with materials, supplies and methods for this project. Lori Salzer of
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) was gracious enough to provide historical
records for species status species in our study area. Gretchen Padgett-Flohr of the University of Illinois
Carbondale, Steve Wagner of Central Washington University, Jason Lowe of the Bureau of Land
Management and Dede Olson of the USDA Forest Service provided information regarding amphibian
chytridiomycosis in Washington state.
Photo credits: All photos were taken by Ona Alminas and Andrew Engilis, Jr.
5
Introduction
The Columbia River and Snake River watersheds remain some of the most altered in western North
America. With over 20 dams, massive land conversion for agriculture and recreation, and a rapidly
growing human population, wildlife refuges and managed lands provide some of the only protected
remaining habitats. In association with the dams, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) manages
a network of Habitat Management Units (HMUs) that are distributed along most of the shoreline of the
Snake and Columbia rivers. Traditionally these HMUs have been managed for recreation including
hunting, fishing and off-road vehicles. In the past two decades USACE biologists recognized that the
HMUs also support a vast array of wildlife and vegetation, and so began to question the future
management of the HMUs and the biodiversity they support. There was a need for natural resource
baseline data for making species and habitat management decisions on USACE lands. The USACE
began to develop strategies to inventory and investigate natural resources and management for multiple
species. These directives are organized into three basic levels of effort: land use classifications and
rapid assessment of diversity (Level 1), multi-species detailed inventories (Level 2), adaptive
management investigations (Level 3) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1996).
In 2005 the USACE and the Museum of Wildlife and Fish Biology at the University of
California, Davis (MWFB) entered into a cooperative agreement to initiate Level 1 vertebrate
inventories of small mammal diversity and abundance relative to Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia
) in the Walla Walla District, eastern Washington (Guilfoyle 2006). From this survey start, our efforts
and collaboration have evolved into a general Level 2 biodiversity inventory of terrestrial vertebrates
within the District, including reptiles and amphibians (herpetofauna). The scope of this effort was to
inventory amphibians and reptiles at Walla Walla district HMUs along the lower Snake River in
southeastern Washington. Within this scope, the main goals were to examine species richness at each
HMU, discuss habitat use, and as a result of our research, fill in the gaps in distribution for several
species along the Lower Snake River canyon and the Columbia/Snake River confluence.
This is the interim report of the 2008 field season findings. The herpetofaunal surveys began
in 2008 on HMUs in and around the Tri-Cities region of the Walla Walla District, spanning 55 river
miles up the Snake River from Burbank to Lyon’s Ferry (Walla Walla and Franklin counties) (Table 1).
When 2009 surveys (year 2) are completed, the work will have covered a 130 mile length of the Snake
River (Tri-Cities, Washington to Lewiston, Idaho ) and portions of the Columbia River from Umatilla,
Oregon to Richland, Washington (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Overview of Snake River pools and associated USACE lands surveyed in
2008 (black ovals) and planned survey areas for 2009 (dotted ovals). Image:
http://www.nww.usace.army.mil/lsr/REPORTS/sportfish/phase_2/ph2_part1.htm#2.1
6
Understanding the diversity and distribution of the region’s herpetofauna is a critical step in
understanding the ecological condition of the HMUs under investigations. Owing to their
comparatively sedentary nature, amphibians and reptiles are susceptible to local habitat changes and
environmental conditions. Therefore their presence and absence can serve as accurate indicators on
ecosystem health, food-webs, environmental contaminants, impacts of invasive species, and other
anthropogenic forces influencing the landscape (Lawler et al. 2003).
Methods
Study Area
Our area of study was located in Southeastern Washington along a stretch of the Snake River near the
confluence with the Columbia River from Burbank, Washington upstream 55 miles along the Snake
River to Central Ferry, Washington (Figure 1). This stretch of the Snake River falls within Walla
Walla and Franklin counties and encompasses three river “pools” formed by the Lower Monumental,
Ice Harbor and McNary dams. The McNary pool encompasses the Columbia River and confluence
with the Snake River upstream to the Ice Harbor Dam. The river between the Ice Harbor Dam and
Lower Monumental Dam form the Ice Harbor pool and the stretch of river between Lower Monumental
Dam to the Little Goose Dam comprise the Lower Monumental Pool (Figure 1). In 2008 we
inventoried HMUs managed along the Snake River within the McNary, Ice Harbor and Lower
Monumental pools (Figure 2). Two-letter site codes were developed to abbreviate each HMU name for
GPS and other detection descriptions (Table 1).
Lower Monumental Dam
Ice Harbor Dam
Figure 2. HMUs surveyed for reptiles and amphibians in the 2008 field season.
7
Table 1. Walla Walla District HMUs surveyed for reptiles and amphibians in 2008 field season.
Dates of Surveys
HMU (site code)
Acreage
Pool
April
May
June
July September
Mc Nary
12,16,18
23,27
9
Villard Ponds (VP)
266
Ice Harbor
8,9,10
13,14,16
24,25,27
10,11,13
Big Flat (BF)
832
Ice Harbor
10,11
15,16
26,27
12,13
Lost Island (LI)
162
Ice Harbor
12,13
17,18
28,29
14,15,16
Hollebeke (HO)
247
Lower
16,17,18
21,22
30
1,2
18,19
Skookum (SK)
764
55-Mile (FF)
271
Monumental
Lower
Monumental
14,15,16
19,20
2,3
16,17,18
Nomenclature & Species Lists
As with some vertebrate groups, the taxonomy and systematics of North American herpetofauna is in a
state of flux. For example, the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (SSAR) proposed
major name changes to 48 of the 100 described genera of North American anurans in the peer-reviewed
Amphibian Tree of Life (Frost et al. 2006, R.C. Thomson, pers. comm.). Data derived from modern
molecular techniques are fast becoming the standard in exploring questions regarding speciation, and
the more researchers publish molecular (genetic) data of herpetofaunal species, the more questions
arise regarding species and sub-species level placements within known North American herpetofaunal
systematics. As a result, many of these publications in herp phylogenetics have attempted to resolve
taxonomic questions by offering final revisions in placement within a clade, but instead have created
scientific and common name instability and taxonomic confusion (R. C. Thomson, pers. comm.). We
built a species list of potential amphibians and reptiles for the study area from peer-reviewed
publications, literature and local agencies. The taxonomy presented for this report follows Stebbins
(2003) with updates to scientific and common names that have been accepted in the literature. A total
of 24 species (2 salamanders, 7 frogs, 1 turtle, 5 lizards and 9 snakes) were identified for the entire
study area along the Snake and Columbia Rivers from Clarkston, WA to Tri-Cities, WA. For the
HMUs surveyed in Walla Walla and Franklin counties in 2008, this list is reduced to 21 possible
species. This species list, along with alternate and proposed names, can be found in Appendix A.
Table 2 lists special status species for the entire study area.
Table 2. Potential Washington state special status herpetofaunal species for the study area.
Common Name
Columbia Spotted Frog
Northern Leopard Frog
Western Toad
Scientific Name
Rana luteiventris
Rana pipiens
Bufo boreas
Listing Status
State Candidate for listing
State Endangered, Federal Species of Concern
State Candidate for Listing, Federal Species of Concern
Sagebrush Lizard
Striped Whipsnake
Source: WDFW (2008)
Sceloporous graciosus
Masticophis taeniatus
State Candidate for Listing, Federal Species of Concern
State Candidate for listing
Survey Methods
While a combination of several survey methods will result in the most number of species detected,
budgetary, time and personnel constraints limited the number of methods that could be implemented.
Each of these methods (drift fence arrays, pitfall and funnel trapping) is biased in the species they
detect and limited in terms of applicability in different habitats (Corn & Bury, 1990). Six survey
methods were used to determine herpetofaunal species diversity within the study area, and were
conducted from April through September 2008 (Table 1). Relative abundance was calculated for the
visual encounter surveys as the number of animals observed per hour surveyed. All detection locations
were recorded with a Garmin Vista HCX handheld GPS unit, in the form of each two-lettered site code
8
followed by the four-letter species code (listed in Appendix A) and the numbered occurrence of that
species. For example, “FFPSRE1” signifies the first detection of Pseudacris regilla (Pacific Treefrog)
for 55-Mile HMU.
Visual Encounter Surveys (VES)
Visual encounter surveying (VES) is a standard and non-invasive method for inventorying herps. This
method is useful for determining the presence or absence of herptile species at a site and is a technique
best employed when several study areas need to be surveyed in a short time (Corn and Bury 1990).
VES allows researchers to cover a larger general area with different habitats and examine objects that
are most likely to reveal animals (Manley et al. 2006, Corn & Bury 1990). We used VES as our
primary method for inventorying herps on all HMUs. Because herptile activity is contingent with the
weather, researchers attempted to coordinate site visits with rainy weather for amphibians and warm
weather for reptiles. Our methods entailed two or three researchers walking through a habitat type,
parting vegetation with lumber or snake hooks, overturning debris, rocks, and logs to look for herps,
not spending more than 10 minutes at any one object and making sure to return the cover items to their
original positions (following Corn & Bury, 1990) (Figure 3). These surveys were conducted multiple
times each visit by one to three MWFB researchers. VES were not time or area constrained, but time
spent searching within a habitat type in the form of researcher hours was recorded so effort could be
calculated. Researchers attempted to capture each individual seen to correctly identify to species (with
the exception of Northern Pacific Rattlesnakes, Crotalus oreganus oreganus, which were positively
identified without capture). When an animal was captured, processing (handling) time of that animal
did not factor in to the total search time (Corn & Bury 1990). Animals captured were processed with
photo documentation and measurement (snout-vent and total length); air temperature, habitat and other
details of the detection were recorded. Once identified, the animal was released at the capture point,
and its location marked with by GPS unit. The locations of animals seen or heard and positively
identified without capture were also marked in this manner for future comparisons.
Figure 3. MWFB biologists conducting VES.
Nocturnal VES and road searches
Some of the potential reptile species in our study area are best found on warm nights along roads,
shrub-steppe, leaf-littered damp areas or in rocky habitat, specifically Night Snake (Hypsiglena
chlorophaea), Ring-neck Snake (Diadophis punctatus) and Rubber Boa (Charina bottae). During
warm, rainy weather anurans such as Great Basin Spadefoot (Spea intermontana) and Woodhouse’s
Toad (Bufo woodhousii) can be found along dirt and paved roads as they emerge from their burrows
(Washington Herp Atlas, 2005). We conducted nocturnal surveys during rainy and/or warm periods to
record these movements, in evenings near and after sundown. Nocturnal VES followed the same
methods to search for and record species as diurnal VES and were conducted on warm nights in
habitats specific for crepuscular and nocturnal species. Searches were conducted using Maglite
S2D015 flashlights and/or a NiteRider Trailrat 15W halogen light for spotlighting. Additionally, nighttime road searches on dirt and/or paved roads within each HMU were conducted either on foot or by
9
cruising in a Polaris Ranger utility cart, documenting time spent searching. Locations of detected
animals were marked with GPS unit.
Anuran call survey/ eyeshine spotlighting
Anuran call surveys during the late spring and summer were conducted to inventory frog and toad
species (anurans). Each HMU was visited at least one night during each of the monthly survey periods
to listen for broadcasting anurans. Each area within a HMU with standing water was visited and
species and number of animals recorded when known or estimated. Prior to initiating surveys, MWFB
researchers trained in frog calls using those published by Davidson (1995). We modified a chorus
scoring system used by Kinkead (2006) that assigns an index ranking categorizing the number of frogs
singing. A ranking of “1” signifies that individual frogs can be counted, with space between calls. A
“2” signifies there is an overlap in calls but the observer is still able to distinguish between individuals.
Finally, a “3” designates a full chorus of constantly overlapping calls where the observer can no longer
discern between individuals. During quiet nights with low activity, customized Davidson (1995) calls
were broadcasted over a portable speaker system to try to elicit a response, listening 5 minutes between
broadcasts for a response. Anuran detections elicited in this manner were noted on datasheets. In April
and May, MWFB researchers used Maglite S2D015 flashlights and/or a NiteRider Trailrat 15W
halogen light at eye level to spotlight for eyeshine with 10 x 42 binoculars along shorelines of ponds,
wetlands and inlets, particularly in areas where low or no anuran calling occurred. Areas that yielded
eyeshine detections were visited at later dates to conduct anuran call surveys to confirm the presence of
anurans. Locations of detected animals were marked with GPS unit.
Dipnet/ water surveys
We surveyed standing water and/or inlet areas at each HMU for amphibian eggs and larvae in early
spring (Figure 4). River inlets with suitable habitat and ponds within sites were surveyed at least once
whereas shorelines with steep inclines or no emergent vegetation were not surveyed due to
unlikelihood of these habitats supporting amphibians (USFWS 1991). For large bodies of water, one to
two MWFB researchers donned waders to wade through water, visually inspecting the surface water
for frog egg masses and using long-handled dipnets. Nets used were 3/16 inch mesh, and were 16 by
16 by 12 inches in size. Sweeps were conducted in a random fashion, but served to sample the entire
wadable area, dipping in areas where aquatic vegetation was reduced. Dipnet surveys were contained
within the area of the water body, and time spent searching in the form of researcher hours was
recorded so effort could be calculated. When an amphibian was netted, processing (handling) time of
that animal did not factor in to the total search time (Corn & Bury 1990). Animals captured were
processed with photo documentation and measurement (total length); air temperature, water
temperature (at 6 inches from the surface) and other details of the detection were recorded. Tadpole
locations within a body of water were not marked at point of detection; rather, the general location was
marked with by GPS unit to document the portion of the water body where they were found. At Big
Flat, a suspect group of tadpoles were tail clipped to confirm identity through genetic testing with the
Shaffer Lab at UC Davis.
Figure 4. Left: MWFB biologist dipnetting with waders. Right: MWFB biologist using small nets to capture
tadpoles.
10
Guzzler dipnet survey
We expanded the Dipnet/ Water protocol after discovering amphibian eggs in gallinaceous guzzlers at
55-Mile in April. All guzzlers at all sites were sampled in subsequent visits (Figure 5). Guzzlers were
visited during the day to mark their locations with a GPS unit, using the two-lettered site codes listed in
Table 1 followed by “WT” (signifying “watering trough”) and the numbered encounter of that guzzler.
For instance, “BFWT3” signifies the third guzzler encountered and surveyed at Big Flat HMU. Also
during daytime visits, general habitat surrounding the guzzler, as well as presence of eggs or sign of
amphibians was noted. Guzzlers were then visited at night for optimal viewing using a NiteRider
Trailrat 15W halogen light and for recording nocturnal activity. Visual estimates of numbers of eggs
and larvae were recorded rather than physical counting to prevent disruption to the amphibians at these
stages. Captured amphibians at older larval stages were processed with photo documentation and
measurement (total length); air temperature, water temperature (at 6 inches from the surface), and other
details of the detection were also recorded. Guzzlers with amphibian sign in the early spring were
checked during subsequent monthly visits to track changes in numbers and development.
Figure 5. MWFB researchers examining guzzlers for breeding amphibians.
Snakeskin / Reptile Determinations
When molted snake skins were found, we noted general habitat and marked each snakeskin molt with a
GPS unit (Figure 6). The skin was then collected and stored in plastic bags for later identification by
researchers with the Shaffer Lab at the University of California, Davis. Only skins that were complete
enough for positive identification were used in analyses.
Figure 6. Snakeskins were collected, marked by GPS and bagged for later identification.
Coverboard surveys
Coverboards or artificial cover objects (such as sheet metal or scrap materials) are widely used for
herpetofaunal surveys. Sizes of boards differ depending on the study parameters. We used sheets two
feet square by 1.1 cm thick Oriented Strand Board (OSB) following Pittman and Dorcas (2006).
Because of unknown densities of herptiles along the Lower Snake River HMUs, we used coverboards
11
in lower densities to assess abundance with the idea to add more boards later if needed. As such we
placed a total of 608 boards across 6 HMUs. Boards were paired as a unit (called a node); one board
was a “bare” treatment and the other was “vegetated” treatment (Kinkead 2006). With the bare
treatment, all grasses, debris, leaf litter was removed from underneath the board, providing direct
contact with the soil. In vegetated treatments, the leaf litter, grasses and debris were left and the area
was simply smoothed out and board placed on top, with the idea that the additional litter would attract
snakes (Figure 7) (Kinkead 2006). Six board nodes (labeled A through F) were laid down at 50 meter
intervals along a transect approximately 250 meters long, for a total of 12 boards per transect. We used
aerial photographs to pre-place transects and these were then field adjusted as needed to ensure uniform
habitat sampling to target different species. Once established, each node within a transect was labeled
with a lumber crayon and marked with a GPS unit to facilitate repeatable surveys.
Since HMUs varied in size, board numbers were more or less adjusted to have equal sampling
effort on small vs. large HMUs (Table 3). Villard Ponds and Skookum HMUs had lower board
densities compared to the other 4 sites (0.14 and 0.13, respectively). This is because Villard Ponds
acreage includes much of the pond and inlet areas of the Columbia River, and boards at Skookum
HMU were concentrated within the approximately 260 acre intensively managed portion of the unit [no
boards were placed out in the non-managed portion to the east, where the habitat consists of former
rangeland inundated with cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and scattered grey rabbitbrush (Ericameria
nauseosa)]. Additional board pairs were placed within 15 meters of one guzzler at 55-Mile and all 3
guzzlers at Skookum in hopes of detecting incoming or dispersing breeding salamanders. Boards were
checked during monthly visits and all species detected were recorded. Additional information, such as
habitat, snout-vent and total length were recorded when necessary.
Figure 7. Cover board treatments. Left: vegetated treatment - grasses and leaf litter present. Right: bare
treatment -grasses and leaf litter removed.
Table 3. Coverboard effort per HMU surveyed.
HMU
No. Transects
No. Boards
Villard Ponds
3
36
Big Flat
15
180
Lost Island
7
84
Hollebeke
8
96
Skookum
8
102
55-Mile
9
110
totals
50
608
Boards per acre
0.14
0.22
0.52
0.39
0.13
0.41
Average - 0.30
Incidental detections
Locations of any reptiles or amphibians detected incidentally were marked with a Garmin Vista HCX
handheld GPS unit and described in the same way as those found during a VES.
12
General Results
From April through September 2008, we spent 271.6 hours conducting a total of 235 surveys and 1773
board checks. We confirmed 11 species of reptiles and amphibians between all 6 HMUs (4 amphibian
and 7 reptile), with an average species richness of 5.3 species per site. A total of 741 animals were
captured or detected during this inventory (from all survey methods combined), including 632
amphibians (287 salamanders, 345 frogs) and 109 reptiles (3 turtles, 1 lizard, 105 snakes). These totals
include all captured or observed adult amphibians and reptiles as well as frog tadpoles and salamander
larvae. More species were detected by the Visual Encounter Survey (VES) method than any other
method (8 species), with incidental detections next (6 species) (Table 4). The least productive survey
method was the coverboards, which yielded detections of 11 animals from 1773 board checks (table 4,
5).
Of the projected 21 species for our study area, we detected 11 species (Table 6). The site with
the most number of species detected was 55-Mile HMU (7 species) and the HMU with the fewest
number of species found was Lost Island HMU (3 species). The most abundant herptile species
detected was the Long-toed Salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum), which were found in egg, larval
and adult stages in guzzlers at two HMUs (Tables 4, 5, 6). The most abundant reptile and snake was
the Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, whose presence was detected by four survey methods. The American
Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) was the most common anuran, and was detected by five survey methods.
A single detection of Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta) was confirmed by the positive identification of
turtle carapace at Villard Ponds HMU. A single Western Skink (Plestiodon skiltonianus) was detected
by VES at 55-Mile HMU. Presence of Rubber Boa (Charina bottae) was confirmed through positive
identification of a snakeskin molt. Twenty-five detections of Western Yellow-bellied Racer (Coluber
constrictor mormon) occurred by four survey methods, with 14 detections by positive snakeskin
determinations. Fifteen Gopher Snake detections (Pituophis catenifer) occurred by three survey
methods. A single detection of Wandering Garter Snake (Thamnophis elegans vagrans) occurred at
Big Flat HMU, by VES. The most widely distributed species were the Northern Pacific Rattlesnake,
Gopher Snake (Pituophis catenifer), and Western Yellow-bellied Racer (C. c. mormon) which were
detected at 5 of the 6 HMUs by our surveys. No state sensitive species were detected during the 2008
inventory period.
Table 4. Summary of effort and results by method.
Duration
Number of
Sampling method
(hours)
detections
Visual encounter surveys (n=98)
133.7 hr
181*
Nocturnal VES and road searches
(n=22)
29.9 hr
7
Anuran call surveys (n=56)
65.2 hr
102
Dipnet surveys (n=21)
25.5 hr
100
Guzzler dipnet surveys(n=36)
Coverboards (n=1773 checks)
Snakeskin/ reptile determinations
Incidental detections
17.3 hr
----
287
11
23
30
Individual detection
rate
1/ 44.3 minutes
Species
richness
8
1/ 256 minutes
1/38.4 minutes
1/15.3 minutes
1/3 guzzlers showed
presence
1/ 0.0062 boards
---
2
3
3
1
3
5
6
* denotes individuals heard or seen during VES.
13
Table 5. Number of confirmed species identifications by survey method.
Species
VES
Nocturnal
VES
Anuran
call
Dipnet
Long-toed
Salamander
Woodhouse's
Toad
Pacific
Treefrog
American
Bullfrog
Painted Turtle
Western
Skink
Guzzler
dipnet
Cover
boards
Incidental
287
36
64
4
2
9
91
2
29
89
7
113
1
10
4
215
1
1
1
1
1
Western
Yellowbellied Racer
5
2
Gopher Snake
5
6
14
1
4
25
4
15
1
39
1
5
6
Frog sp.
6
Snake sp.
Thamnophis
sp.
2
Turtle sp.
1
Confirmed
species by
survey
method
7
9
59
1
7
1
3
1
totals
287
Rubber Boa
Wandering
Garter Snake
Northern
Pacific
Rattlesnake
Snakeskin/
reptile
determination
1
1
2
3
2
2
1
3
5
6
741
14
Table 6. Checklist of reptiles and amphibians detected at 6 HMUs, all methods combined.
Lost
Species
Scientific name
No. detections Big Flat
Island
Hollebeke
55-Mile
Skookum
X
X
Long-toed Salamander
Ambystoma macrodactylum
287
Woodhouse’s Toad
Bufo woodhousii
113
Pacific Treefrog
Pseudacris regilla
10
American Bullfrog
Rana catesbeiana
215
Painted Turtle
Chrysemys picta
1
Western Skink
Plestiodon skiltonianus
1
X
Rubber Boa
Charina bottae
1
X
Western Yellow-bellied
Racer
Coluber constrictor mormon
25
X
Gopher Snake
Pituophis catenifer
15
X
Wandering Garter Snake
Thamnophis elegans vagrans
1
X
Northern Pacific
Rattlesnake
Crotalus oreganus oreganus
59
X
Frog Sp.
7
X
Snake sp.
3
X
Thamnophis sp.
1
Turtle sp.
Totals (confirmed species)
2
741 (728)
X
X
X
Villard
Ponds
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8 (6)
(3)
15
4 (3)
(7)
7 (5)
X
8 (6)
Discussion
Previous studies
The most number of species detected by our surveys were at 55-Mile HMU (7 species) followed by Big
Flat and Villard Ponds (6 species) (Table 6). Hollebeke and Lost Island HMUs each yielded detections
of 3 species by our survey methods. A fourth, Western Yellow-bellied Racer was detected by Loper &
Lohman (1998) at Hollebeke HMU. Asherin and Claar (1976) found 9 species of reptiles and
amphibians along the McNary pool (Woodhouse’s Toad, Bullfrog, Painted Turtle, Sagebrush Lizard,
Common side-blotched Lizard, Western Yellow-bellied Racer, Gopher Snake, Wandering Garter
Snake, Northern Pacific Rattlesnake), 4 species of reptiles and amphibians at sites surveyed within the
Ice Harbor Pool (Woodhouse’s Toad, Western Yellow-bellied Racer, Northern Pacific Rattlesnake and
Great Basin Gopher Snake), and detected 9 species within the Lower Monumental and Little Goose
pools (Pacific Treefrog, Bullfrog, Columbia Spotted Frog, Great Basin Spadefoot, Western Yellowbellied Racer, Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, Gopher Snake, Wandering Garter Snake and Valley Garter
Snake).
Figure 8. Species richness results from previous surveys by
pool, Snake & Columbia Rivers
12
Species richness
10
8
6
4
2
0
McNary
Ice Harbor
Asherin & Claar (1976)
Lower
Monumental
Little Goose
Loper & Lohman (1998)
Lower Granite
UC Davis (2008)
Figure 8 depicts the number of species found in each pool by previous and current research. Our
survey efforts in the Ice Harbor pool exceeded the number of herp species found by previous research.
Loper and Lohman (1998) did not conduct any surveys for herptiles in the McNary pool, whereas
Asherin and Claar (1976) had found 9 species at five sites. Our surveys at a single site in the McNary
pool (Villard Ponds) yielded detections of 6 species. Three species in the McNary pool (Northern
Pacific Rattlesnake, Sagebrush Lizard and Common Side-blotched Lizard) not found by our surveys
were found at sites near the confluence of the Snake and Columbia Rivers (Asherin and Claar 1976).
The Sagebrush and Common Side-blotched Lizards were found by the researchers to occupy big sage
(Artemisia tridentata) and rubber rabbit brush (Ericameria nauseosa) habitats, which from the five
sites described by the researchers narrow to Finley-Hover Park (adjacent to the current Toothacre
HMU) and/or Hat Rock State Park (Asherin and Claar 1976).
16
Lack of lizards
Out of the possible 4 species of lizard for the study area, we found only a single individual of one
species, the Western Skink (Plestiodon skiltonianus). Three other species’ distributions show records
for the Snake/ Columbia River confluence: Common Side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana),
Sagebrush Lizard (Sceloporous graciosus), and Pigmy Short-horned Lizard (Phrynosoma douglasii).
These species are known to occupy open shrub-steppe and sandy habitat comprised of rubber rabbit
brush (Ericameria nauseosa) and Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), much of which has been
developed for agriculture or urban use in areas surrounding Tri-Cities and is heavily degraded at most
HMUs. Records for Common Side-blotched Lizard from the Snake/ Columbia confluence date prior to
1984; recent records are reported further upstream the Columbia River from north Benton and south
Grant counties (WA Herp Atlas, 2005). This species relies on shrub-steppe, sandy or rocky areas, with
shrubs for evading predators and extreme temperatures (WA Herp Atlas, 2005; Stebbins 2003).
Historical accounts for Sagebrush Lizard show a similar distribution, with records prior to 1984 in the
Snake/ Columbia Rivers confluence and more recent records in Juniper Dunes Wilderness Area
(Franklin Co.), north Benton and south Grant counties (WA Herp Atlas, 2005). The Sagebrush Lizard
is more of a habitat specialist, with the most recent records for the state of Washington linked with sand
dunes or other sandy habitats (WA Herp Atlas 2005). The third potential lizard species is the Pigmy
Short-horned lizard, whose distribution (because of its habits) is similar to that of the Sagebrush lizard.
Both species were detected during visits to Juniper Dunes Wilderness in April 2006 and May 2008.
Out of the HMUs surveyed in 2008, 55-Mile and Hollebeke HMUs supported potential habitat
for these species. We extensively surveyed an acre-sized patch of open sand dunes at 55-Mile for
lizards; none were found. This negative finding is likely due to the small size of appropriate habitat
combined with the fact that the closest distributional record for either of the three species is Juniper
Dunes Wilderness (Pigmy Short-horned Lizard and Sagebrush Lizard) (WA Herp Atlas, 2005). At
Hollebeke HMU, we specifically surveyed within 11 acres of Big sagebrush and sandy habitat to detect
these lizard species and did not find a single one. A possible explanation for Hollebeke’s lack of
lizards may lie in the fact that much of the big sagebrush habitat had dense groundcover of cheatgrass
(Bromus tectorum), and this groundcover hinders lizard movements, who prefer open ground for
tracking prey and evading predators (WA Herp Atlas 2005; Green et al. 2001). Our continuing efforts
at HMUs in the McNary pool in 2009 will survey these habitat types to update the distributional status
of these species in their historical range.
Other species not detected
Due to their ectothermic abilities, weather and climate dictate the movements and life history of
amphibians and reptiles significantly more than for birds and mammals. A complete inventory of
amphibians and reptiles can be a challenge for short-term surveys due to a number of climatic
conditions, such as lower than average rainfall, extreme temperatures or flooding (Mitchell 2004).
Therefore, our site visits of 1 to 4 days per month may have missed certain weather patterns crucial to
the detection of certain species. Nonetheless, the survey effort by this project was significant, and
fulfilled the purpose of establishing baseline data for the lower Snake River HMUs in Franklin and
Walla Walla counties.
Though Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) shows distributional records at the Snake and
Columbia River confluence, we did not detect this species at any HMU, specifically Villard Ponds
HMU, which lies in the vicinity of two 1962 records from Burbank (WA Herp Atlas, 2005; L. Salzer,
pers. comm.).
Similar to Tiger Salamander, we did not detect at any HMU the state endangered Northern
Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens), whose historical records fall within the Tri-Cities and the Snake/
Columbia River confluence and upstream the Columbia River (Benton county) (WA Herp Atlas, 2005).
A single record from 1941 falls right within Yakima Delta HMU, indicating their historical presence
within our study area (L. Salzer, pers. comm.). We spent 17.9 hours in spring and summer 2008
listening for calling anurans at Villard Ponds HMU, a site adjacent to historical Northern Leopard Frog
records; none were detected. Our continuing efforts at HMUs in the McNary pool in 2009 will update
the distributional status of these species in their historical range.
17
The Great Basin Spadefoot (Spea intermontana) was not detected at any HMU surveyed in
2008. It was, however, found on private land adjacent to Hollebeke HMU. On 18 May 2008, at least
30 tadpoles were found in a cattle watering hole at 5135320.2 N, 371395.9 E and at least 15 chorusing
males were heard calling from a concrete-lined irrigation basin surrounded by apple orchards at
5134962.7 N, 370013.8 E (zone 11 N, WGS 84 Datum). This species is well-known from the Snake/
Columbia River confluence and upstream the Snake River, as it is primarily a shrub-steppe specialist,
spending most of its adult life buried underground. Adult Great Basin Spadefoots return to water only
to breed, often using slow-moving springs, seasonal pools, irrigation ditches to lay 10 to 40 eggs (WA
Herp Atlas, 2005). This species appears to tolerate some habitat alteration, as it is able to breed in
agricultural lands with a source of standing irrigation water. No HMU surveyed in 2008 had potential
breeding sites for this species. Historical records of Great Basin Spadefoot exist along the Snake River
upstream in southeast Whitman and north Asotin counties (WA Herp Atlas, 2005). Our continuing
efforts at HMUs in the Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower Granite pools in 2009 will update
the distributional status of this species in the Snake River canyon.
Figure 9. Left: Great Basin Spadefoot tadpoles found in a watering hole for cattle. Right: Adult male found
along concrete banks of an irrigation basin.
Due to its secretive nature, records for Ring-necked Snake (Diadophis punctatus) in
Washington state are scarce. They seem to prefer moist habitats, and in other states can be found under
rotting logs, stones, stumps and other debris within forested or other woodland habitats. Their
distribution in the Columbia Basin is limited to a handful of pre-1984 records in southeastern Whitman
county, surrounding the Snake River Basin, and Hell’s Canyon (WA Herp Atlas 2005). A record from
1975 from the McNary National Wildlife Refuge (Walla Walla Co.) falls within approximately 5 miles
from Villard Ponds HMU (WA Herp Atlas, 2005). Our continuing efforts at HMUs in the McNary,
Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower Granite pools in 2009 will update the distributional status
of this species in the Snake River canyon.
The Striped Whipsnake (Masticophis taeniatus) utilizes a variety of habitats including
sagebrush and shrublands, grasslands, canyons, piñon-juniper and pine woodlands and occasionally
seasonal or permanent creeks or streams (Stebbins 2003). Records of Striped Whipsnake in the
Columbia basin are not numerous, with detections from intact shrub-steppe habitat with some
cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) groundcover (WA Herp Atlas, 2005). The closest records of this species
are from upstream along the Snake River, in the eastern middle portion of Benton county, with more
records from southeastern Grant county near the Columbia River (WA Herp Atlas 2005). While our
study area is somewhat beyond the range depicted by historical records, we will continue to search for
this species in our efforts at McNary pool HMUs in 2009.
The Common Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) is the most widely distributed and one of the
most common snakes in the state of Washington (WA Herp Atlas, 2005). The subspecies in eastern
Washington is the Valley Garter Snake (T. s. fitchi). Like most garter snakes, Common Garter Snakes
18
are typically found in or near aquatic habitats such as ponds, wetlands, springs, creeks and rivers, but
will also utilize terrestrial habitats, particularly in the spring and fall when emerging or dispersing to
hibernacula sites (WA Herp Atlas 2005). While we did not detect this species at any HMU in the
McNary pool during 2008 surveys, this species has been detected upstream the Snake River at
Deadman Creek, Chief Timothy and Alpowa HMUs (Loper & Lohman 1998). Our continuing efforts
at HMUs in the McNary, Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower Granite pools in 2009 will
update the distributional status of this species in the Snake River canyon.
The Night Snake (Hypsiglena chlorophaea) is a crepuscular and nocturnal snake present whose
distribution in Washington state falls primarily within the Columbia basin (Stebbins 2003). Due to its
nocturnal and secretive behavior, this snake can be hard to detect, and prior to research between 2003
and 2005, only a few records existed. Between 2003 and 2005, road cruising along state routes and
other roads by Weaver (2008) yielded 121 detections of Night Snake in 8 counties, with one first
county record (Douglas). Historical record of Night Snake from the McNary National Wildlife Refuge
prior to 1984 is the one closest to our study area, and falls within a 5 mile radius of Villard Ponds HMU
(WA Herp Atlas 2005). This species has been detected upstream the Columbia River at Tucannon
HMU by drift fence/trapping methods in upland habitat (Loper & Lohman 1998).
A note about turtles
A species not listed in Appendix A but one which is always a possibility is the Red-eared Slider, an
aquatic turtle species popular in the pet trade. It is native to the Midwest and southern U.S. but
populations of this species have sprung up all over western states due to release from captivity into the
wild. In Washington state, populations of Red-eared Sliders are known from Puget Sound and
surrounding waterways to the east; Sliders are also reported from the lower Columbia River at the
south end of Klickitat county (WA Herp Atlas, 2005). More undocumented populations of this species
undoubtedly exist in Washington. Due to the unknown status of this species within our study area,
turtles seen whose identification could not be positively confirmed have been listed as “Turtle sp.” in
tables 5 and 6 and are discussed here. A turtle was seen basking on a floating tire in the east end of the
North Pond at Big Flat HMU during a VES on 14 May 2008 but could not be positively identified
before it flushed into the water. Likewise, a turtle was briefly glimpsed at Villard Ponds HMU during a
dipnet survey on 18 May 2008 but could not be positively identified due to the fleeting look. A
confirmed detection of the native Painted Turtle was determined from the collection of a turtle carapace
(shell), where the signature patterning of the plastron was still visible. It was found in riparian habitat
on 9 Sept 2009 at 5117071.2 N, 344822.0 E (zone 11 N, WGS 84 datum).
Survey method efficiency
Unlike mammals and birds, whose presence is often conspicuous, reptiles and amphibians are
considered secretive in nature due to the difficulty in detecting their presence from chance encounters.
Single survey techniques can uncover the mammal and avian diversity within a study area; with reptiles
and amphibians, a variety of survey methods and techniques are required to detect species occupying
both aquatic and terrestrial habitats (Corn & Bury 1990, Ryan et al. 2002). Survey methods employed
for a herpetofaunal study will depend on the study objectives and goals. For inventorying purposes, a
variety of methods, combined with site visits during favorable weather conditions are necessary to
document as many species as possible at a site. The results of this survey show that certain methods
vary in their success of detecting certain species, even those within the same taxonomic group (as with
anurans, in our case). Visual Encounter Surveying (VES) is a standard and non-invasive method which
allows researchers the flexibility to search a variety of habitats. In general, the flexible nature of VES
makes them difficult to replicate in future efforts, and analyses based on this method will often not
provide sufficient quantitative data on population size and structure or life history traits (Mitchell
2004). Rather, the data from the VES method is more qualitative, making it an appropriate method for
inventory work (as with our objective, documenting occurrence of amphibian and reptiles within a
study area). Our VES were not area or time constrained, rather an opportunistic search of habitats
known to support certain species. During our surveys on USACE HMUs, 7 out of 11 species were
detected by VES. Species not detected by VES were: Long-toed Salamanders, which were only
19
detected through visual inspection and dipnetting of guzzlers; Pacific Treefrog, which were detected by
anuran auditory call surveys and incidentally; lastly, Painted Turtle and Rubber Boa were both detected
through Snakeskin/ reptile determinations (Table 6).
Despite 29.9 researcher survey hours, the nocturnal VES method was the least effective
method for detection of herptiles (Table 4). Northern Pacific Rattlesnakes, American Bullfrogs were
the only two species detected by this method, and both were species already detected by other methods.
Anuran call surveys proved to be an effective method for inventorying anuran diversity and
numbers at HMUs (Table 4). The 65.2 survey hours conducted by MWFB researchers yielded 102
detections of anurans at 6 HMUs. Pacific Treefrogs were the only species detected by anuran call
surveys alone [both Woodhouse’s Toads and American Bullfrogs were also seen or heard during VES].
A total of 25.5 researcher hours were spent surveying bodies of water with dipnets (Table 4).
While no species was found by this method alone, it did result in the detection of American Bullfrog
and Woodhouse’s Toad tadpoles, confirming breeding of both these species at Big Flat HMU.
From the time Long-toed Salamanders were first detected breeding in gallinaceous guzzlers at
55-Mile HMU in April 2008, we subsequently surveyed all guzzlers at all HMUs (Table 4). Lower
Monumental pool HMUs (Skookum and 55-Mile) were the only ones found to contain salamanders. A
minimum of 287 hatchlings were found between the 6 guzzlers between these two HMUs (the
maximum number of eggs or larvae between all visits were tallied to produce this minimum number
estimate). No other amphibian species was found to use these guzzlers for breeding.
The method of collecting snakeskin molts and turtle shells proved to be a effective one – of the
30 snake molts and turtle carapace collected, 23 were identifiable to species (Table 4, Appendix B).
Snakeskin molt collection began in June 2008 when MWFB researchers first started to see them and
through the summer with 77% of the molts being encountered in September 2008, presumably after
snakes had bred and were preparing for hibernation. Positive identification of the snake molts was
made by Robert Thomson and Levi Gray at the Shaffer Lab (Dept. of Evolution and Ecology, UC
Davis). This method yielded the detection of 5 species, including the presence of Garter Snake species
at Skookum HMU. Rubber Boa at 55- Mile HMU and Painted Turtle at Villard Ponds HMU were
confirmed by this method alone.
The artificial cover objects (coverboards) were found to be the least successful for species
detection after nocturnal VES (3 species were found to use them, all which were also detected by other
methods) (Table 4). A possible explanation for this is our infrequent board checks – boards at each site
were checked during monthly visits, so we only had 3 replicates per board per site (checked in May,
June and Sept). Limited time and personnel prevented us from being able to check all 608 boards on a
weekly basis. Additionally, we don’t know the extent of the disturbance caused by our movement
through vegetation as we approached to check them - only in one instance at Big Flat did we actually
glimpse a snake sneaking out from underneath a board upon our approach. While coverboards are a
good and inexpensive way to monitor herp activity (particularly snakes), it is a technique best suited for
frequent and repeated researcher visits.
Amphibian chytrid fungus
The chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) is the only known chytrid fungus to have
jumped to vertebrate hosts. Bd causes the disease chytridiomycosis in anurans (frogs) and caudates
(salamanders); it is responsible for declines and extinctions of some species on every amphibianinhabited continent (Skerratt et al. 2008). The fungus spreads through waterways, amphibian-toamphibian contact, and other mechanisms not yet understood. Bd is especially virulent at temperatures
between 17º and 25º C (63º to 77º F) (Skerratt et al. 2008). The mechanism that causes mortality in
amphibians is not yet fully understood but is believed to hinder respiratory functions through the skin
and alter blood solute concentrations (Brem et al. 2007). With this in mind, MWFB researchers took
precautions to disinfect all equipment with 10% bleach solution before moving to another site.
In Washington state, Bd has been confirmed along the Columbia River, and in Kittitas,
Klickitat, Grant, Spokane and Yakima counties in a variety of amphibian species (G. Pagdett-Flohr, D.
Olson, J. Lowe, pers. comm.). Information regarding Bd prevalence from our study area along the
Snake/ Columbia River confluence and lower Snake River is lacking (D. Olson, pers. comm.). It is
20
especially important to educate the public about this disease because the Columbia and Snake River
confluence (general locations of high human traffic - Villard Ponds, Richland Bend, Yakima Delta,
Hood Park HMUs) have historically supported the state endangered Northern Leopard Frog. The
historical records for Northern Leopard Frog fall within the Tri-Cities and the Snake/ Columbia River
confluence and upstream the Columbia River (Benton county) (WA Herp Atlas, 2005). Confirming the
presence of the chytrid fungus in other species within the historical range of Northern Leopard Frog at
the Snake/ Columbia River confluence could provide one explanation for its decline in this area. In
2009, we plan to sample amphibian species at HMUs in the Tri-Cities region as well as upstream along
sites through Clarkston. Through the surveillance of Bd in amphibians along USACE HMU water
bodies, we will fill in the distributional gap for the spread of chytridiomycosis in the Snake River
canyon and Columbia/ Snake confluence and ultimately contribute data to GIS mapping of positive
detections to help study the spread of this disease.
21
Species Accounts
This section presents details on each species detection and associated life history and habitat
information specific to the Columbia basin as well as HMU findings presented in table and map form,
using the Google Earth mapping tool. Much of the life history and habitat information in the species
accounts is derived from the Washington Herp Atlas, unless otherwise noted (Washington Herp Atlas,
2005. Washington Natural Heritage Program, Washington Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, U.S.D.I. Bureau of
Land Management and US Forest Service. http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/herp/ last accessed 21
February 2009).
The Long-toed Salamander is the most widespread salamander species in Washington, and it is named
for its unusually longer fourth toe. The subspecies in our study area and the Columbia Basin is the
Central Long-toed Salamander (A. m. columbianus). Long-toed Salamanders are “pond type” breeders
in that they lay eggs in slow-moving or lentic waters. No stream-breeding salamanders are known to
occur in the lower Snake River region. Long-toed Salamanders are capable of exploiting a variety of
habitats including sagebrush, conifer forest, oak and alpine meadows. They may use lakes, ponds,
wetlands, ditches, slow moving springs, semi-permanent puddles to breed in; usually in bodies of water
where fish are absent, but this can vary with microhabitat complexity. Metamorphosed salamanders
will travel to breeding sites by moving within interstitial spaces, by rodent burrows and under moist or
decaying material, such as rocks, leaf litter and logs (Nafis 2009). Habitat for this species in the Snake
River Canyon has probably dwindled since dam construction, as many of the isolated backwaters and
pools formed by flows have largely disappeared. Snake River aerials from 1958 show the river
margins surrounding the study sites with much more complex microhabitat than the current, “lake”
shoreline of the Snake River today (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2002).
The Long-toed Salamander is a medium-sized salamander usually all dark grey or black with a
mottled yellow, greenish or light olive lateral stripe that runs from its head down the tail. Adults range
in size from 2.1 to 3.2 in (50 to 80 mm) snout-vent length, and have a laterally-compressed tail. Egg
lying commences in the Columbia basin in March and April, and egg development to hatching largely
depends on temperature, but spans from 2 to 5 weeks. Long-toed Salamander hatchlings are distinct
from Tiger Salamander hatchlings in that they possess structures on the sides of the head called
balancers (Figure 13). Within two weeks or so of development, hatchlings lose the balancers, and as
the gills develop the top gill filament is usually longer than the other ones on the stalk, whereas in Tiger
Salamanders, all gill filaments are approximately equal length. Long-toed Salamander larvae rarely
exceed 85 mm total length, and as they metamorphose, the yellow dorsal stripe develops. In
Washington state, Long-toed Salamander larvae may metamorphose in the summer or fall of the first
year, but larval development is crucially dependent on water temperature, water quality and food
resources.
Occurrences on HMUs
We detected Long-toed Salamanders breeding in gallinaceous guzzlers within the irrigated (managed)
portions of 55-Mile and Skookum HMUs. All guzzlers were named and GPS-marked for our purposes
with the two-letter site code (Table 1) followed by “WT” and a number in which guzzlers were
encountered and surveyed. We monitored salamander development from April, when eggs were
discovered, through September (though in dwindling numbers, presumably through metamorphism,
natural mortality or predation). Tables 7 and 8 portray the phenology of salamander development in
guzzlers. Each individual of each life stage was not counted; rather, visual estimates were made to
reduce disturbance to salamander development.
Sign of Long-toed Salamanders was not detected at Big Flat, Lost Island, Hollebeke HMUs.
All guzzlers at these three HMUs were checked for sign of Long-toed Salamanders between April and
June 2008 by guzzler dipnet survey; none were detected by this or any other search method. There are
no guzzlers at Villard Ponds HMU and none were detected at this HMU by any other search method.
22
These sites appear to be out of the distributional range of the Long-toed Salamander in Washington
state (WA Herp Atlas, 2005).
55-Mile HMU
Long-toed salamanders were detected at guzzler FFWT1 (Figure 10) on 15 April 2008. We estimated
approximately 110 eggs hanging in clumps from duckweed and debris, suggesting the possibility of
more than one female having laid eggs in this guzzler. All 3 guzzlers at 55-Mile were found to contain
all Long-toed Salamander life stages. Details of salamander development in each guzzler are listed in
Table 7.
Figure 10. Location of guzzlers named for our purposes, 55-Mile HMU.
Skookum HMU
An adult Long-toed Salamander was seen in SKWT1, as well as at least 6 mature larvae on 16 April
2008 (Figures 11, 12). Approximately 50 eggs were also present, indicating an overlap of generations
in guzzler use at this particular location. The three guzzlers within the irrigated (managed) portion of
the unit were found to contain Long-toed Salamander life stages. The three guzzlers to the east in the
non-managed portion to the east, were not found to have any, where the habitat consists of former
rangeland inundated with cheatgrass and scattered grey rabbitbrush. The arid habitat surrounding these
guzzlers is likely not favorable for the migration of salamanders. Details of salamander development in
each guzzler are listed in Table 8.
Figure 11. Left: over-wintered larval Long-toed Salamander, Skookum HMU
(guzzler SKWT1, photo taken April 2008). Right: near-hatching Long-toed
Salamander egg, balancer obvious (guzzler FFWT1, photo taken April 2008).
23
Figure 12. Location of guzzlers named for our purposes, Skookum HMU.
Figure 13. Left: gallinaceous guzzler adjacent to irrigated plot (salamander breeding habitat), 55-Mile HMU. Right:
guzzler in degraded shrub-steppe habitat within non-managed lands east of managed portion, Skookum HMU (no sign
salamanders).
24
Table 7. Phenology of Long-toed Salamanders in guzzlers at 55-Mile HMU.
Date
15 April
21 May
1 July
16 Sept
Guzzler
FFWT1
FFWT1
FFWT1
FFWT1
No.
present
TL (mm)
~ 110
>50
~ 5-6
>2
Life stage
eggs
10 to 30
40 and 55
50 to 60,
60 to 70
2 at 80,
1 at 35
hatchlings
larvae
larvae
larvae/
adults
Area/ detection description
Gills and balancers present on larvae in eggs. Most
are developed with active embryos, some have milky
white ova. Surrounding habitat is bunchgrass,
blackberry and other shrubs..
Duckweed layer of 95%; no snails, few inverts, at
least 50 larvae seen. Hatchlings approx. 20 mm TL
already have front limb buds.
Duckweed layer thick, 5 or 6 larvae of various sizes
seen, ranging between 40 and 60 mm (2 individuals
were captured, measured and photographed).
Duckweed layer of 100%; water clear and appears
healthy. At least 2 gilled larvae still present, slight
spotting apparent along dorsum.
Duckweed layer of 95%, some snails and invertebrate
life. Large amount of rotting muck floating at bottom.
2 large larvae, possibly adults, flushed at beginning
when light shone (swam to storage part of guzzler)
and not seen again. One medium sized larva seen,
approx. 30 mm total length.
21 May
FFWT2
3
1 July
FFWT2
0
Duckweed layer thick, full of rotten debris. No larvae
seen.
16 Sept
FFWT2
0
Duckweed layer thick, some invertebrates, clean
water. No larvae seen.
21 May
1 July
16 Sept
FFWT3
FFWT3
FFWT3
15 – 20
15 to 25
>15
>3
30 to 45,
40
hatchlings
Duckweed layer 30%. Lots of snails. Some dead
earthworms and grass litter present. Hatchlings mixed
development. Larger hatchlings, approx. 20 mm TL
already have front limb buds - we didn't see rear limb
buds. No eggs or adults seen.
larvae
Duckweed layer thick. More than 15 larvae present,
development not noted.
larvae
Duckweed layer of 100%, water a bit murkier than the
other 2 guzzlers. At least 3 gilled larvae present.
25
Table 8. Phenology of Long-toed Salamanders in guzzlers at Skookum HMU.
Date
16 April
19 May
Guzzler
SKWT1
SKWT1
No.
present
~ 8, 50
eggs
>4
TL
(mm)
>80
65 to
75, 110
Life stage
Area/ detection description
Adult,
larvae,
eggs
One striped adult seen (large - >110 mm TL), darted to
inaccessible (storage) part of guzzler. At least 6 or 7 gilled
larvae seen, 3 were captured (advanced stage, ranging
between 60 and 75 mm TL); larvae larger than 80 mm TL
seen but not captured. Approximately 50 eggs also
present.
51 to 64
larvae
30 to 60
larvae/
adult
Duckweed layer thick, algal layer on walls, grass debris.
Water murky. At least four larvae present, three captured
and photographed (Figure XXX). Approx. 4 old (dead)
eggs present, no live eggs. No adults seen.
Duckweed layer thick, clean water. At least 7 larvae
present, one larva almost looks completely transformed,
with adult coloration, stripe on dorsum.
2 July
SKWT1
~7
18 Sept
SKWT1
0
Duckweed layer thin, clean water, few invertebrates. No
larvae seen.
>1
Adult
Adult salamander swam to inaccessible (storage) part of
guzzler, out of view. It had a light stripe on dorsum.
Larvae could've been present but water was murky.
16 April
SKWT2
>80
19 May
SKWT2
~ 50
10 to 38
hatchlings
Duckweed layer 100%. Some algae and invertebrates,
water murky. Hatchlings starting to grow legs and toes at
TL less than those at SKWT3. No adults or eggs seen.
2 July
SKWT2
>6
20 to 50
larvae
Water murky, at least 6 larvae seen.
larvae
Duckweed layer thin, water level is lower than other
guzzlers and not very clean. At least 10 larvae seen, 1
dead at bottom. All are approx. same age. One of the
larger larvae has almost all gills absorbed.
eggs
Guzzler located in sink, so trough is full. Eggs seem to
range in size between 9 – 10 mm in diameter, suggesting
more than one oviposition event. Balancers are evident
through egg casing, confirming them as Long-toed. More
than 15 eggs probable, but due to the higher water depth
than most, visibility is difficult.
18 Sept
17 April
SKWT2
SKWT3
>10
~ 15
50 to 70
9 to 10
19 May
SKWT3
~ 50
15 to
40,
various
stages
2 July
SKWT3
>20
20 to 60
18 Sept
30 June
SKWT3
SKWT4
>2
0
2 July
SKWT5
0
2 July
SKWT6
0
50 to 70
Duckweed layer thin in shallow end. Lots of algae, debris,
tons of daphnia, invertebrates; water is clean. At least 50
hatchlings seen, but no adults or eggs. We had had few
eggs of different developmental stages last visit, so the
larger hatchlings are older. Largest hatchlings have front
and rear limbs at this stage; the smallest not even buds.
hatchlings
larvae
Duckweed layer thin, water clean. At least 20 larvae seen.
larvae
Duckweed layer thin, Raised algal mat obstructed clear
view of bottom, water relatively clean. At least 2 larvae
seen, probably more are present but out of view.
No duckweed, some debris, some invertebrates, no sign
salamanders
Nothing visible- water opaque and green. Water visibility
to 1" deep, even with spotlight. No sign salamanders.
Nothing visible- water opaque and green with thick algal
growth. No sign salamanders.
26
Woodhouse’s Toad
Woodhouse’s Toad, or the Rocky Mountain Toad is a native species whose distribution in Washington
state is limited to the Snake and Columbia Rivers within the Columbia basin. This and the population
along the upper Snake River floodplain in Idaho represent isolated and disjunct populations from the
rest of the Midwest. Woodhouse’s Toads adults and newly morphed toadlets are terrestrial, spending
most of their time away from water except to breed. Mature Woodhouse’s Toads are among the largest
toads in North America, and can be gray, light brown and olive colors with dark splotches with
splotched bellies and a white dorsal stripe running from snout to vent. Their paratoid glands are
elongated and oval-shaped; this trait along with the “L”-shaped cranial crests and voice distinguish
them from the Western Toad. Western and Woodhouse’s Toads overlap in distribution where Western
Toads range north into the lower Snake River canyon in extreme north Garfield, Asotin and southern
Whitman counties (WA Herp Atlas 2005).
Woodhouse’s Toads occupy a variety of habitats; in the Snake River canyon, they can be found
near sagebrush, riparian and grassland habitats or crossing roads and other habitats as they migrate to
water to breed. Aquatic breeding habitat includes still-water ponds, ephemeral pools and ditches. As
an adaptation to explosive breeding in arid habitats, egg to tadpole development is rapid, and
metamorphism to adult occurs approximately in 2 months. Woodhouse’s Toads were found by MWFB
researchers in high numbers along the shoreline of Dalton Lake at Big Flat HMU, wetland habitat at
Villard Ponds and Big Flat HMUs and a variety of other habitats depicted in Figure 14.
Figure 14. Woodhouse's Toad Habitats
21%
Pond
19%
Restoration
2%
Road
4%
1%
Sagebrush/ pond edge
Shoreline inlet
18%
Shoreline lake
35%
Wetland
Occurrences on HMUs
Woodhouse’s Toads were not detected at 55-Mile or Skookum HMUs by any survey method. This
may be due to the lack of breeding habitat for this species at these sites.
Villard Ponds HMU
Two Woodhouse’s Toads were heard calling from out of the HMU from a residential backyard on 18
May. None were heard calling from within the HMU until 27 June, when a single individual was
detected calling from the ponds on the southern end of the HMU, just north of the railroad tracks
(detection VPBUWO1, 5116566.2N 345053.2E: zone 11N, WGS 84 datum).
27
Big Flat HMU
Woodhouse’s Toads were detected at Big Flat by several survey methods (Table 9). They were first
detected on 13 May 2008, calling from the wetland comprising the east end of Dalton Lake and were
heard during surveys through June. The drawn-out “waaaaaah” calls of the Woodhouse’s Toad can
carry fairly long distances; at Big Flat, calls from approximately 5 toads were heard 1.1 kilometers
away from the source (pers. obs.). Four toads were seen on the gravel road along the west shore of
Dalton Lake during an anuran call survey on 14 May 2008; these toads may have been arriving to breed
at the lake and North pond (detections BFBUWO2, 3, 4, Figure 16). Tadpoles were found along the
south shore of Dalton Lake on 24 June 2008, where approximately 20 were seen in low density; 3
individuals were captured, measured and photographed (detection BFBUWOtads1, Figure 15). These
tadpoles ranged in size from 16 to 28mm total length. Approximately 30 Woodhouse’s toad tadpoles
were seen in the boat launch shallows during a late morning VES on 27 June 2008 (detection
BFBUWOtads2). On 25 June 2008, 2 dead adult Woodhouse’s Toads were spotted in the vicinity of
BFRACT5 during a VES along the north shoreline of the North Pond in wetland habitat.
Table 9. Detections of Woodhouse’s Toad at Big Flat HMU.
Detection
Date detected
Method
BFBUWO1
13 May 2008
Anuran call/ eyeshine survey
BFBUWO2
14 May 2008
BFBUWO3
14 May 2008
BFBUWO4
14 May 2008
not marked
14 May 2008
Incidental detection
BFBUWO5
24 June 2008
BFBUWO6
24 June 2008
BFBUWO7
24 June 2008
*BFRACT5
25 June 2008
VES
BFBUWO8
11 Sept 2008
BFBUWOtads1
24 June 2008
Dipnet/ water survey
BFBUWOtads2
24 June 2008
VES
* denotes same coordinates as this previous detection
Habitat
Wetland
Road
Road
Road
Road
Pond
Shoreline lake
Pond
Pond/ Wetland
Pond
Shoreline lake
Shoreline lake/ boat launch
Figure 15. Left: Woodhouse’s Toad adult, Hollebeke HMU. Left: Woodhouse’s Toad tadpole, Big Flat HMU.
28
Wetland
Figure 16. GPS detection points of Woodhouse’s Toad, Big Flat HMU.
North Pond
Dalton Lake
Boat launch
Lost Island HMU
Woodhouse’s Toads were the most frequently detected herptile at Lost Island (Table 10, Figure 17).
We first detected them at least two individuals calling from the pond within the main HMU on 15 May
2008 (detection LIBUWO1, Table 10). On 26 June 2008, 6 toads were heard calling from the pond
outside the main HMU (detection LIBUWO2). Toads were also detected calling from within the inlet
area in June and September. The water level of the river was higher in September than in previous
months, causing the inlet area of the HMU to flood. A VES in these flooded areas of the inlet yielded
detections of 3 small toads in the flooded inlet area (detection LIBUWO3, 4, 5, Table 10). On 12 Sept,
2 adult toads were found underneath a “bare” coverboard at LI2E, within the restored riparian strip
(detection LIBUWO6). A VES along the sagebrush habitat surrounding the point outside the main unit
yielded a detection of a Woodhouse’s Toad (detection LIBUWO7). It was spotted emerging from a
burrow approximately 3 meters away from the edge of the pond.
Table 10. Detections of Woodhouse’s Toad at Lost Island HMU.
Detection
LIBUWO1
LIBUWO2
LIBUWO3
LIBUWO4
LIBUWO5
LIBUWO6 (2 toads)
LIBUWO7
Date detected
15 May 2008
26 June 2008
12 Sept 2008
12 Sept 2008
12 Sept 2008
12 Sept 2008
12 Sept 2008
Method
VES
VES
VES
Coverboard survey
VES
Habitat
Pond
Pond
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland
Restoration
Sagebrush/ pond edge
29
Pond outside
main HMU
Pond inside
main HMU
Figure 17. GPS detection points of Woodhouse’s Toads, Lost Island HMU.
Hollebeke HMU
Woodhouse’s Toads were seen and heard in the inlet area of Hollebeke. On 17 May, MWFB
researchers listened for anurans calling at the inlet within the HMU. On the small peninsula “beach”
just east of the pump house, 6 toads were spotted along the sandy shore, not calling at detection point
HOBUWO1 located at 5127003.2N, 370297.4E (zone 11N, WGS 84 datum). Five of the toads were
captured and photographed (Figure 15). On 28 June, 4 toads were heard calling from within the inlet
area, and two were captured and were photographed on the “beach”, possibly the same or different
individuals than the month before.
30
Pacific Treefrog
The Pacific Treefrog is native to the Pacific states, along with parts of Idaho, Montana and Nevada. It
is the most commonly heard frog in the state of Washington. Adult frogs can be solid, spotted and
blotched in a range of colors from red to green to grey. Its most conspicuous field mark is the black
“mask” that extends from the nostrils, widening at the eye and tympanum through to the shoulder. In
Eastern Washington males can start calling weeks before onset of breeding, starting around April.
Breeding can be prolonged, lasting 3 to 4 months; at the peak of breeding season, males even chorus
during daylight hours. Tadpoles are dark brown to olive, oftentimes with black speckling on the
dorsum and iridescent white on the ventral side. Tadpole eyes are offset to the margins of the head,
such that if viewed from above, the eyes would protrude from the outline of the head. In Washington
state, this is the only anuran with eyes offset in this manner; this character along with toepads
distinguish Pacific Treefrogs from all other anurans in the state.
In the Columbia basin, transformed Pacific Treefrogs are terrestrial, using damp forests,
riparian, shrubland, grassland and other habitats near a source of water. They can breed in disturbed
and urban areas with any sort of standing water - wetland, pond edges, stillwaters of rivers, puddles,
ditches, deep tire ruts. The majority of the Pacific Treefrogs were detected in pond habitat at Villard
Ponds HMU - single individuals were found in Russian Olive and riparian habitat at 55-Mile and
Skookum HMUs, respectively (Figure 18). Our findings of Pacific Treefrog at the confluence of the
Snake and Columbia Rivers, as well as upstream at 55-Mile and Skookum HMUs represent new
records for the Snake River region (WA Herp Atlas, 2005).
Figure 18. Pacific Treefrog Habitats
11%
Russian Olive
11%
Riparian
Pond
78%
Occurrences on HMUs
Sign of Pacific Treefrog was not detected at Big Flat, Lost Island, Hollebeke HMUs by any search
method. Breeding habitat appears to be sufficient in the waters of Dalton Lake and the adjacent
wetland at Big Flat HMU, but they were not heard or seen in these habitats.
Villard Ponds HMU
Pacific Treefrogs were one of three anuran species detected at Villard Ponds. They were first heard
chorusing on 16 May from the middle ponds of the HMU (Table 11, Figure 19). We detected these
frogs in close proximity to American Bullfrogs in at least one location within the HMU (detection
points VPRACT4, VPPSRE4, Table 11). No Pacific Treefrogs were heard downstream of the railroad
tracks, where Bullfrogs were also present.
31
Figure 19. GPS detection points of Pacific Treefrog, Villard Ponds HMU.
Table 11. Detections of Pacific Treefrogs at Villard Ponds HMU.
Detection
VPPSRE1
VPPSRE2
VPPSRE3
VPPSRE4
Date detected
16 May 2008
16 May 2008
18 May 2008
23 June 2008
Method
Habitat
Pond
Pond
Pond
Pond
55-Mile HMU
A single male Pacific Treefrog was heard incidentally on 16 Sept calling approximately 15 meters
north of our campsite; 6 to 7 single calls were heard in two repetitions (detection FFPSRE1
5161791.4N, 400940.3E: zone 11N, WGS 84 datum). It did not call after that, and despite camping in
the same spot on 3 previous visits, we had not heard any frogs calling from that area before. The frog
was heard from a dense Russian Olive thicket, with thick Himalayan Blackberry understory.
Skookum HMU
A single male Pacific Treefrog was heard incidentally from the campsite an hour and a half after
sunrise on 21 May (detection SKPSRE1, 5160970.5N, 390302.6E: zone 11N, WGS 84 datum). We
heard the frog from the managed riparian portion of the HMU: 2 to 3 rapid "krakeck" calls followed by
long pause. The frog was not heard again when we reached the stand of trees to listen. We believe the
frog was calling from a stand of black cottonwoods.
32
American Bullfrog
The American Bullfrog is an invasive but naturalized species in Washington state and most western
states, where it was probably introduced in the 1920’s as a source of food for their large meaty legs.
The Bullfrog has since exploded in range, out competing local amphibians (Nafis 2009). They are
mostly aquatic even in the transformed phase, and can almost always be found near water (Nafis 2009).
Bullfrogs emerge in late spring to breed, lay eggs in giant masses. Bullfrog tadpoles often take 2 to 3
years to mature before metamorphosing; because of this, they require permanent or semi-permanent
water bodies to breed.
In Washington, Bullfrogs are known from Puget Sound and along a great extent of the
Columbia River, parts of the Pend Oreille River as well as scattered populations in Okanogan, Klickitat
and other western counties. In the Columbia Basin, Bullfrogs are known from the Columbia/ Snake
River confluence and further upstream in extreme north Garfield and Asotin counties with scattered
populations in Spokane, Adams and Yakima counties (WA Herp Atlas, 2005). We confirmed these
records with our findings of Bullfrog at Big Flat HMU, where they were found in wetland and pond
habitat as well along the shoreline of Dalton Lake, as well as at Villard Ponds HMU, where they were
abundant throughout pond habitat (Figure 20).
Figure 20. American Bullfrog Habitats
7%
Pond
14%
Shoreline inlet
5%
Shoreline lake
74%
Wetland
Occurrences on HMUs
Sign of American Bullfrog was not detected at Lost Island, Hollebeke, 55-Mile, and Skookum HMUs
by any search method.
Villard Ponds HMU
American Bullfrog was first detected at Villard Ponds by anuran call survey on 18 May 2009 (Table
12). They were heard in much higher numbers in June, when 88% of the detections occurred. Over 50
bullfrogs were detected by sight in a single, small pond just north of the railroad tracks (located at
detection VPRACT3 in Figure 21). We would expect to see more frogs in bodies of water isolated
from the main river, where there are less fish.
33
Table 12. Detections of American Bullfrog, Villard Ponds HMU.
Detection name
VPRACT1
VPRACT2
VPRACT3
VPRACT4
VPRACT5
VPRACT6
VPRACT7
VPRACT8
Date detected
18 May 2008
23 June 2008
23 June 2008
23 June 2008
23 June 2008
27 June 2008
27 June 2008
27 June 2008
Method
VES
Habitat
Pond
Pond
Pond
Pond
Shoreline inlet
Shoreline inlet
Pond
Shoreline inlet
Figure 21. GPS detection points of Bullfrog, Villard Ponds HMU.
Big Flat HMU
American Bullfrogs were detected at Big Flat by four survey methods (Table 13, Figure 22). None
were heard calling in April, where the over night temperatures were in the forties (Fahrenheit).
However, tadpoles were found in abundance by dipnet survey in the North Pond in April, probably
second or third year tadpoles that had over wintered (Figure 23). Tadpoles appear to be higher in
densities where the vegetation is thick on very east end of the pond (to about 1.5 meters from end)
(Figure 24). Small fish were found in this area, but more fish and fewer tadpoles about 3 to 5 meters
out from the east shore (where there is less vegetation and the water is deeper). All tadpoles had a pale
or dark iris, bodies speckled gold with black dots, and they ranged in size from 38mm to 102mm (1.5 to
4 inches) total length. In May, dipnetting in the west end of the North pond yielded tadpoles as well,
and we returned to the east end of the pond to sample tail clips to confirm species through genetic
analyses. Three tadpoles with the least resemblance to American Bullfrog tadpoles were tail clipped
34
and sent to the Shaffer Lab (Dept. of Evolution and Ecology, UC Davis). Robert Thomson extracted
DNA and ran a 600 base pair region of the cytochrome oxidase I mitochondrial genome. He found all
three tadpoles to have a 99% match with American Bullfrog to archived sequences in the National
Center for Biotechnology Information database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/, last accessed 15
November 2008).
American Bullfrogs were easily detected by call starting in May, when one was heard calling
during a dipnet survey in the North Pond in the evening hours. Anuran call surveys in June detected
bullfrogs in the wetland habitat in the eastern corner of Dalton Lake. Bullfrogs were easily seen during
daytime visual encounter surveys in the North Pond and heard calling from the south shore of Dalton
Lake in June (Figure 23). Bullfrog detections seemed to jump in September, when temperatures stayed
warm. Twenty were heard or seen during a visual encounter survey along the south shore of Dalton
Lake on 10 Sept 2008 (detection BFRACT7, Table 13).
Table 13. Detections of American Bullfrog at Big Flat HMU.
Detection
BFRACT1
BFRACT2
BFRACT3
BFRACT4
BFRACT5
BFRACT6
BFRACT7
BFRACTtads1
BFRACTtads2
Date detected
14 May 2008
24 June 2008
24 June 2008
25 June 2008
25 June 2008
25 June 2008
10 Sept 2008
11 April 2008
16 May 2008
Method
VES
VES
VES
VES
Figure 22. GPS detection points of Bullfrog, Big Flat HMU (Dalton Lake).
North Pond
Habitat
Wetland
Shoreline lake
Pond
Wetland
Pond
Shoreline lake
Shoreline lake
Pond
Pond
Wetland
Dalton Lake
35
Figure 23. Left: 2nd year Bullfrog tadpole. Right: juvenile Bullfrog seen during dipnetting survey, Big Flat HMU.
Figure 24. Photographs of the east end of the North Pond, showing dense vegetation a few feet from the edge (left), where
majority of American Bullfrog tadpoles were found and more open water, less vegetation further from the east end (right).
36
Western Skink
The Skilton’s Skink is the subspecies of Western Skink in our study area. It occurs primarily in the
eastern and northeastern part of the state, in parts of the Columbia basin, eastern Cascades, and in the
Blue Mountains. It is a smooth-scaled, relatively small lizard (5 to 9 centimeters, snout-vent length)
with a dark brown mid-dorsal stripe running from the snout to the tail lined with alternating creamwhite and black stripes down the sides. Juvenile lizards have an almost-fluorescent blue tail and bold
striping; as the lizard ages, the blue fades to a blue-grey or brownish-gray. This is the only lizard in
Washington state with a bright blue tail, mid-dorsal stripe and shiny, smooth scales. During breeding
season males may develop orange to reddish coloring along the chin and sides of the face.
In the Columbia basin, they can exploit semi-arid and moist environments, ranging from shrubsteppe, basalt rock outcroppings, dry forests and grasslands to edges of creeks and ponds with lots of
vegetation (pers. obs., Nafis 2009). They can be found sifting through leaf litter and other woody
debris and turning rocks and other cover objects.
Occurrence on HMUs
Out of the possible 4 species of lizard for the study area, we found only a single individual of this
species. Due to their secretive nature, they can be difficult to detect; oftentimes, the flash of the blue
tail as they disappear beneath a rock is the only way to know they’re present. Our one detection of
Western Skink for the survey period occurred at 55-Mile HMU in such a manner. During a VES along
the base of basalt bluffs on 1 July 2008, a Western Skink was identified by its blue tail darting across
the grassy slope before it took shelter in a rock pile (detection point FFEUSK1 5162161.8N, 400986.2
E: zone 11N, WGS 84 datum). Historical records prior to 1984 for Western Skink are known from
upstream the Snake River, and it has been detected by MWFB researchers during small mammal
surveys at Nisqually John and Kelly Bar HMUs (Lower Granite pool) in August 2008. Our finding of
Western Skink along this stretch of the Columbia River (Lower Monumental pool) represents a new
record for the Snake River region (WA Herp Atlas, 2005).
Figure 25. Left: Photo of adult Western Skink, Klickitat county
(Photo: L. Hallock, WA Herp Atlas). Right: habitat at base of
basalt bluffs where the single Western Skink was seen.
37
Rubber Boa
The Rubber Boa is a thick-bodied, small-scaled and robust-looking snake. Adults can range in size
from 35 to 85 cm, though they are typically within the smaller end of this spectrum (Nafis 2009). The
end of its tail is blunt and can be confused with its head. The scales are smooth and it ranges in color
from pink, tan, olive, brown or dark grey with a pale belly with mottling; juveniles can be brighter in
color, even rosy pink (Nafis 2009). It can be distinguished from the Racer with its small eyes, thick
body, small dorsal scales, vertical pupils and rather sluggish, non-aggressive behavior. Rubber Boas
can be active in temperatures that may be too cool for some other species – at surface temperatures in
the fifties Fahrenheit (Nafis 2009).
Though Rubber Boas have not been studied in detail in Washington state, they are thought to
start emerging from wintering sites around March, with breeding occurring around April and May.
Distribution of Rubber Boas in the state is patchy, but they have been found to occupy forest,
grasslands and prairie habitats but have also been found in wet forests of the Pacific Northwest
ecoregion, as well as in arid shrub-steppe in the Columbia basin. Rubber Boas are nocturnal and
fossorial, spending much of their time underground or moving in interstitial spaces throughout habitat,
which makes them difficult to detect. It may be possible to return to a site year and year and detect
them or find shed skins.
Occurrence on HMUs
Due to their nocturnal and sometimes crepuscular behavior, their presence may be difficult to detect.
Rubber Boa was detected at only one HMU, 55-Mile, through the positive identification of a snake
molt collected during a nocturnal VES on 16 Sept 2008 (detection FFMOLT2, 5162166.9N,
400950.3E: zone 11N WGS 84 datum). It was found protruding from a space between rocks at the
base of basalt bluffs bordering shrub-steppe and grassland habitat. Historical records prior to 1984 for
Rubber Boa are known from upstream the Snake River, in the hills to the west of Pullman (WA Herp
Atlas 2005). Our finding of Rubber Boa sign along this stretch of the Columbia River (Lower
Monumental pool) represents a new record for the Snake River region (WA Herp Atlas, 2005).
Figure 26. Left: Adult Rubber Boa, Benton
Co. (Photo: Gary Nafis, CalHerps). Right:
Habitat where molted snake skin was found at
55-Mile, between rocks at the base of basalt
bluffs.
38
Western Yellow-bellied Racer
The Western Yellow-bellied Racer is the subspecies of the Racer which occurs in our study area.
Racers are known for their speed on the ground and the visual tracking of prey, which they accomplish
by stalking prey with their heads elevated off the ground. Racers can grow to lengths of 51 to 190
centimeters but are typically under 91 cm in length on the west coast (Stebbins 2003). They have
seemingly large eyes for their long, skinny bodies, which consist of smooth scales. Adults are long and
smooth in appearance, often olive green, pale blue-gray or brownish above with cream or yellow
bellies below. Juvenile snakes are blotched or patterned on the dorsum, with the pattern fading on the
tail (Nafis 2009, Stebbins 2003).
Racers favor semi-arid and moist habitats including meadows, wetland edges, grassland,
sagebrush, and woodlands. They are absent from extremely dry habitats and high mountains (Stebbins
2003). In Washington state, the Western Yellow-bellied Racer occurs primarily east of the Cascades
throughout the Columbia basin, with records from the Snake/ Columbia River confluence and upstream
in southern Whitman county (WDFW 2009). We found Racers in a variety habitats, with the majority
of detections occurring by snakeskin molt in shrub-steppe habitat, followed by visual detections of
snakes in bunchgrass habitat (predominately Intermediate wheatgrass (Figure 27).
Figure 27. Western Yellow-bellied Racer Habitats
Bunchgrass
28%
36%
Grass/ blackberry edge
Grassland with forbs
Pond edge
Rock outcrop
4%
4%
4%
4%
8%
4%
8%
Rock pile
Russian Olive grassland
Sagebrush
Shrub-steppe
Occurrences on HMUs
Villard Ponds HMU
No Racers were detected by any search method at Villard Ponds. However, their presence was
confirmed through the positive identification of a snakeskin molt, which was found and collected in
sagebrush, rip-rap habitat (pond edge) on 23 June 2008 (detection LIMOLT1, 5136258.6N, 367859.0
E: zone 11N, WGS 84 datum). They undoubtedly exist on the HMU but may do so in lower numbers
such that our survey methods did not detect them.
Big Flat HMU
Western Yellow-bellied Racers were only detected incidentally at Big Flat (Table 14, Figure 28). The
Racer found at detection point BFCOCA1 was likely a road kill, found dead along the gravel road to
the pump house. The Racer at BFCOCA2 was a young snake, with juvenile patterning, that eluded us
while we were checking coverboards, along Russian Olive/ grassland habitat. It was approximately 30
centimeters (one foot) in length. The Racer found at BFCOCA3 was glimpsed sliding underneath a
blackberry patch, also during board checks.
39
Table 14. Detections of Western Yellow-bellied Racer, Big Flat HMU.
Detection
BFCOCA1
BFCOCA2
BFCOCA3
Date detected
24 June 2008
24 June 2008
24 June 2008
Method
Incidental detection (dead)
Habitat
Shrub-steppe
Grassland
Figure 28. GPS detection points of Racer, Big Flat HMU.
Lost Island HMU
No Racers were detected by any search method at Lost Island. However, their presence was confirmed
through the positive identification of a snakeskin molt, which was found and collected in shrub-steppe
habitat on 12 Sept 2008 (detection LIMOLT1 at 5136258.6 N, 367859.0 E: zone 11N, WGS84 datum).
Hollebeke HMU
No Racers were detected by any search method at Hollebeke. However, they have been detected on the
HMU by previous research, either by VES or drift fence/ pitfall array, occupying both upland and
riparian habitats (Loper & Lohman 1998).
55-Mile HMU
Racers were detected at 55-Mile by three survey methods (Table 15, Figure 29). On 21 May 2008, a
VES was conducted following rain earlier in the day in Intermediate wheatgrass habitat along the
shoreline of the Snake River, when the sunshine emerged in the afternoon and temperatures climbed to
74º Fahrenheit. The relative abundance of animals (animals per hour) found during this VES exceeded
that of any VES conducted for the entire 2008 season, at 6 individuals per hour. Two Northern Pacific
Rattlesnakes and a Gopher Snake were also seen during this survey. FFCOCA1 was a detection of 2
snakes, one of them a confirmed Racer, olive in color and the second a probable Racer, tan in color
(MWFB researchers could not catch it). FFCOCA2 was captured and photographed (Figure 30).
FFCOCA3 was our only detection of a young snake, as it still possessed the juvenile markings. It was
found under a coverboard on the same day, when the rain returned in the late afternoon (Figure 30). A
dead Racer was found along the gravel path from the cow corridor into the HMU (detection
FFCOCA4). The Racer at FFCOCA5 was found in the same bunchgrass vicinity as FFCOCA1 and 2,
though on 1 July. Additionally, 4 of the 5 collected snake molts from 55-Mile were molts from Racers.
40
Table 15. Detections of Western Yellow-bellied Racer, 55-Mile HMU.
Detection name
FFCOCA1(2 snakes)
FFCOCA2
FFCOCA3
FFCOCA4
FFCOCA5
Date detected
21 May 2008
21 May 2008
21 May 2008
30 June 2008
1 July 2008
Method
VES
VES
Coverboard
Incidental detection (dead)
VES
Habitat
Bunchgrass
Bunchgrass
Shrub-steppe
Bunchgrass
Figure 29. GPS detection points of Racer, 55-Mile HMU.
Skookum HMU
Racers were detected at Skookum in high numbers by snakeskin molt identification, coverboard and
VES. SKCOCA1 was of a Racer found on 19 May under a vegetated coverboard at SK6C in a draw
with large boulders at 5160496.5 N, 390758.4 E (zone 11N WGS 84 datum). SKCOCA2 was a Racer
detected by VES in shrub-steppe habitat with rock outcroppings on 3 at 5161115.6 N, 390270.0 E
(zone 11N WGS 84 datum). Of the 20 snakeskin molts collected at Skookum, 8 were identified to be
from Racers (Appendix B).
41
Figure 30. Above: juvenile Racer found under coverboard FF8E. Below: Adult
Racer captured during VES (both at 55-Mile HMU, found 21 May 2008).
42
Gopher Snake
The subspecies of Gopher Snake in our study area is known as the Great Basin Gopher Snake. In
Washington state, Gopher Snakes are only found east of the Cascades where their distribution spans the
Columbia basin (WA Herp Atlas, 2005). Known by locals as the “bullsnake”, it is one of the most
widespread and commonly occurring herptile species in the Columbia basin. They are often mistaken
for rattlesnakes, which differ in that rattlesnakes have vertical pupils, possess vertical “sensing” pits
and a rattle (which Gopher Snakes will often mimic by shaking their rattle-less tails and hissing).
Gopher Snakes have keeled dorsal scales, and are usually a beige or tan color overall with dark,
squarish blotchings along the dorsal side and smaller dark markings along their sides.
Gopher Snakes specialize in small mammals for prey, though they will take birds, bird eggs,
lizards and insects (Nafis 2009). While active day or night depending on temperatures, they commonly
bask, fully extended, on paved or gravel roads in the evening or early morning hours. In Washington
state, they can be found in shrub-steppe, white oak and ponderosa forests and often spend the majority
of hot days underground in small mammal burrows. We found them in bunchgrass and grassland
communities, dominated by Intermediate wheatgrass, Russian Olive thickets, in brush piles and in
sagebrush habitat (Figure 31).
Figure 31. Gopher Snake Habitats
7%
13%
Brushpile
13%
Bunchgrass
27%
13%
Riparian
Sagebrush
7%
7%
13%
Shrub-steppe
Occurrences on HMUs
Villard Ponds HMU
Gopher Snakes were not detected during any survey at Villard Ponds. One was seen incidentally
crossing a trail during small mammal surveys on 9 June 2008 at 5117709.8 N, 344366.5 E (zone 11N
WGS 84 datum). It was heading from riprap and sagebrush towards a cattail-lined pond, crossing a
sandy path. A Gopher Snake was also detected at the Cummins Property during small mammal
surveys (I. Engilis, pers. comm.).
Big Flat HMU
Two Gopher Snakes were detected at Big Flat by VES. BFPICA1 was found at 5128707.0 N,
363183.9 E and BFPICA2 at 51285553.5 N, 363088.8 E (zone 11N, WGS 84 datum). Both were seen
in and among brush piles in grassland habitat and adjacent to irrigated Russian Olive thickets on 14
May 2008.
43
Lost Island HMU
No Gopher Snakes were detected by any search method at Lost Island. They probably occur in the
HMU but were not detected by any of our search methods.
Hollebeke HMU
A Gopher Snake was incidentally observed crossing a gravel road within shrub-steppe habitat near the
HMU entrance on 18 May 2008. This snake had one good eye and part of its tail was missing
(detection HOPICA1 at 5136486.4N, 370292.5E: zone 11N, WGS84 datum). A second Gopher Snake
was found under the “vegetated” coverboard at HO7D on 28 June 2008, looking ready to molt with a
milky eye and overall dull appearance (detection HOPICA2 at 5137328.1 N, 370541.3 E: zone 11N,
WGS84 datum).
Figure 32. MWFB researcher handling a Gopher Snake for measurement,
Hollebeke HMU.
55-Mile HMU
Gopher Snakes were detected by three methods at 55-Mile (Table 16, Figure 33). The snake at
detection FFPICA1 was found under the “bare” coverboard at FF9E on 21 May 2008 and may have
eaten a rodent, for there looked to be remains of a rodent nest under the board and large snake
droppings. When handled, it exhibited the tail shaking and hissing behavior reminiscent of
rattlesnakes. Among the Gopher Snakes found by VES, one was spotted in bunchgrass/shrub-steppe
edge habitat, the other in bunchgrass habitat along the shoreline (detections FFPICA2, 5). Two Gopher
Snakes seen incidentally were along Russian Olive and irrigated grassland edge (detections FFPICA3,
4).
Table 16. Detections of Gopher Snakes, 55-Mile HMU.
Detection name
FFPICA1
FFPICA2
FFPICA3
FFPICA4
FFPICA5
Date detected
21 May 2008
21 May 2008
30 June 2008
16 Sept 2008
17 Sept 2008
Method
Coverboard survey
VES
VES
Habitat
Sagebrush
Bunchgrass
Bunchgrass
44
Figure 33. GPS detection points of Gopher Snake, 55-Mile HMU.
Skookum HMU
Gopher Snakes were detected by VES and coverboards at Skookum (Table 17, Figure 34). A
coverboard transect (SK1) laid out in bunchgrass/blackberry edge produced the majority of detections
of Gopher Snakes. The first was on 19 May 2008 at SK1E (detection SKPICA1), the second was found
under the same “vegetated” board on 2 July 2008 (detection SKPICA2). Two snakes were found under
a single board at SK1C on 2 July 2008 (detection SKPICA3). The board at SK1C was covering a
rodent nest as well as a very deep mammal burrow and one of the snakes attempted to escape down it
before MWFB researchers captured it (Figure 35). This observation reinforces the concept that Gopher
Snakes target rodent nests and use their burrows as a means of escape or hiding. The snake at
SKPICA4 was detected during a VES, basking in grasses within the native riparian and irrigated
section of the HMU.
Table 17. Detections of Gopher Snakes, Skookum HMU.
Detection name
SKPICA1
SKPICA2
SKPICA3 (2 snakes)
SKPICA4
Date detected
19 May 2008
2 July 2008
2 July 2008
19 Sept 2008
Method
Coverboard survey
Coverboard survey
Coverboard survey
VES
Habitat
Bunchgrass
Riparian
45
Figure 34. GPS detection points of Gopher Snake, Skookum HMU.
Figure 35. One of two adult Gopher Snake found under a single coverboard at SKPICA3, 2 July 2008.
46
Wandering Garter Snake
The Wandering Garter Snake is the subspecies of Western Terrestrial Garter Snake that occurs in our
study area. It is a relatively slender snake of medium length, head just barely wider than body. They
are variable in color, but like most other garter snake species, exhibit a lateral striping pattern along the
body. They usually have a green, grey or brownish background with yellow, brownish, orange, dorsal
and lateral stripes from the head that fade into the tail (Nafis 2009).
Wandering Garter Snakes are typically diurnal, and in arid climates like the Columbia basin,
are likely to be found near a water source, though they are chiefly terrestrial (Stebbins 2003, Nafis
2009). They can occupy a variety of habitats, including shrub-steppe, grassy meadows, forests and
riparian areas (Nafis 2009). Our one detection occurred bordering wetland habitat.
Occurrences on HMUs
Only one garter snake was detected during the 2008 season, and this was a Wandering Garter Snake at
Big Flat HMU. It was seen emerging to bask with 8 Northern Pacific Rattlesnakes on 25 June at a
possible hibernacula site located at 5129227.3 N, 361947.4 E (zone 11N, WGS 84 datum). Again at
this spot on 13 Sept, 9 rattlesnakes were seen. The habitat consisted of rip-rap rock piles at the base of
the gravel state road within the sandbar willow edge of the wetland (the east end of Dalton Lake). The
Wandering Garter Snake had cloudy eyes, an overall dull appearance with a faint dorsal stripe, with a
tan and green background color and was approximately 3 feet in length (Figure 36). We could not
catch it due to the rocky habitat and close proximity to rattlesnakes. Photos taken reveal 8 upper labial
scales, confirming it as a Wandering Garter Snake. A Wandering Garter Snake was also detected at the
Walla Walla River Delta HMU during summer bird surveys on 3 June 2008 (J. Trochet, pers. comm.).
We believe that garter snakes are more widespread than detections indicate. Despite targeted attempts
to locate this species and the Valley Garter Snake in riparian, wetland and shoreline habitat, we did not
detect any other garter snakes at any HMU. They can be elusive and move quickly when disturbed
through thick vegetation, possibly explaining our few detections.
Figure 36. Wandering Garter Snake (center) in close proximity to two Northern Pacific Rattlesnakes
(bottom right). Note milky eye and dull appearance, evidence of it about to molt.
47
Northern Pacific Rattlesnake
The Northern Pacific Rattlesnake is the subspecies of Western Rattlesnake that occurs in our study
area. It is the only venomous snake within our study area. One of the most widely known characters is
the rattle, which grows by one “button” at a time, each time the snake sheds its skin. The cryptic
coloration depends on the substrate where they can be found – from brown to olive with dark spots 2/3
of the way along the dorsum lined with black and white that change to dark bars which appear like
rings closer to the tail (Nafis 2009). Dorsal scales are strongly keeled, and the scale above the eye is
enlarged. Pupils are vertical, and along the snout, small holes or “pits” are capable of detecting
infrared heat. Gopher Snakes have round pupils, smaller dorsal spots in more of a checkered pattern, a
dark band over the eyes and the top of the head, more weakly keeled scales, and lack pits and a rattle.
Night Snake can be distinguished from juvenile Western Rattlesnakes by the smooth scales, smaller,
denser dark markings, and lack of pits and a rattle.
The distribution of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake in Washington state spans the Columbia basin,
and is only found east of the Cascades (WA Herp Atlas, 2005, WDFW 2009). They begin to emerge
from winter hibernacula in the Columbia Basin around April, when temperatures begin to warm up.
Mating will take place in the vicinity of the hibernacula, before adults disperse to summer wintering
grounds. They occupy a variety of habitats, from open forest to shrub steppe, and are known to over
winter in rock outcropping, talus and burrows (Nafis 2009). Our numerous findings of Northern
Pacific Rattlesnake demonstrate that this species is truly a habitat generalist, and was found in the
greatest variety of habitats of all species detected (Figure 37).
Figure 37. Northern Pacific Rattlesnake Habitats
Brush pile
2%
2%
3%
Bunchgrass
3%
3%
15%
Grassland
Quarry
2%
2%
Rock outcrop
Rock pile/ base of bluffs
5%
Rock pile/ grassland
5%
41%
Rock pile/ wetland edge
Russian Olive/ blackberry edge
12%
5%
Sagebrush
Shrub-steppe
Occurrences on HMUs
Villard Ponds HMU
No Northern Pacific Rattlesnakes were detected by any search method at Villard Ponds. There are no
records of rattlesnakes from this part of the Columbia/ Snake River confluence (WA Herp Atlas, 2005).
48
Figure 38. A nocturnal detection of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake
found in sagebrush habitat, 55-Mile HMU (note strike position).
Big Flat HMU
Northern Pacific Rattlesnakes were detected by VES at Big Flat HMU (Table 18, Figure 39). We
discovered a possible hibernacula, where on two occasions, multiple rattlesnakes were seen. On 25
June at detection BFCRVI1, 8 rattlesnakes were seen within a 10 meter stretch of rip-rap at the base of
the gravel state road within the sandbar willow (Salix exigua) edge of the wetland (the east end of
Dalton Lake). Sharing in their company was also a Wandering Garter Snake, as described in that
species account. According to the Washington Herp Atlas (2005) most adults snakes found within
Washington are around 2 feet in length (60 centimeters) with the largest at 151 centimeters. We found
snakes along Snake River HMUs much larger than the estimated 2 feet – some up to four feet in length.
One of the 8 snakes was also engaged in physical intertwining with another rattlesnake, and molted
simultaneously as we watched. The two rattlesnakes observed in this manner were exhibiting malemale combat, a competition strategy for mates; this observation reinforces the possibility that this
observation was at a probable hibernacula site, as rattlesnakes will often breed not far from hibernacula
sites (R. C. Thomson, pers. comm.). We collected the freshly molted skin from the rattlesnake from
this “hotspot” and measured it to be 125 cm (49 inches). All 8 snakes ranged in size from 2 feet to just
over 4 feet. On 11 Sept, 9 rattlesnakes were detected in this same area, emerging from the rocks to
bask as the morning sun emerged (detection BFCRVI2). Detection point BFCRVI2 was of a
rattlesnake found during an evening VES among bluffs and shrub-steppe. It was coiled up at the base
of the bluffs and was spooked by our approach and flashlights; it retreated vertically through a crack in
the rock face.
Table 18. Detections of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, Big Flat HMU.
Detection name
BFCRVI1
BFCRVI2
BFCRVI3
Date detected
25 June 2008
25 June 2008
11 Sept 2008
Method
VES
Nocturnal VES
VES
Habitat
49
Figure 39. GPS detection points of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, Big Flat HMU.
Lost Island HMU
Northern Pacific Rattlesnakes were detected by VES and were seen incidentally at Lost Island (Table
19, Figure 40). One was found along the rip-rap and grassy base of the gravel state road on 16 May
2008 (detection LICRVI1). They were detected at a higher rate in bunchgrass habitat than in the
quarry, with 88% of the detections occurring in the southeast end of the HMU. Workers from De
Ruwe’s crew had seen rattlesnakes on more than one occasion in the vicinity of the pump house (pers.
comm.). It is possible that the exposed basalt columns in the quarry support a population of over
wintering rattlesnakes and serve as a hibernacula.
Figure 40. GPS detection points of Northern Pacific
Rattlesnake, Lost Island HMU.
50
Table 19. Detections of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, Lost Island HMU.
Detection name
LICRVI1
LICRVI2
LICRVI3
LICRVI4
LICRVI5
LICRVI6
LICRVI7
LICRVI8
Date detected
16 May 2008
26 June 2008
26 June 2008
26 June 2008
26 June 2008
26 June 2008
12 Sept 2008
12 Sept 2008
Method
VES
VES
VES
Nocturnal VES
Nocturnal VES
VES
Habitat
Bunchgrass
Bunchgrass
Bunchgrass
Quarry
Quarry
Quarry
Bunchgrass
Hollebeke HMU
Northern Pacific Rattlesnakes were detected by VES at Hollebeke (Table 20, Figure 41). On 13 April
2008, two rattlesnakes were disturbed in their hibernacula at the east end of the HMU at the base of tall
basalt cliffs (Figure 42). MWFB researchers were climbing among the rock piles at the base of the
cliffs, provoking them to emerge (detection HOCRVI1). A night-time VES on 28 June in the same
area yielded a rattlesnake detection among the rock piles at the base of the bluffs (detection
HOCRVI2). The third detection was of a snake coiled up under a log in grassland/forb habitat
surrounded by Russian Olive thickets (detection HOCRVI3). Rattlesnakes were also detected by
positive identification of snakeskin molt (Appendix B).
Figure 41. GPS detection points of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, Hollebeke HMU.
Table 20. Detections of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, Hollebeke HMU.
Detection name
Date detected
Method
Habitat
HOCRVI1 (2 snakes)
HOCRVI2
HOCRVI3
13 April 2008
28 June 2008
14 Sept 2008
VES
Nocturnal VES
VES
Brush pile
51
Figure 42. Rock pile and grassland habitat possibly serving as a hibernacula at the east end
of Hollebeke HMU, where 3 rattlesnakes had been detected over the course of the season.
55-Mile HMU
Northern Pacific Rattlesnakes were most commonly detected by VES and found in a variety of habitats
at 55-Mile (Table 21, Figure 43). On 21 May 2008, a VES was conducted following rain earlier in the
day in Intermediate wheatgrass habitat along the shoreline of the Snake River, when the sunshine
emerged in the afternoon and temperatures climbed to 74º Fahrenheit. The relative abundance of
animals (animals per hour) found during this VES exceeded that of any VES conducted for the entire
2008 season, at 6 individuals per hour. During this survey, two rattlesnakes were seen (detections
FFCRVI1, 2), three Racers as well as a Gopher Snake. The rattlesnakes were coiled up just near a
wash filled with wood debris, with the other snakes found within about 200 meters.
Table 21. Detections of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, 55-Mile HMU.
Detection name
FFCRVI1
FFCRVI2
FFCRVI3
FFCRVI4
FFCRVI5
FFCRVI6
FFCRVI7
FFCRVI8
Date detected
21 May 2008
21 May 2008
30 June 2008
1 July 2008
1 July 2008
17 Sept 2008
17 Sept 2008
17 Sept 2008
Method
VES
VES
Nocturnal VES
VES
VES
VES
Habitat
Bunchgrass
Bunchgrass
Rock outcrop
Bunchgrass
Grassland
Shrub-steppe
Sagebrush
52
Figure 43. GPS detection points of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, 55-Mile
Skookum HMU
Northern Pacific Rattlesnakes at Skookum were detected primarily incidentally, during VES and by
positive snakeskin identification, with 63% of the detections associated with bluff, rock outcrop or rock
pile habitat (Table 22, Figure 44 and Appendix B). On 16 April, two snakes were disturbed among the
rock piles bordering the bluffs while researchers were setting up coverboards, and with the cool
temperatures early in the season, we suggest that these detections occurred in vicinity of hibernacula
(detections SKCRVI1 and 2). Two of the incidental findings occurred in close proximity to our
campsite (SKCRVI7, SKCRVI8).
Table 22. Detections of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, Skookum HMU.
Detection name
SKCRVI1
SKCRVI2
SKCRVI3
SKCRVI4
SKCRVI5
SKCRVI6
SKCRVI7
SKCRVI8
Date detected
16 April 2008
16 April 2008
19 May 2008
19 May 2008
2 July 2008
3 July 2008
18 Sept 2008
19 Sept 2008
Method
VES
VES
VES
Habitat
Rock outcrop
Russian Olive/ blackberry edge
53
Figure 44. GPS detection points of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, Skookum HMU.
54
Literature Cited
Asherin, D. A. and J. J. Claar. 1976. Inventory of riparian habitats and associated wildlife along the
Columbia and Snake Rivers. Volume IIIA. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific
Division.
Brem, F., J. R. Mendelson III, and K. R. Lips. 2007. Field-Sampling Protocol for Batrachochytrium
dendrobatidis from Living Amphibians, using Alcohol Preserved Swabs. Version 1.0 (18 July 2007).
Electronic document accessible at http://www.amphibians.org Conservation International, Arlington,
Virginia, USA.
Corkran, C. C. and C. Thoms. 2006. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. Lone
Pine Publishing, Canada.
Corn, P.S.; Bury, R.B. 1990. Sampling methods for terrestrial amphibians and reptiles. General
technical report PNW no. GTR-256. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station Portland, OR. 34 pp.
Crother, B. I., Boundy J., Campbell, J. A., de Quieroz, K., Frost, D., Green, D. M. and R. Highton.
2003. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America
North of Mexico: Update. Herpetological Review, Vol. 34 (3): 196 – 203.
Davidson, C. 1995. Audio field guide to frog and toad calls of the Pacific Coast- Vanishing Voices.
CD/Cassette and booklet. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.
Frost, D.R., T. Grant, J. Faivovich, R.H. Bain, A. Haas, C.F.B. Haddad, R.O de Sa, A. Channing, M.
Wilkinson, S.C. Donnellan, C. Raxworthy, J.A. Campbell., B.L. Blotto, P. Moler, R.C.
Drewes, R.A. Nussbaum, J.D. Lynch, D.M. Green, and W.C. Wheeler. 2006. The amphibian
tree of life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 297: 1 – 370.
Green, G.A., Livezy, K. B., and R. L. Morgan. 2001. Habitat Selection by Northern Sagebrush Lizards
(Sceloporous graciosus graciosus) in the Columbia Basin, Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist
82: 111 – 115.
Guilfoyle, M. G. 2006. Seasonal Small Mammal Communities in Russian Olive Habitats on Corps of
Engineers Habitat Management Units Along the Snake and Columbia Rivers, WA. Progress
Report prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development
Center, Vicksburg, MS. 50 pp.
Kinkead, K. 2006. Iowa multiple species inventory and monitoring program technical manual: Chapter
10: Amphibian and Reptile Monitoring Protocol (p 47 – 55) Wildlife Diversity Program, Iowa
Department of Natural Resources. 131 pp.
Lawler, J. J., White, D., Sifneos, J. C., and L. L. Master. 2003. Rare species and the use of indicator
groups for conservation planning. Conservation Biology Vol 17 (3) 875 – 882.
Loper, S. and K. Lohman. 1998. Distribution and Abundance of Amphibians and Reptiles in Riparian
and Upland Habitats Along the Lower Snake River. Report prepared for the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Walla Walla District, Walla Walla, Washington. February, 1998. 46 pp.
Lowe, Jason. Personal Communication. 19 May 2009 (Bureau of Land Management).
Manley, P. M., Van Horne, B., Roth, J. K., Zielinski, W. J., McKenzie, M. M., Weller, T. J., Weckerly,
F. W., Vojta, C. 2006. Multiple species inventory and monitoring technical guide. Chapter 8,
Terrestrial Amphibian and Reptile Monitoring. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-73. Washington D. C.:
US Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington office. 204pp.
Mitchell, J. C. Sept 2004. Inventory of amphibians and reptiles of Colonial National Historical Park.
National Park Service, Northeast Region Philadelphia, PA. Natural Resources Report
NPS/NER/NRTR-2005/006 http://www.nps.gov/ner/science
Nafis, G. (2009). California Reptiles and Amphibians. Available from www.californiaherps.com. Date
last accessed: 23 Feb 2009.
Nussbaum, R. A., Brodie Jr., E. D. and R. M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Pacific
Northwest. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, Idaho.
Olson, Dede. Personal Communication. 26 February 2009 (USDA Forest Service).
55
Padgett-Flohr, Gretchen. Personal Communication. 23 February 2009 (University of Illinois,
Carbondale).
Pittman S. E and M. E. Dorcas. 2006. Catawba River Corridor Coverboard Program: A citizen science
approach to amphibian and reptile inventory. Journal of the North Carolina Academy of
Sciences, 122 (4): 142 – 151.
Ryan, T. J., Philippi, T., Leiden, Y. A., Dorcas, M. E., Wigley, T. B., and J. W. Gibbons. 2002.
Monitoring herpetofauna in a managed forest landscape: effects of habitat types and census
techniques. Forest Ecology and Management, Vol 167 (1 to 3): 83 – 90.
Salzer, Lori. Personal Communication. 23 July 2008, 23 February; 19 May 2009 (Washington Dept of
Fish and Wildlife).
Skerratt, L. F., Berger, L. Hines, H. B., McDonald, K. R., Mendez, D. and R. Speare. 2008. Survey
protocol for detecting chytridiomycosis in all Australian frog populations. Diseases of Aquatic
Organisms Vol. 80: 85 – 94.
Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Third Edition. Houghton
Mifflin Company, Boston. 533 pp.
Thomson, Robert C. Personal Communication. 7, 30 July; 25 August; 23 September; 19 November; 9,
29 December 2008; 24 February; 19 March 2009 (Shaffer Lab, UC Davis Dept. of Evolution
and Ecology).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1996. Project Operations - Environmental Stewardship Operations and
Maintenance Guidance and Procedures, EP 1130-2-540; Chapter 2-4, Natural Resources
Stewardship: Natural Resources Management Activities. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Walla Walla District, 2002 (February). Final Lower Snake River
Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Report/ Environmental Impact Statement (FR/EIS)
Appendix S, Snake River Maps: Annex B: Pre and Post Dam Comparison Displays.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1991). Lower Snake River Fish and Wildlife Compensation Plan.
Boise Field Office. Boise, Idaho. 59pp.
Wagner, Steve. Personal Communication. 26 February 2009 (Central Washington University).
Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife 2008. Species of Concern in Washington State. Available
from http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm Date last accessed: 15 Dec 2008
Washington Dept of Fish and Wildlife (last accessed 2009). Washington Gap Analysis Project,
Vertebrate distribution models. Available from http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/gap/vdm.htm Date
last accessed: 10 March 2009.
Washington Herp Atlas, 2005. Washington Natural Heritage Program, Washington Dept. of Fish &
Wildlife, U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management and US Forest Service. Available from
http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/herp/ Date last accessed: 20 March 2009
Weaver, R. E. 2008. Distribution, abundance and habitat associations of Night Snake (Hypsiglena
torquata) in Washington state. Northwestern Naturalist 89: 164 – 170.
56
Appendix A. Species list for Walla Walla District HMUs, entire study area (lower Snake River).
Species
code
AMTI
AMMA
SPIN
BUBO
BUWO
PSRE
RALU
RAPI
RACT
CHPI
SCOC
SCGR
UTST
PHDO
EUSK
CHBO
DIPU
COCA
MATA
PICA
THSI
THEL
HYTO
CRVI
Scientific Name
Vernacular Name
Status
Ambystoma tigrinum
Ambystoma macrodactylum columbianus
Spea intermontana
Bufo boreas boreas
Bufo woodhousii woodhousii
Pseudacris regilla
Rana luteiventris
Rana pipiens
Rana catesbeiana
Chrysemys picta
Sceloporus occidentalis
Sceloporus graciosus graciosus
Uta stansburiana
Phrynosoma douglasii
Plestiodon skiltonianus skiltonianus
Charina bottae
Diadophis punctatus
Tiger Salamander
Great Basin Spadefoot
Western Toad *
Woodhouse's Toad a
Pacific Treefrog b
Columbia Spotted Frog *
Northern Leopard Frog
American Bullfrog
Painted Turtle
Western Fence Lizard *
Sagebrush Lizard
Common Side-blotched Lizard
Pigmy Short-horned Lizard
Western Skink c
Rubber Boa
Ring-necked Snake
PO
CO
PR
PO
CO
CO
PO
PO
CO
CO
PO
PO
PO
PO
CO
CO
PO
Coluber constrictor mormon
Masticophis taeniatus
Pituophis catenifer deserticola
Thamnophis sirtalis fitchi
Thamnophis elegans vagrans
Hypsiglena chlorophaea
Crotalus oreganus oreganus
Racer
Striped Whipsnake
Gopher Snake
Common Garter Snake
Western Terrestrial Garter Snake
Night Snake d
Western Rattlesnake e
CO
PO
CO
PR
CO
PO
CO
PO: Possibly occurring; PR: Probably occurring; CO: Confirmed along study area
* Species out of distributional range for HMUs surveyed in 2008 (Walla Walla and Franklin counties)
Literature consulted for species list: Stebbins (2003), Washington Gap Analysis, WDFW Herp Atlas, R.C. Thomson, UC Davis.
Nomenclature follows Stebbins (2003) with the following name adjustments:
Crother, B. I., Boundy J., Campbell, J. A., de Quieroz, K., Frost, D., Green, D. M. and R. Highton. 2003. Scientific and
Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico: Update. Herpetological Review, vol.
34, no. 3. 196-203.
b
Faivovich, J., Systematic review of the frog family Hylidae, with special reference to the Hylinae: phylogenetic analysis and
taxonomic revision. 2005 Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 294: 1-240
c
Smith Hobart M. 2005. Plestiodon: a Replacement Name for Most Members of the Genus Eumeces in North America. Journal
of Kansas Herpetology. Number 14
d
Mulcahy, D. G. 2008. Phylogeography and species boundaries of the western North American Nightsnake (Hypsiglena
torquata): Revisiting the subspecies concept. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 46: 1095 – 1115.
e
Ashton, K.G. & A. de Queiroz. 2001. Molecular Systematics of the western rattlesnake, Crotalus viridis (Viperidae), with
comments on the utility of the D-Loop in phylogenetic studies of snakes. Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution 21:176-189.
a
57
Appendix B. Snakeskin molt identifications.
HMU
55-Mile
Detection name
FFMOLT1
Habitat
Sagebrush
Base of bluffs/
shrub-steppe
shrub-steppe
Bunchgrass
Bunchgrass
Date found
16 Sept 2008
Identification (common name)
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
FFMOLT2
FFMOLT3
FFMOLT4
FFMOLT5
16 Sept 2008
17 Sept 2008
17 Sept 2008
18 Sept 2008
Rubber Boa
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
HOMOLT1
HOMOLT2
15 Sept 2008
15 Sept 2008
un identifiable
15 Sept 2008
12 Sept 2008
SKMOLT01A
Shrub-steppe
Rock outcrop
Rockpile, base of
bluffs
Shrub-steppe
found under
coverboard
Hollebeke
Lost Island
HOMOLT3
LIMOLT1
Skookum
2 July 2008
SKMOLT02
SKMOLT03
shrub-steppe
shrub-steppe
2 July 2008
2 July 2008
2 July 2008
Inconclusive - Thamnophis sp.
Inconclusive - Thamnophis sp.,
Pituophis sp.
un identifiable
Inconclusive - Thamnophis sp.,
Pituophis sp.
un identifiable
un identifiable
un identifiable
Painted Turtle
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
SKMOLT04
shrub-steppe
Skookum
SKMOLT06
shrub-steppe
Skookum
SKMOLT07
shrub-steppe
Skookum
SKMOLT08
Bunchgrass
Skookum
SKMOLT09
Brush pile
Skookum
SKMOLT10
Grassland
Skookum
SKMOLT11
Shrub-steppe
Skookum
SKMOLT12
Shrub-steppe
Skookum
SKMOLT13
Shrub-steppe
Skookum
SKMOLT14,15
Rock outcrop
Skookum
SKMOLT16
Shrub-steppe
Skookum
SKMOLT17
Bunchgrass
Skookum
SKMOLT18
Bunchgrass
Skookum
SKMOLT19
Bunchgrass
Skookum
SKMOLT20
Bunchgrass
Skookum
SKMOLT21
Shrub-steppe
Villard Ponds VPMOLT1
Pond edge
Villard Ponds VPcarapace1
Riparian
See Appendices C through H for UTM coordinates.
3 July 2008
3 July 2008
3 July 2008
18 Sept 2008
18 Sept 2008
18 Sept 2008
19 Sept 2008
19 Sept 2008
19 Sept 2008
19 Sept 2008
19 Sept 2008
19 Sept 2008
19 Sept 2008
19 Sept 2008
19 Sept 2008
23 June 2008
9 Sept 2008
58
Appendix C. Big Flat HMU detection coordinates (WGS84 datum, zone 11N).
Detection name
BFBUWO1
BFBUWO2
BFBUWO3
BFBUWO4
BFBUWO5
BFBUWO6
BFBUWO7
BFBUWO8
BFBUWOtads1
BFBUWOtads2
BFCOCA1
BFCOCA2
BFCOCA3
BFCRVI1
BFCRVI2
BFCRVI3
BFPICA1
BFPICA2
BFRACT1
BFRACT2
BFRACT3
BFRACT4
BFRACT5
BFRACT6
BFRACT7
BFRACTtads1
BFRACTtads2
BFRANA1
BFSNAKE
BFTHEL1
BFTurtle1
BFRTHA
BFTATA1
BFWT1
BFWT2
BFWT3
BFWT4
BFWT5
Description
Woodhouse's Toad detection
Woodhouse's Toad tadpole detection
Woodhouse's Toad tadpole detection
Racer detection
Racer detection
Racer detection
Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection
Gopher Snake detection
Bullfrog detection
Bullfrog detection
Bullfrog detection
Bullfrog detection
Bullfrog detection
Bullfrog detection
Bullfrog detection
Bullfrog tadpole detection
Bullfrog tadpole detection
Rana sp. detection
Unknown snake sp. detection
Wandering Garter Snake detection
Unknown turtle sp. Detection
Red-tailed Hawk nest
Badger detection
Guzzler location
Guzzler location
Guzzler location
Guzzler location
Guzzler location
Northing
5129181.6
5128493.7
5128815.8
5128761.6
5128649.2
5128453.8
5128679.4
5128654.4
5128392.0
5128449.5
5128269.2
5128437.2
5128567.3
5129227.3
5129070.9
5129216.3
5128707.0
5128553.5
5129188.6
5128449.4
5128648.6
5129105.2
5128684.7
5128673.7
5128571.8
5128682.1
5128598.7
5129203.3
5129274.4
5129227.3
5128684.4
5129739.1
5128988.4
5128573.5
5129378.9
5128252.8
5130019.4
5128767.9
Easting
361904.8
360720.2
361415.7
361305.0
360921.8
360863.4
361059.7
360937.4
360842.8
360757.0
361547.4
363169.4
363217.0
361946.6
362228.9
361944.1
363183.9
363088.8
361936.5
360809.4
360947.2
361839.1
361069.0
361553.5
361295.3
361089.0
360891.4
361976.1
362027.1
361947.4
361086.0
363408.9
362187.8
362099.8
362619.6
362715.2
362758.0
362647.4
59
Appendix D. Lost Island HMU detection coordinates (WGS84 datum, zone 11N).
Detection name
LIBUWO1
LIBUWO2
LIBUWO3
LIBUWO4
LIBUWO5
LIBUWO6
LIBUWO7
LICRVI1
LICRVI2
LICRVI3
LICRVI4
LICRVI5
LICRVI6
LICRVI7
LICRVI8
LIMOLT1
LIPOND1
LIWT1
LIWT2
Description
Snakeskin molt detection
Pond outside main HMU
Guzzler location
Guzzler location
Northing
5136277.2
5136460.9
5136183.6
5136214.9
5136236.8
5136229.0
5136485.2
5136417.0
5136018.8
5136162.5
5136176.0
5136220.6
5136224.9
5136200.5
5136046.4
5136258.6
5136403.7
5136331.4
5136363.5
Easting
367513.9
366585.3
368240.6
368235.9
368299.5
368097.7
366541.2
368554.3
368769.6
368910.5
368904.6
369053.3
369004.9
369002.9
368828.7
367859.0
366559.4
367937.6
368608.5
Appendix E. Hollebeke HMU detection coordinates (WGS84 datum, zone 11N).
Detection name
HOBUWO1
HOCRVI1
HOCRVI2
HOCRVI3
HOMOLT1
HOMOLT2
HOMOLT3
HOPICA1
HOPICA2
HOSPINOUT
HOWT1
HOWT2
HOWT3
HOLLWT
HOPICAOUT
HOSnake1
Description
Great Basin Spadefoot tadpole detection
(out of HMU)
Guzzler location
Guzzler location
Guzzler location
Great Basin Spadefoot tadpole detection
(out of HMU)
Gopher Snaked detection, out of HMU
Northing
5137003.2
5137944.7
5137941.2
5137574.0
5136341.2
5137855.0
5137940.3
5136486.4
5137328.1
Easting
370297.4
371134.4
371141.3
370740.4
370220.2
371064.1
371134.3
370292.5
370541.3
5134962.7
5137392.2
5136651.0
5137542.7
370013.8
370194.9
370337.6
370642.8
5135320.2
5135232.4
5137707.9
371395.9
370975.4
370560.1
60
Appendix F. Skookum HMU detection coordinates (WGS84 datum, zone 11N).
Detection name
SKbeaverskull1
SKCOCA1
SKCOCA2
SKCRVI1
SKCRVI2
SKCRVI3
SKCRVI4
SKCRVI5
SKCRVI6
SKCRVI7
SKCRVI8
SKPSRE1
SKMOLT01
SKMOLT10
SKMOLT11
SKMOLT12
SKMOLT13
SKMOLT14,15
SKMOLT16
SKMOLT17
SKMOLT18
SKMOLT19
SKMOLT02
SKMOLT20
SKMOLT21
SKMOLT03
SKMOLT04
SKMOLT06
SKMOLT07
SKMOLT08
SKMOLT09
SKPICA1
SKPICA2
SKPICA3
SKPICA4
SKsnake1
SKWT1
SKWT2
SKWT3
SKWT4
SKWT5
SKWT6
Description
Beaver skull detection
Racer detection
Racer detection
Pacific Treefrog detection
Gopher Snake detection (2 snakes)
Guzzler location
Guzzler location
Guzzler location
Guzzler location
Guzzler location
Guzzler location
Northing
5160854.0
5160496.5
5161115.6
5161241.9
5161211.8
5161091.0
5160542.1
5160498.8
5161032.6
5160945.6
5160935.7
5160970.5
5160443.4
5161165.5
5161114.7
5161123.5
5161103.0
5161085.9
5161109.8
5160750.5
5160647.8
5160593.1
5160430.8
5160588.3
5160567.4
5161165.4
5161143.0
5161135.7
5161156.7
5160744.8
5160595.3
5161069.6
5161065.2
5161082.4
5160981.2
5160539.9
5161004.6
5160847.0
5160579.5
5160306.4
5160392.1
5160216.2
Easting
390110.4
390758.4
390270.0
390169.6
390175.2
390278.0
390819.7
390756.1
390065.4
390390.2
390446.0
390302.6
390680.8
390031.1
390320.5
390204.2
390104.2
390251.0
390038.5
390175.2
390263.0
390396.9
391194.0
390416.0
390467.7
390096.9
390047.5
390019.8
390029.4
390183.5
390891.2
390170.3
390170.2
390078.6
390205.5
390818.9
390320.8
390615.3
390838.8
392557.3
391491.4
393253.8
61
Appendix G. 55-Mile HMU detection coordinates (WGS84 datum, Zone 11N).
Detection name
FFCOCA1
FFCOCA2
FFCOCA3
FFCOCA4
FFCOCA5
FFCRVI1
FFCRVI2
FFCRVI3
FFCRVI4
FFCRVI5
FFCRVI6
FFCRVI7
FFCRVI8
FFEUSK1
FFMOLT1
FFMOLT2
FFMOLT3
FFMOLT4
FFMOLT5
FFPICA1
FFPICA2
FFPICA3
FFPICA4
FFPICA5
FFPSRE1
FFWT1
FFWT2
FFWT3
Description
Racer detection
Racer detection
Racer detection
Racer detection
Racer detection
Western Skink detection
Guzzler location
Guzzler location
Guzzler location
Northing
5161100.8
5161089.1
5161991.8
5161855.2
5161095.4
5161110.5
5161112.7
5162456.9
5161096.7
5161143.3
5162088.8
5161530.7
5162048.4
5162161.8
5161855.3
5162166.9
5161986.8
5161098.2
5161525.9
5161977.4
5161099.6
5161855.9
5161411.1
5161910.1
5161791.4
5161647.1
5161859.0
5161416.4
Easting
402120.4
402087.2
401664.5
401184.2
402108.8
402205.6
402211.0
400615.7
402167.8
402169.3
400897.7
401789.5
401059.4
400986.2
400971.2
400950.3
400814.8
402143.3
401269.2
401183.1
402127.2
401073.9
401903.2
400746.2
400940.3
401608.3
401355.1
402125.5
62
Appendix H. Villard Ponds HMU detection coordinates (WGS84 datum,
zone 11N).
Detection name
VPBUWO1
VPCHPIcarapace
VPDIP
VPFROG1
VPFROG2
VPPSRE1
VPPSRE2
VPPSRE3
VPPSRE4
VPMOLT1
VPPICA1
VPRACT1
VPRACT2
VPRACT3
VPRACT4
VPRACT5
VPRACT6
VPRACT7
VPRACT8
VPSOREX1
VPTURTLE1
VP PNDCCS1
VP1 ACCESS
Description
Turtle carapace detection
Dipnet survey location
Unknown sp. frog detection
Unknown sp. frog detection
Bullfrog detection
Bullfrog detection
Bullfrog detection
Bullfrog detection
Bullfrog detection
Bullfrog detection
Bullfrog detection
Bullfrog detection
Dead Sorex sp. detection
Unknown turtle sp. detection
Anuran call survey location
Anuran call survey location
Northing
5116566.2
5117071.2
5116986.4
5117438.5
5117416.3
5116881.2
5116939.8
5117427.6
5117994.0
5117508.8
5117709.8
5117441.3
5117676.2
5116275.0
5117992.8
5116308.5
5116637.4
5116500.4
5116425.7
5116894.1
5116949.1
5116794.9
5117019.8
Easting
345053.2
344822.0
344704.0
344454.5
344542.8
344860.4
344787.8
344577.0
344122.8
344535.1
344366.5
344477.0
344289.9
344829.6
344125.8
345131.7
345093.7
345280.9
345333.1
344658.5
344815.8
345106.9
344921.9
63
Appendix I. Big Flat HMU coverboard descriptions and coordinates (WGS84 datum, zone 11N).
Dominant species
HMU
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Transect
name
BF1
BF1
BF1
BF1
BF1
BF1
BF2
BF2
BF2
BF2
BF2
BF2
BF3
BF3
BF3
BF3
BF3
BF3
BF4
BF4
BF4
BF4
BF4
BF4
BF5
BF5
BF5
BF5
BF5
BF5
Node
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
Northing
5128298.9
5128311.2
5128299.0
5128284.6
5128309.2
5128269.9
5128346.4
5128327.6
5128305.5
5128285.4
5128263.4
5128272.4
5128056.7
5128056.7
5128045.9
5128024.1
5128013.1
5128004.6
5129426.6
5129430.5
5129433.3
5129452.6
5129480.4
5129510.8
5129223.4
5129266.6
5129273.3
5129255.4
5129220.5
5129176.5
Easting
361316.1
361362.6
361411.6
361456.8
361499.7
361568.2
362015.3
362062.7
362106.1
362157.3
362198.4
362243.3
362196.0
362291.6
362327.6
362408.0
362451.7
362483.1
363215.4
363193.2
363166.3
363146.7
363097.2
363080.2
363108.4
363064.7
363014.8
362969.7
362938.1
362919.4
Habitat
characterization
Shrub-steppe
Shrub-steppe
Shrub-steppe
Shrub-steppe
Shrub-steppe
Shrub-steppe
Irrigated tree patch
Shoreline river
Shoreline river
Shoreline river
Shoreline river
Shoreline river
Shoreline river
Shoreline inlet
Shoreline inlet
Shoreline inlet
Shoreline inlet
Shoreline inlet
Shoreline inlet
Shrub-steppe
Shrub-steppe
Shrub-steppe
Shrub-steppe
Shrub-steppe
Shrub-steppe
(I)
Rubber rabbitbrush
Rubber rabbitbrush
Rubber rabbitbrush
Rubber rabbitbrush
Rubber rabbitbrush
Rubber rabbitbrush
Locust sp.
Locust sp.
Locust sp.
Locust sp.
Locust sp.
Locust sp.
Maple sp.
Alder sp.
Alder sp.
Elderberry sp.
Alder sp.
False indigo
Japanese honeysuckle
Him. blackberry
Russian olive
Russian olive
Russian olive
Russian olive
Rubber rabbitbrush
Big sagebrush
Yellow rabbitbrush
Rubber rabbitbrush
Rubber rabbitbrush
Rubber rabbitbrush
64
(II)
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
wild rose
wild rose
Hawthorne sp.
wild rose
wild rose
Him. blackberry
Russian olive
Prickly lettuce
cheatgrass
Alder sp.
Rubber rabbitbrush
Rubber rabbitbrush
unknown grass sp.
Russian olive
Him. blackberry
Hawthorne sp.
Unknown bunchgrass sp.
Rubber rabbitbrush
Rubber rabbitbrush
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
(III)
unknown forb
Mustard
mustard
Russian thistle
yarrow
annual grasses
annual grasses
annual grasses
annual grasses
annual grasses
annual grasses
unknown grass sp.
Unknown annual grass sp.
false indigo
Rubber rabbitbrush
cheatgrass
prickly lettuce
Russian olive
unknown grass sp.
unknown grass sp.
unknown grass sp.
Mint sp.
Yarrow
unknown grass sp.
cheatgrass
unknown forb sp.
Yarrow
Yarrow
Dominant species
Appendix I, continued
HMU
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Transect
name
BF6
BF6
BF6
BF6
BF6
BF6
BF7
BF7
BF7
BF7
BF7
BF7
BF8
BF8
BF8
BF8
BF8
BF8
BF9
BF9
BF9
BF9
BF9
BF9
BF10
BF10
BF10
BF10
BF10
BF10
BF11
Node
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
Northing
5129103.8
5129099.9
5129109.2
5129160.0
5129202.7
5129249.9
5128581.2
5128552.0
5128523.6
5128485.9
5128437.1
5128389.3
5128599.3
5128633.7
5128661.5
5128666.3
5128670.7
5128702.6
5129347.0
5129346.4
5129322.0
5129303.8
5129277.7
5129241.8
5129004.7
5128994.4
5129024.8
5129082.7
5129097.3
5129022.8
5129204.3
Easting
363088.0
363110.3
363144.4
363157.1
363185.8
363213.8
363241.2
363205.1
363183.6
363178.9
363173.2
363173.7
360916.8
360869.8
360919.8
360952.3
361003.2
361116.4
362160.4
362139.6
362086.7
362053.9
362027.9
361996.3
362206.6
362219.5
362251.0
362244.6
362241.1
362240.2
362225.8
Habitat
characterization
Shoreline inlet
Shoreline inlet
Shoreline inlet
Shoreline inlet
Shoreline inlet
Shoreline inlet
Shoreline river
Shoreline river
Shoreline river
Shoreline river
Shoreline river
Shoreline river
Pond edge
Pond edge
Pond edge
Pond edge
Pond edge
Pond edge
Wetland edge
Wetland edge
Wetland edge
Wetland edge
Wetland edge
Wetland edge
Rock pile
Bluffs
Bluffs
Bluffs
Bluffs
Bluffs
Russian olive edge
(I)
unknown tree sp
Sandbar willow
Sandbar willow
Sandbar willow
Unknown grass sp.
Russian olive
Russian thistle
Tree of heaven
Maple sp.
Cheatgrass
Him. blackberry
Common reed grass
Sandbar willow
Sandbar willow
Sandbar willow
Sandbar willow
Sandbar willow
Sandbar willow
Russian olive
Russian olive
Russian olive
Sandbar willow
Russian olive
Sandbar willow
Russian thistle
cheatgrass
Rubber rabbitbrush
Rubber rabbitbrush
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
Russian olive
65
(II)
Russian Olive
Him. blackberry
Him. blackberry
Russian thistle
Sandbar willow
Sandbar willow
sunflower sp.
Him. blackberry
unknown sedge sp.
Rubber rabbitbrush
Russian olive
Rubber rabbitbrush
Rubber rabbitbrush
Russian thistle
Unknown forb sp.
Unknown forb sp.
Russian thistle
sunflower sp.
unknown annual grass sp.
unknown forb sp.
unknown sedge sp.
unknown sedge sp.
unknown bunchgrass sp.
cheatgrass
Rubber rabbitbrush
cheatgrass
Rubber rabbitbrush
sunflower sp.
mint sp.
(III)
Him. blackberry
mustard
unknown bunchgrass
unknown thistle sp.
Thistle sp.
unknown grass sp.
common reed grass
unknown grasses
Russian thistle
Locust sp.
cheatgrass
mustard
Unknown forb sp.
Russian thistle
Unknown forb sp.
Him. blackberry
wild rose
Him. blackberry
unknown forb sp.
cattail
sunflower sp.
rock/lichen
rock/lichen
cheatgrass
lichen
Rubber rabbitbrush
Him. blackberry
Dominant species
Appendix I, continued
HMU
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Transect
name
BF11
BF11
BF11
BF11
Node
B
C
D
E
Northing
5129198.7
5129237.2
5129255.7
5129258.9
Easting
362178.7
362148.7
362117.5
362072.9
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
Big Flat
BF11
BF12
BF12
BF12
BF12
BF12
BF12
BF13
BF13
BF13
BF13
BF13
BF13
BF14
BF14
BF14
BF14
BF14
BF14
BF15
BF15
BF15
BF15
BF15
BF15
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
5129212.8
5129536.0
5129515.1
5129538.6
5129536.5
5129545.0
5129561.6
5129692.7
5129711.7
5129724.8
5129742.8
5129764.7
5129805.5
5128343.7
5128328.1
5128290.6
5128264.0
5128242.9
5128290.3
5128177.0
5128108.5
5128200.8
5128316.4
5128294.5
5128271.8
362048.0
363297.2
363237.5
363179.4
363124.7
363092.5
363048.2
363397.1
363342.8
363301.5
363245.6
363210.7
363173.9
362628.6
362580.5
362518.0
362565.2
362611.7
362632.8
360665.2
360551.2
360647.3
360599.8
360581.6
360555.7
Habitat
characterization
Russian olive edge
Russian olive edge
Russian olive edge
Russian olive edge
Blackberry/ grass
edge
Shoreline inlet
Shoreline inlet
Shoreline inlet
Shoreline inlet
Shoreline inlet
Shoreline inlet
Restoration
Restoration
Restoration
Restoration
Restoration
Restoration
Sagebrush
Sagebrush
Sagebrush
Sagebrush
Sagebrush
Sagebrush
Shrub-steppe
Shrub-steppe
Non-irrigated trees
Non-irrigated trees
Non-irrigated trees
Non-irrigated trees
(I)
Russian olive
Russian olive
Russian olive
Russian olive
(II)
Him. blackberry
cheatgrass
(III)
Hawthorne sp.
unknown grass sp.
unknown vine sp.
Him. blackberry
Russian olive
unknown herb sp.
Russian olive
common reed grass
Russian olive
Russian olive
Aspen
Aspen
Aspen
Aspen
Aspen
Aspen
Big sagebrush
Big sagebrush
Big sagebrush
Rubber rabbitbrush
Rubber rabbitbrush
Big sagebrush
Locust sp.
Yellow rabbitbrush
Russian olive
Black cottonwood
Black cottonwood
Black cottonwood
Sandbar willow
Russian olive
unknown herb sp.
Russian thistle
unknown grass sp.
wild rose
Currant sp.
Pine sp.
Him. blackberry
pine sp.
Russian olive
Rubber rabbitbrush
Rubber rabbitbrush
Rubber rabbitbrush
Yellow rabbitbrush
Arrow-leaf balsamroot
native annual grass sp.
Prickly lettuce
Rubber rabbitbrush
Russian thistle
Russian olive
Russian olive
Russian olive
prickly lettuce
unknown herb sp.
Currant sp.
cheatgrass
Sandbar willow
unknown vine sp.
mustard sp.
Him. blackberry
Him. blackberry
Him. blackberry
cheatgrass
unknown grass sp.
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
Arrow-leaf balsamroot
cheatgrass
Black cottonwood
Juniper sp.
Juniper sp.
66
Appendix J. Lost Island HMU coverboard descriptions and coordinates (WGS84 datum, zone 11N).
Dominant species
HMU
Lost Island
Lost Island
Lost Island
Lost Island
Lost Island
Lost Island
Lost Island
Lost Island
Lost Island
Lost Island
Lost Island
Lost Island
Lost Island
Lost Island
Lost Island
Lost Island
Lost Island
Lost Island
Lost Island
Transect
name
LI1
LI1
LI1
LI1
LI1
LI1
LI2
LI2
LI2
LI2
LI2
LI2
LI3
LI3
LI3
LI3
LI3
LI3
LI4
Node
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
Northing
5136269.0
5136261.3
5136202.7
5136225.9
5136243.8
5136269.7
5136116.8
5136138.3
5136173.0
5136211.0
5136229.0
5136264.0
5136009.5
5136052.5
5136086.7
5136117.5
5136140.9
5136171.4
5136498.4
Easting
367635.3
367684.4
367720.1
367777.5
367821.8
367858.5
367938.3
367974.9
368011.9
368053.5
368096.2
368124.6
368220.7
368237.0
368248.6
368263.8
368264.3
368239.6
369109.3
Lost Island
LI4
B
5136457.9
369076.9
Lost Island
LI4
C
5136452.3
369029.0
Lost Island
LI4
D
5136411.9
368996.6
Lost Island
LI4
E
5136393.0
368944.7
Lost Island
LI4
F
5136362.8
368898.6
Lost Island
LI4
G
5136338.6
368838.1
Habitat
characterization
Shrub-steppe
Shrub-steppe
Sagebrush
Shrub-steppe
Shrub-steppe
Shrub-steppe
Restoration
Restoration
Restoration
Restoration
Restoration
Restoration
Shoreline inlet
Shoreline inlet
Shoreline inlet
Shoreline inlet
Shoreline inlet
Shoreline inlet
Rock pile
degraded shrubsteppe
(I)
Rubber rabbitbrush
Rubber rabbitbrush
Big sagebrush
Rubber rabbitbrush
Rubber rabbitbrush
cheatgrass
wild rose
wild rose
Locust sp.
Black cottonwood
Juniper sp.
Unknown tree sp.
Alder
Maple sp.
Tree of heaven
Maple sp.
Maple sp.
wild rose
cheatgrass
(II)
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
Rubber rabbitbrush
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
Rubber rabbitbrush
black cottonwood
native blackberry sp.
wild rose
wild rose
Juniper sp.
unknown reed sp.
Sandbar willow
Him. blackberry
Locust sp.
unknown sedge sp.
Horsetail
fiddleneck
(III)
Yarrow
Unknown forb sp.
cheatgrass
Unknown forb sp.
Unknown forb sp.
Yarrow
wild rose
unknown vine sp.
unknown sedge sp.
unknown tree sp.
Him. blackberry
wild rose
false indigo
Rubber rabbitbrush
cheatgrass
unknown shrub sp.
Yarrow
cheatgrass
Rubber rabbitbrush
unknown shrub sp.
Russian thistle
cheatgrass
prickly lettuce
cheatgrass
Rubber rabbitbrush
Rubber rabbitbrush
cheatgrass
fiddleneck
Rubber rabbitbrush
cheatgrass
vetch
67
Dominant species
Appendix J., continued
Transect
name
Node
Northing
Easting
Lost Island
LI4
H
5136321.5
368804.6
Lost Island
Lost Island
Lost Island
Lost Island
Lost Island
Lost Island
LI4
LI5
LI5
LI5
LI6
LI6
I
A
B
C
A
B
5136322.3
5136227.9
5136250.6
5136285.8
5136110.3
5136093.6
368766.2
369023.5
369054.0
369119.3
368957.8
368910.5
Habitat
characterization
Quarry
Quarry
Quarry
Shoreline river
Shoreline river
Lost Island
Lost Island
Lost Island
LI6
LI6
LI6
C
D
E
5136063.4
5136035.3
5136013.9
368866.8
368830.0
368791.1
Shoreline river
Shoreline river
Shoreline river
Lost Island
Lost Island
Lost Island
Lost Island
Lost Island
Lost Island
Lost Island
LI6
LI7
LI7
LI7
LI7
LI7
LI7
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
5136001.3
5136345.1
5136347.6
5136348.0
5136333.4
5136337.8
5136343.5
368753.8
368331.9
368370.4
368400.4
368458.6
368511.8
368560.4
Shoreline river
Russian olive edge
Russian olive edge
Russian olive edge
Russian olive edge
Russian olive edge
HMU
(I)
(II)
(III)
Yarrow
Rubber rabbitbrush
cheatgrass
Rubber rabbitbrush
cheatgrass
Rubber rabbitbrush
Rubber rabbitbrush
Alder
unknown tree sp.
Intermediate
wheatgrass
Sandbar willow
False indigo
Common reed
grass
Russian olive
Russian olive
Unknown tree sp.
Plum sp.
Russian olive
Russian olive
Yellow rabbitbrush
unknown shrub sp.
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
unknown maple sp.
cheatgrass
Russian thistle
unknown shrub sp.
sunflower sp.
unknown forb sp.
unknown forb sp.
unknown tree sp.
Intermediate wheatgrass
Him. blackberry
wild rose
Alder
wild rose
Russian olive
wild rose
false indigo
unknown vine sp.
mint sp.
downed woody debris
68
Appendix K. Hollebeke HMU coverboard descriptions and coordinates (WGS84 datum, zone 11N).
Dominant species
HMU
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
Transect
name
HO1
HO1
HO1
HO1
HO1
HO1
HO2
HO2
HO2
HO2
Node
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
B
C
D
Northing
5137398.5
5137370.0
5137338.6
5137285.4
5137249.0
5137249.3
5137600.3
5137560.6
5137503.5
5137432.0
Easting
370318.9
370296.0
370258.4
370251.1
370238.0
370277.2
370236.2
370220.0
370188.0
370206.5
Habitat
characterization
Sagebrush
Sagebrush
Sagebrush
Sagebrush
Sagebrush
Sagebrush
degraded shrub-steppe
Irrigated tree plot
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
HO2
HO2
HO3
HO3
HO3
HO3
HO3
E
F
A
B
C
D
E
5137390.0
5137351.5
5137177.2
5137212.3
5137201.2
5137152.1
5137120.4
370192.5
370228.6
370165.7
370188.7
370134.6
370088.2
370063.7
Irrigated tree plot
Irrigated tree plot
Russian olive edge
Russian olive edge
Russian olive edge
Russian olive edge
Russian olive edge
Hollebeke
HO3
F
5137086.4
370044.5
Hollebeke
HO4
A
5136872.0
370089.9
Hollebeke
HO4
B
5136897.7
370136.6
Hollebeke
HO4
C
5136939.7
370199.8
Hollebeke
HO4
D
5136903.4
370231.4
Hollebeke
HO4
E
5136886.0
370267.2
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
HO4
HO5
F
A
5136873.2
5136385.3
370294.6
370288.8
Russian olive edge
Russian
olive/shoreline inlet
Russian
Russian
Riparian/ shoreline
inlet
Riparian/ shoreline
inlet
Riparian/ shoreline
inlet
Shrub-steppe
(I)
Big sagebrush
Big sagebrush
cheatgrass
Big sagebrush
Big sagebrush
Big sagebrush
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
(II)
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
Big sagebrush
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
unknown shrub sp.
fiddleneck
Big sagebrush
unknown forb sp.
(III)
unknown forb sp.
fiddleneck
Rubber rabbitbrush
downded woody debris
Rubber rabbitbrush
Yellow rabbitbrush
Russian olive
unknown forb sp.
cheatgrass
wild rose
Russian olive
Hawthorne sp.
Plum sp.
Intermediate
wheatgrass
unknown forb sp.
unknown forb sp.
cheatgrass
Russian olive
Plum sp.
Juniper sp.
Big sagebrush
mullein
Him. blackberry
unknown forb sp.
Russian Olive
cheatgrass
Russian olive
Russian olive
Him. blackberry
Russian olive
Him. blackberry
Alder sp.
Him. blackberry
unknown forb sp.
unknown annual
grass sp.
Rubber rabbitbrush
Russian olive
poison hemlock
Russian olive
cheatgrass
poison hemlock
mustard sp.
69
Dominant species
Appendix K. continued
HMU
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
Transect
name
HO5
HO5
HO5
HO5
HO5
Node
B
C
D
E
F
Northing
5136357.9
5136310.5
5136274.6
5136236.2
5136209.1
Easting
370269.8
370251.1
370216.4
370188.7
370156.6
Hollebeke
HO6
A
5137905.9
371182.9
Hollebeke
HO6
B
5137886.3
371164.7
Hollebeke
HO6
C
5137872.7
371121.4
Hollebeke
HO6
D
5137852.7
371068.6
Hollebeke
HO6
E
5137882.5
371080.8
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
HO6
HO7
HO7
HO7
HO7
HO7
F
A
B
C
D
E
5137852.9
5137231.8
5137234.2
5137317.0
5137330.2
5137330.1
371007.1
370418.4
370464.6
370490.3
370548.2
370605.9
Habitat
characterization
Shrub-steppe
Shrub-steppe
Shrub-steppe
Shrub-steppe
Shrub-steppe
Grassland/ rock
outcrop
Grassland/ rock
outcrop
Grassland/ rock
outcrop
Grassland/ rock
outcrop
Grassland/ rock
outcrop
Grassland/ rock
outcrop
Sagebrush
Russian olive edge
Russian olive edge
Irrigated tree plot
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
Hollebeke
HO7
HO8
HO8
HO8
HO8
HO8
HO8
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
5137405.3
5137754.6
5137725.5
5137661.7
5137777.7
5137754.0
5137740.8
370622.2
370609.6
370567.4
370536.1
370467.0
370429.5
370374.6
Irrigated tree plot
Shrub-steppe
Shrub-steppe
Shrub-steppe
Sagebrush
Shrub-steppe
Shrub-steppe
(I)
cheatgrass
Rubber rabbitbrush
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
Rubber rabbitbrush
(II)
Rubber rabbitbrush
cheatgrass
Rubber rabbitbrush
Rubber rabbitbrush
cheatgrass
(III)
sunflower sp.
unknown forb sp.
prickly lettuce
Yellow rabbitbrush
cheatgrass
native bunchgrass sp.
Rubber rabbitbrush
cheatgrass
Yarrow
cheatgrass
lichen
cheatgrass
lichen
vetch
cheatgrass
vetch
unknown grass sp.
Big sagebrush
Russian olive
Russian olive
Prairie goldenrod
unknown annual
grass sp.
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
Russian thistle
Big sagebrush
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
vetch
Rubber rabbitbrush
unknown grass sp.
Him. blackberry
mullein
Locust sp.
mint sp.
Russian thistle
unknown grass sp.
Locust sp.
Big sagebrush
Yellow rabbitbrush
cheatgrass
Yellow rabbitbrush
Serviceberry
sunflower sp.
cheatgrass
Yarrow
Rubber rabbitbrush
Russian thistle
70
prickly lettuce
unknown grass sp.
Appendix L. Skookum HMU coverboard descriptions and coordinates (WGS84 datum, zone 11N).
Dominant species
HMU
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
Transect
name
SK1
SK1
SK1
Node
A
B
C
Northing
5161126.2
5161099.9
5161083.5
Easting
389993.6
390035.2
390080.9
Skookum
SK1
D
5161072.7
390120.5
Skookum
SK1
E
5161072.9
390171.9
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
SK1
SK2
SK2
SK2
SK2
SK2
SK2
SK3
SK3
SK3
SK3
SK3
SK3
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
5161052.1
5161156.7
5161154.7
5161143.1
5161114.9
5161117.7
5161091.6
5161244.1
5161210.7
5161180.4
5161156.1
5161143.3
5161114.7
390217.5
390086.8
390137.4
390162.4
390186.4
390217.9
390247.3
390171.2
390176.7
390192.2
390242.4
390275.1
390320.5
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
SK4
SK4
SK4
SK4
A
B
C
D
5161013.7
5161030.2
5160987.5
5160984.2
390003.8
389954.3
389978.0
390039.2
Skookum
Skookum
SK4
SK4
E
F
5160942.8
5160962.1
Skookum
SK5
A
5160875.1
Habitat characterization
Shrub-steppe
Bunchgrass
Bunchgrass/ blackberry
edge
edge
edge
Rock outcrop/ shrub-steppe
Rock outcrop
Bluffs
Bluffs
(I)
Rubber rabbitbrush
unknown grass sp.
Him. blackberry
unknown grass sp.
unknown grass sp.
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
bluebunch wheatgrass
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
Rubber rabbitbrush
cheatgrass
(II)
Him. blackberry
mint sp.
Intermediate
wheatgrass
Intermediate
wheatgrass
Intermediate
wheatgrass
cheatgrass
rock
Rubber rabbitbrush
cheatgrass
yarrow
cheatgrass
Rubber rabbitbrush
cheatgrass
unknown grass sp.
Him. blackberry
Him. blackberry
cheatgrass
Rubber rabbitbrush
unknown grass sp.
Rubber rabbitbrush
cheatgrass
Perennial pepperweed
Russian olive
390056.1
390094.8
Shrub-steppe
Bunchgrass
Shrub-steppe with forbs
Russian olive blackberry
edge
Him. blackberry
unknown grass sp.
390109.3
Russian olive/ grass edge
Russian olive
Russian olive
Black cottonwood
Intermediate
wheatgrass
71
(III)
cheatgrass
unknown tree sp.
teasel sp.
unknown tree sp.
unknown grass sp.
Russian olive
rock
rock
rock
rock
sunflower sp.
rock
rock/lichen
Rubber rabbitbrush
fiddleneck
sunflower sp.
mustard sp.
Rubber rabbitbrush
unknown
bunchgrass sp.
unknown shrub sp.
cheatgrass
Him. blackberry
unknown grass sp.
unknown sedge sp.
unknown grass sp.
Dominant species
Appendix L, continued
HMU
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
Transect
name
SK5
SK5
SK5
SK5
SK5
SK6
Node
B
C
D
E
F
A
Northing
5160921.7
5160921.0
5160916.9
5160971.2
5160971.3
5160447.8
Easting
390110.9
390154.6
390192.8
390262.0
390319.5
390684.7
Skookum
Skookum
SK6
SK6
B
C
5160476.2
5160494.3
390714.3
390758.3
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
Skookum
SK6
SK6
SK6
SK7
SK7
SK7
SK7
SK7
SK7
SK8
SK8
SK8
SK8
SK8
D
E
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
B
C
D
E
5160513.7
5160538.8
5160548.3
5160446.5
5160465.9
5160482.8
5160521.0
5160530.3
5160556.1
5160642.0
5160681.1
5160713.7
5160726.3
5160758.8
390788.6
390816.6
390847.4
390756.7
390793.1
390842.4
390878.3
390920.7
390967.1
390334.9
390324.1
390365.4
390407.0
390452.0
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Shrub-steppe
Russian olive grassland/
draw
Rock pile/ draw
Russian olive grassland/
draw
Rock pile/ draw
Shrub-steppe/ grassland
Shrub-steppe/ tree plot
Russian olive grassland
Skookum
SK8
F
5160794.8
390489.4
(I)
Russian olive
Juniper sp.
Black cottonwood
Him. blackberry
Juniper sp.
medusahead
(II)
unknown grass sp.
Him. blackberry
unknown grass sp.
Black cottonwood
Him. blackberry
Buckwheat
(III)
Black cottonwood
unknown grass sp.
Him. blackberry
unknown grass sp.
unknown grass sp.
cheatgrass
Russian olive
buckwheat
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
unknown forb sp.
unknown forb sp.
Russian olive
cheatgrass
Russian olive
unknown grass sp.
Bluebunch wheatgrass
unknown grass sp.
unknown grass sp.
Buckwheat
Buckwheat
Alder sp.
Russian olive
Russian olive
Russian olive
cheatgrass
unknown grass sp.
wild rose
unknown grass sp.
unknown grass sp.
Rubber rabbitbrush
cheatgrass
Him. blackberry
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
Russian olive
Russian olive
unknown forb sp.
Russian olive
Him. blackberry
Rubber rabbitbrush
Buckwheat
Buckwheat
medusahead
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
Rubber rabbitbrush
unknown grass sp.
Him. blackberry
unknown grass sp.
medusahead
Perennial
pepperweed
72
Appendix M. 55-Mile HMU coverboard descriptions and coordinates (WGS84 datum, zone 11N).
Dominant species
HMU
Transect
name
Node
Northing
Easting
55-Mile
FF1
A
5162505.4
400304.8
55-Mile
FF1
B
5162526.7
400360.3
55-Mile
FF1
C
5162503.9
400395.1
55-Mile
55-Mile
FF1
FF1
D
E
5162459.8
5162427.5
400374.5
400378.6
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
FF1
FF2
FF2
FF2
FF2
FF2
FF2
FF3
FF3
FF3
FF3
FF3
FF3
FF4
FF4
FF4
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
B
C
5162453.9
5162447.0
5162335.1
5162291.5
5162214.5
5162182.5
5162130.6
5162228.7
5162178.7
5162195.8
5162136.4
5162072.9
5162030.2
5161467.6
5161504.7
5161544.4
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
FF4
FF4
FF4
FF5
D
E
F
A
5161555.9
5161577.6
5161556.9
5161567.4
(I)
cheatgrass
(II)
unknown bunchgrass
sp.
cheatgrass
rock
Rubber rabbitbrush
Bluebunch
wheatgrass
rock
Rubber rabbitbrush
cheatgrass
unknown grass sp.
rock
cheatgrass
Rubber rabbitbrush
unknown grass sp.
Russian olive
Horsetail
Rubber rabbitbrush
Rubber rabbitbrush
Rubber rabbitbrush
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
wild rose
Him. blackberry
wild rose
rock
buckwheat
yarrow
cheatgrass
unknown forb sp.
Horsetail
Rubber rabbitbrush
unknown forb sp.
unknown forb sp.
Primrose sp.
Rubber rabbitbrush
Yellow rabbitbrush
Yellow rabbitbrush
unknown grass sp.
unknown grass sp.
Russian olive
unknown bunchgrass
sp.
thistle sp.
Sumac sp.
unknown forb sp.
rock
prickly lettuce
Bluebunch
wheatgrass
cheatgrass
Rubber rabbitbrush
Yarrow
Rubber rabbitbrush
Rubber rabbitbrush
cheatgrass
Rush skeletonweed
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
prickly lettuce
Rubber rabbitbrush
Rubber rabbitbrush
Russian olive
Sumac sp.
unknown grass sp.
400327.7
400609.4
400590.8
400538.7
400487.7
400542.3
400589.7
400638.0
400639.5
400679.6
400705.5
400715.1
400745.1
401298.9
401341.7
401359.9
Shrub-steppe
Rock outcrop/ shrubsteppe
Bluff/ shrub-steppe
Rock outcrop/ draw
Shrub-steppe/ draw
Shrub-steppe/ draw
Shrub-steppe/ draw
Russian olive
Shrub-steppe/ sand dune
Blackberry/ grass edge
401407.6
401434.8
401479.6
401040.8
Riparian/ grass edge
Him. blackberry
wild rose
Him. blackberry
unknown grass sp.
73
(III)
unknown grass sp.
unknown grass sp.
unknown grass sp.
Sandbar willow
Dominant species
Appendix M, continued
HMU
Transect
name
Node
Northing
Easting
55-Mile
55-Mile
FF5
FF5
B
C
5161605.6
5161637.7
401086.7
401160.7
55-Mile
FF5
D
5161729.1
401144.6
55-Mile
FF5
E
5161748.6
401178.6
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
FF5
FF6
FF6
FF6
FF6
FF6
FF6
FF7
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
5161772.0
5161114.9
5161099.9
5161099.6
5161082.6
5161076.7
5161082.0
5161164.6
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
FF7
FF7
FF7
B
C
D
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
FF7
FF7
FF8
FF8
FF8
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
401239.5
402211.8
402177.0
402122.6
402078.7
402028.0
401976.0
401821.1
Russian olive/ blackberry
edge
Russian olive/ agriculture
edge
edge
edge
Bunchgrass
Bunchgrass
Bunchgrass
Shoreline river
Bunchgrass
Shoreline river
5161208.7
5161261.9
5161296.2
401842.5
401851.8
401857.7
Russian olive
Russian olive
E
F
A
B
C
5161346.0
5161386.8
5161855.8
5161903.4
5161971.2
401875.4
401891.3
401758.8
401699.0
401700.1
Grassland slope
Grassland slope
Grassland slope
unknown grass sp.
Russian olive
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
FF8
FF8
FF8
D
E
F
5161996.4
5161992.9
5161969.1
401722.0
401665.2
401623.5
Grassland slope
mustard sp.
Buckwheat
Russian olive
unknown grass sp.
buckwheat
Rubber rabbitbrush
cheatgrass
unknown bunchgrass
sp.
cheatgrass
cheatgrass
FF9
FF9
A
B
5162162.3
5162073.5
401095.0
401085.1
Sagebrush
Sagebrush
unknown Poa sp.
unknown grass sp.
Big sagebrush
Big sagebrush
(I)
(II)
(III)
Him. blackberry
Him. blackberry
Russian olive
unknown grass sp.
unknown grass sp.
Black cottonwood
unknown grass sp.
wild rose
serviceberry
Him. blackberry
unknown grass sp.
Russian olive
unknown forb sp.
unknown forb sp.
wild rose
Russian olive
Sandbar willow
cheatgrass
false indigo
false indigo
false indigo
Russian olive
unknown bunchgrass
sp.
Russian olive
unknown grass sp.
74
unknown bunchgrass
sp.
Yellow rabbitbrush
unknown forb sp.
teasel sp.
common reed grass
Broom snakeweed
Broom snakeweed
Him. blackberry
Him. blackberry
Him. blackberry
Him. blackberry
unknown bunchgrass
sp.
unknown grass sp.
sunflower sp.
sunflower sp.
Yarrow
sunflower sp.
Rubber rabbitbrush
Rubber rabbitbrush
unknown bunchgrass
sp.
unk. bunchgrass sp.
Dominant species
Appendix M, continued
HMU
55-Mile
55-Mile
55-Mile
Transect
name
FF9
FF9
FF9
55-Mile
55-Mile
FF9
FFWT1
Node
C
D
E
Northing
5162010.2
5161965.8
5161974.1
Easting
401081.8
401078.8
401181.6
Sagebrush/ riparian edge
Sagebrush
Sagebrush
(I)
Sandbar willow
Big sagebrush
Big sagebrush
(II)
Salix sp.
cheatgrass
unknown Poa sp.
F
5161852.3
5161647.1
400954.3
401608.3
Sagebrush
Riparian/ grass edge
Big sagebrush
Unknown grass sp.
cheatgrass
Wild rose
75
(III)
Big sagebrush
false indigo
cheatgrass
bluebunch
wheatgrass
Russian olive
Appendix N. Villard Ponds HMU coverboard descriptions and coordinates (WGS84 datum, zone 11N).
Dominant species
HMU
Villard Ponds
Transect
name
VP1
Node
A
Northing
5116878.7
Easting
344608.7
Villard Ponds
VP1
B
5116898.7
344653.2
Villard Ponds
Villard Ponds
VP1
VP1
C
D
5116954.7
5116937.7
Villard Ponds
VP1
E
Villard Ponds
VP1
Villard Ponds
344680.8
344736.8
Riparian
Russian olive/ riparian
edge
edge
Riparian
(I)
unknown maple sp.
(II)
common reed grass
(III)
sandbar willow
Russian olive
unknown shrub sp.
horsetail
Black cottonwood
Unknown tree sp.
Russian Olive
unknown grass sp.
unknown forb sp.
unknown forb sp.
5116923.0
344790.5
Riparian
Common reed grass
Black cottonwood
horsetail
F
5116939.6
344837.2
Riparian
unknown grass sp.
unknown shrub sp.
Russian olive
VP2
A
5117699.4
344296.7
Riparian
Russian olive
Currant sp.
unknown tree sp.
Villard Ponds
VP2
B
5117750.7
344332.0
Big sagebrush
unknown grass sp.
unknown forb sp.
VP2
VP2
VP2
VP2
C
D
E
F
5117732.2
5117684.6
5117620.2
5117654.0
344362.4
344398.2
344394.3
344334.2
currant sp.
unknown grass sp.
unknown grass sp.
sandbar willow
VP3
A
5117436.1
344419.0
Russian olive
Big sagebrush
Big sagebrush
Big sagebrush
unknown bunchgrass
sp.
mulberry sp.
mulberry sp.
Rubber rabbitbrush
unknown sedge sp.
Villard Ponds
Russian Olive
sandbar willow
Villard Ponds
VP3
B
5117456.4
344451.9
unknown grass sp.
Russian olive
false indigo
Villard Ponds
VP3
C
5117478.9
344484.1
Russian olive
Black cottonwood
currant sp.
Villard Ponds
VP3
D
5117500.4
344514.0
Black cottonwood
common reed grass
horsetail
Villard Ponds
VP3
E
5117572.4
344479.6
horsetail
false indigo
Russian olive
Villard Ponds
VP3
F
5117550.2
344437.3
Sagebrush
edge
Sagebrush
Sagebrush
Sagebrush
edge
edge
edge
edge
edge
edge
Villard Ponds
Villard Ponds
Villard Ponds
Villard Ponds
Russian olive
false indigo
unknown forb sp.
76
Appendix O. List of scientific names for plant species used in this report.
Common name Genus
Species
Common name
Genus
Alder sp.
arrow-leaf
balsamroot
Aspen
Species
Alnus
sp.
mulberry sp.
Morus
alba
Balsamorhiza
Populus
sagittata
tremuloides
mullein
mustard sp.
native blackberry
sp.
Perennial
pepperweed
Verbascum
Brassica
sp.
sp.
Big sagebrush
Artemisia
tridentata
Rubus
sp.
Black
cottonwood
Populus
balsamifera
Lepidium
latifolium
bluebunch
wheatgrass
Pseudoroegneria spicata
pine sp.
Pinus
sp.
Broom
snakeweed
Gutierrezia
sarothrae
Plum
Prunus
sp.
buckwheat
Eriogonum
sp.
poison hemlock
Conium
maculatum
cattail
Typha
sp.
Prairie goldenrod
Oligoneuron
album
cheatgrass
Bromus
tectorum
prickly lettuce
Lactuca
serriola
Common reed
grass
Phragmites
australis
Rubber rabbitbrush Ericameria
nauseosa
Currant sp.
Ribes
sp.
Rush skeletonweed Chondrilla
juncea
Elderberry sp.
Sambucus
sp.
Russian olive
Elaeagnus
angustifolia
False indigo
Amorpha
fruiticosa
Russian thistle
Salsola
sp.
fiddleneck
Amsinckia
sp.
sandbar willow
Salix
exigua
Hawthorn
Crataegus
sp.
serviceberry
Amelanchier
sp.
Himalayan
blackberry
Rubus
armeniacus
Sumac sp.
Rhus
glabra
Horsetail
Equisetum
sp.
sunflower sp.
Helianthus
sp.
Intermediate
wheatgrass
Thinopyrum
intermedium
teasel sp.
Dipsacus
fullonum
Japanese
honeysuckle
Lonicera
japonica
Tree of heaven
Ailanthus
altissima
Juniper sp.
Juniperus
sp.
vetch
Vicia
cracca
Locust sp.
Robinia
pseudoacacia
wild rose
Rosa
sp.
Maple sp.
Acer
sp.
Willow
Salix
sp.
medusahead
Taeniatherum
caput-medusae Yarrow
Achillea
millefolium
mint sp.
Mentha
requienii
Yellow rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus
viscidiflorus
Nomenclature follows the US Dept of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Plants Database,
http://plants.usda.gov/ date last accessed: 1 June 2009
77

Herpetofauna of the Lower Snake River Habitat Management Units

Transcription

Similar documents

Cottonmouth Snake/ Water Moccasin Florida Water Snake

Improving the Weighing Process of Young Swine

Florida Venomous Snakes

- reptile conservation

Nov 2015 – Minutes – Vlad Rep - Lancaster Herpetological Society

Corn Snake Care

helping you help yourself

Crazy Fact - Perth Zoo

The Wonderful World of Amazon Tree Boas

Exhibition–Bazaar of New Russian and West Literature