2009 amphibian survey columbia forest district...monitoring plan which is currently being developed...

2009 Amphibian Survey

Columbia Forest District

Prepared for:

Fish & Wildlife Compensation Program

Nelson, BC

Prepared by:

Jakob Dulisse Jakob Dulisse Consulting

Nelson, BC

&

Doris Hausleitner Seepanee Ecological Consulting

Nelson, BC

March 2010

Dulisse & Hausleitner 2010 i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The objectives of this base-level amphibian assessment were to determine the distribution of amphibians within the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program (FWCP) project area, provide a benchmark for future population monitoring, and to survey for the presence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), or chytrid fungus. This survey is a continuation of 2008 surveys—2008 and 2009 surveys were intended to follow up 1995 and 2005 amphibian surveys in the East Kootenay which suggested that the Western Toad (Bufo boreas) had disappeared from several historic breeding sites. Surveys were conducted within the Interior Cedar-Hemlock (ICH) Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (BEC) zone of the Columbia Forest District, in south-eastern British Columbia. Survey protocols followed those developed in 2008 in the Arrow-Boundary and Kootenay Forest Districts. Forty-three random wetland sample sites were conducted through GIS analysis of TRIM data. Visual encounter and dipnet surveys were conducted over 17 days from 5 July – 24 July 2009. Each site was visited once. Amphibians were found at 88% of the wetlands sampled and breeding was confirmed at 63% of the sites. These proportions are less than those reported in 2008 in the Arrow-Boundary and Kootenay Forest Districts. The Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris) was found at most sites (74%) followed by the Long-toed Salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum) (28% of sites), Western Toad (28% of sites), and the Pacific Chorus Frog (Pseudacris regilla) (5% of sites). Breeding-site encounter rate for the Western Toad was 0.28 compared to 0.23 for the Arrow-Boundary and Kootenay Forest Districts, 0.04 in Southeast Alaska and 0.19 in the East Kootenay. The Columbia Forest District is likely an important breeding region for the species. Amphibian species richness was lower than that in the Arrow-Boundary and Kootenay Forest Districts but higher than that reported in the East Kootenays. Twenty-one sites (48.8%) had one species present, 14 sites (32.6%) had two species, three sites (7.0%) had three species and no sites had more than three species present. There was no relationship between amphibian species richness and known fish presence. American beaver (Castor canadensis) activity was noted at most sites (67.4%, n = 29). The prevalence of Bd in sampled adult amphibians in the Columbia Forest District was alarmingly high (69%). Forty R. luteiventris (71%) and five (56%) B. boreas samples tested positive for Bd. This contrasts to tests from the Arrow-Boundary and Kootenay Forest Districts in 2008 when only three of 46 samples (7%) tested positive for Bd. Occurrence within wetlands (93%) was much higher than reported elsewhere. These results confirm the presence of Bd in additional B. boreas populations in Canada. We recommend close monitoring to document the extent and distribution of this fungus within the region and between species.

2009 Amphibian Survey Columbia Forest District

Most (95%) of the sampled wetlands were classified as small (<10 ha). In our opinion, randomly selecting wetlands sample sites through GIS using TRIM data is an effective way to satisfy the requirements of occupancy modeling and these sites are good candidates for future amphibian monitoring using proportion of area occupied (PAO) analysis. In order to determine occupancy rates for each amphibian species, we recommend sampling each site at least twice over the breeding season, preferably with two observers collecting data independently. The completion of this base-level amphibian assessment is a first step toward mid-level amphibian monitoring and we recommend continuing and expanding base-level amphibian monitoring throughout the FWCP project area. If long term monitoring reveals that regional amphibian species are in decline, apex-level monitoring efforts may help determine the causes. Habitat management could include actions such as stewardship outreach, land use planning, land acquisitions, protection of breeding areas and connectivity corridors, mitigating for road mortality and habitat enhancement or restoration. Non-habitat management tools might include captive breeding, population augmentation and translocations, non-native species control and predator or competitor control. These actions would require follow-up monitoring to ensure their efficacy.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks to John Krebs and Barb Houston for administering this project, providing valuable design input and reviewing the report. Amy Waterhouse conducted the GIS-based site selection and Kathleen McGuiness created the maps. Special thanks to Clinton Swanson for his very hard work and good company in the field.

Dulisse & Hausleitner 2010 ii


TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................................ ii TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. iii LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................................................................. iv 1.0. Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0. Study Area........................................................................................................................................ 1 3.0. Methods............................................................................................................................................ 2

3.1. Overall Approach ................................................................................................................................ 2 3.2. Site Selection....................................................................................................................................... 3 3.3. Amphibian Sampling........................................................................................................................... 3 3.4. Chytrid Sampling................................................................................................................................. 5

4.0. Results.............................................................................................................................................. 5 4.1. Site Selection....................................................................................................................................... 5 4.2. Amphibian Sampling........................................................................................................................... 5 4.3. Amphibian Health ............................................................................................................................. 16

5.0. Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 18 5.1. Species Composition and Occupancy........................................................................................ 18 5.2. Fish and Beaver Presence.......................................................................................................... 19 5.3. Amphibian Health ..................................................................................................................... 19 5.4. Wetland Classification .............................................................................................................. 20 5.5. Wetland Size and Health ........................................................................................................... 20 5.6. Coordination with Other Monitoring Efforts............................................................................. 21 5.7. Future Directions....................................................................................................................... 21

6.0. Literature Cited .............................................................................................................................. 23 7.0. Appendix 1. Field Data Sheet. ....................................................................................................... 26 8.0. Appendix 2. Field Data Sheet Legend............................................................................................ 27 9.0. Appendix 3. Summary of sampling effort, amphibian species observed and breeding status (J=juvenile, S=subadult, A=adult) from 43 wetlands in the Columbia Forest District July 2009. ............... 28 10.0. Appendix 4. Summary of wetland classification and site comments/threats of 43 wetlands sampled in the Columbia Forest District, July 2009................................................................................................... 29

Dulisse & Hausleitner 2010 iii


LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 1. Three- tiered approach to amphibian monitoring developed by ARMI (graphic taken from http://fresc.usgs.gov/corvallis/research/armi/regional.html). ........................... 2

Figure 2. Amphibian sampling locations, 2008 and 2009. ................................................ 7

Figure 3. Columbia Spotted Frog detection sites in the Columbia Forest District (n = 32), July 2009............................................................................................................................. 8

Figure 4. Long-toed Salamander detection sites in the Columbia Forest District (n = 12), July 2009............................................................................................................................. 9

Figure 5. Western Toad detections sites in the Columbia Forest District (n = 12), July 2009................................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 6. Pacific Chorus Frog detection sites in the Columbia Forest District (n = 2), July 2009................................................................................................................................... 11

Table 1. Amphibian occurrence and breeding site encounters in the Arrow Boundary and Kootenay Lake Forest District July- August 2008 and Columbia Forest District July 2009. A breeding site is defined by the presence of juveniles or subadults. ................... 12

Figure 7. Comparison of amphibian species richness at 57 sites surveyed in the East Kootenay June-October, 2005 (Ohanjanian et al. 2006), 40 sites in the Arrow-Boundary and Kootenay Forest Districts, July - August 2008 and 43 sites in the Columbia Forest District, July 2009............................................................................................................. 13

Table 2. Summary (mean and standard deviation) of quantifiable habitat characteristics in the Arrow-Boundary and Kootenay Forest Districts sampled in 2008 and the Columbia Forest District sampled in 2009. ....................................................................................... 14

Table 3. Summary (mean and standard deviation) of quantifiable habitat characteristics where species were present or not detected in the Columbia Forest District July 2009... 15

Table 4. Results of Bd testing for Columbia Spotted Frogs (Rana luteiventris) and Western Toads (Bufo boreas) from 32 wetlands in the Columbia Forest District, July 2009................................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 8. Distribution of positive chytrid samples, 2008 and 2009................................. 17

Dulisse & Hausleitner 2010 iv

Dulisse & Hausleitner 2010 1

1.0. Introduction This report describes a base-level assessment of amphibian distribution in the West Kootenay region of the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program (FWCP) project area. It was intended as a follow-up to 1995 and 2005 amphibian surveys conducted in the East Kootenay which suggested that the Western Toad has disappeared from several historic breeding sites (Ohanjanian et al. 2006). This survey was designed to expand these efforts into the West Kootenay region. The specific goals of this project were to:

i. Determine the distribution of breeding populations of all amphibian species within the FWCP project area including the Western Toad, Pacific Chorus Frog, Columbia Spotted Frog and Long-toed Salamander.

ii. Provide a benchmark for future surveys by developing occupancy models and/or standard measures of distribution and abundance for these species.

iii. Survey for the presence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) fungus, which causes the disease chytridiomycosis, in cooperation with province-wide Ministry of Environment efforts.

iv. Recommend actions to protect, restore or enhance habitat within the study area. It should be noted that Frost et al. (2006) has suggested a taxonomic name change of Bufo boreas to Anaxyrus boreas. Although the new genus name has been accepted by many authorities (Collins and Taggart 2009, Canadian Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Network 2010), it remains controversial (Smith and Chiszar 2006) and Bufo boreas is still widely used. To avoid confusion, we will continue to use Bufo boreas in this report. 2.0. Study Area Surveys were conducted within Interior Cedar-Hemlock (ICH) Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (BEC) zone within the Columbia Forest District, south-eastern British Columbia. The ICH occurs on the lower to mid slopes of the Columbia and Rocky Mountains at elevations of 100 – 1500 m (Ketcheson et al. 1991). The zone is characterized by warm summers and wet, cool winters with high snowfall. Although the summers are quite dry, the slowly melting snow pack keeps soils moist and the productive forests support the highest number of tree species in B.C. Wetlands tend to be sparsely distributed on the landscape due to the steep topography of this ecosystem (Ketcheson et al. 1991). The ICH has the third lowest wetland abundance by area of 0.16% compared to the other six BEC zones that occur in the Columbia Basin which range in wetland abundance from 0.02% to 0.77% (Machmer 2004).


3.0. Methods

3.1. Overall Approach Methods were designed to be compatible with future FWCP, provincial and North American amphibian monitoring efforts. Field protocols were a combination of methods used in 1995 and 2005 East Kootenay Amphibian Surveys (Ohanjanian et al. 2006), provincial inventory methods (MELP 1998) and the draft provincial Western Toad Monitoring Plan which is currently being developed (Wind in review). The Western Toad Monitoring plan is based on methods developed through the U.S. Geological Survey’s Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative (ARMI) (http://armi.usgs.gov/). The ARMI methods are being adapted throughout North America and involve a three-tiered approach to long-term amphibian monitoring (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Three- tiered approach to amphibian monitoring developed by ARMI (graphic taken from http://fresc.usgs.gov/corvallis/research/armi/regional.html). Base-level Assessments This level of assessment provides a snapshot of the distribution and status of amphibians over a broad region and provides a baseline for future monitoring work (http://armi.usgs.gov/). A subset of sites where amphibians were detected is then used for



long term mid- and apex-level monitoring (Figure 1). This report describes a base-level assessment. Mid-level Monitoring This forms the core of the ARMI program and involves defined study areas where the Proportion of Area Occupied (PAO) by amphibians is determined and monitored over time (http://armi.usgs.gov/). The PAO metric is the primary response variable which estimates site occupancy rates and incorporates species detectability (Figure 1). The PAO is defined as the portion of the landscape occupied by a species. It provides a monitoring technique that is less costly than abundance estimation and ideal for large-area monitoring and identifying areas where species may be in decline. Many sites (established through base-level assessments) are sampled multiple times and changes over time are estimated. Apex-level Monitoring A smaller number of sites are studied in much greater detail to determine changes in abundance, demographics, habitat characteristics, etc. (Figure1; http://armi.usgs.gov/).

3.2. Site Selection Terrain Resource Inventory Mapping (TRIM ii; 1:20,000 scale) data were used to create a wetland sample set using ArcGIS 9.0 within the Columbia Forest District. This method has been found to detect wetlands smaller than 0.1 ha (Ross et al. 2006). Marsh and swamp wetlands were identified using feature codes (fcodes). Resulting wetlands were limited to ICH and Interior Douglas-fir (IDF) biogeoclimatic zones. In 2008, to facilitate field access, wetlands were further constrained to be located within 300 m of existing roads. This constraint was removed for the 2009 season which resulted in the sampling of more remote wetlands. Next, an ArcGIS extension, Hawth’s Analysis Tools (http://www.spatialecology.com/htools/rndsel.php) was used to randomly select 100 wetland polygons. Unique identifiers were added to the 100 sites and UTM coordinates were generated for the central point of each polygon. Overview maps were generated for field planning and navigation.

3.3. Amphibian Sampling Survey Type and Level of Effort A combination of the following survey types (MELP 1998) were conducted:



1. Time Constrained Searches – (adults and larvae) also called a Visual Encounter Survey (VES)

2. Systematic Surveys – (adults and larvae) complete wetland surveys for smaller, well defined wetlands

3. Larval (Dipnet) Survey – (mainly larvae but also adults) 4. Capture Survey – (adults) morphometric data collected for chytrid

sampling

The level of effort was Presence/Not detected and more than one survey type was used at each site. In general, the observer attempted to walk along the shoreline of the wetland (although this was not always possible; see Discussion section). Surveyors remained in the shallow water zone (accessible with hip waders) and used polarized sunglasses to reduce water surface glare. In general, an observer conducted the sampling and an assistant recorded data. Field sampling was conducted when most local amphibian species are at their maximum detectability (mid to late larval or early metamorph life stages). Data Collected We designed our field methods to gather as much relevant data quickly to maximize the number of sites visited. The following data was collected: location; date; observers; site selection (random/non-random); UTM (NAD83); start time; end time; transect length; wind; current precipitation; precipitation in the past 24 hours; number of dip net sweeps; percent of wetland shoreline searched; wetland class according to the Wetlands of British Columbia, A Guide to Identification (MacKenzie & Moran 2004); pH; conductivity; percent open water in wetland; percent canopy cover over wetland; permanence of wetland; bottom substrate; air temperature; water temperature; fish presence; fish species; beaver presence; dominant emergent and submergent vegetation; aquatic invertebrates present and; microhabitat feature. Amphibians observed were identified to species and life stage according to Wind (in review): A=Adult, E=Egg, J=Juvenile (tadpole/larva), S=Subadult (includes juveniles and young of the year. Tadpoles were aged according to Gosner (1960): 1=No limb buds (GS 25), 2=Limb buds (GS 26-30), 3=Ankles and small feet (GS 31-35), 4=Large feet (GS 36-40), 5=Arm buds (GS 41), 6=Arms and tail (GS 42), 7=Tail resorbing (GS 43-45), 8=Tail resorbed (GS 46). Additionally we recorded the number observed; method of observation (“guestimate” or observed) and; distance to shore. For captured individuals we recorded: weight; snout-vent length; signs of disease. The data fields and legend are presented in Appendices 1 and 2. All data analysis was conducted in SPSS 11.5 and data were considered significant at α <0.05. See Appendices 1 and 2 for a field data sheet sample and legend.



Hygiene The provincial hygiene protocols for amphibian fieldwork (MoE 2008) were followed to help reduce the risk of spreading disease (especially the chytrid fungus—see the Chytrid Sampling section). This precautionary protocol involves using single use gloves and plastic bags while handling amphibians, as well as cleaning and disinfecting sampling equipment between sites using water, bleach and ethanol.

3.4. Chytrid Sampling In cooperation with the B.C. Ministry of Environment (MoE) program to assess the prevalence of chytrid in the province, amphibians were sampled for the presence of Bd responsible for causing this disease. All captured individuals were sampled using rayon tipped swabs provided by FWCP (sterile MW100 swabs are 15 cm in length and manufactured by Medical Wire & Equipment Co. Ltd., Corsham, Wiltshire, England.) . The sterile sampling protocol involves swabbing (5-7 times) the ventral surface, legs and toes of subadult and adult amphibians. The swab heads are then enclosed in sterile labeled vials and stored in a cool dry place until submitted for laboratory testing. Swabs were submitted to the Animal Health Centre of the Ministry of Agriculture in Abbotsford, B.C. where they were tested for Bd DNA using real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) under the direction of Dr John Robinson following the methods of Boyle et al. 2004. Samples were not pooled. 4.0. Results

4.1. Site Selection Forty-three randomly selected sites were sampled once each from 5 July to 24 July 2009. Attempts were made to evenly distribute survey efforts throughout the study area. This involved splitting the study area into ten 1:70,000 map sheets and distributing the field sampling proportionally among the map sheet quadrants according to how many sites were selected for each map sheet.

4.2. Amphibian Sampling Survey Effort Amphibian sampling spanned 17 days and totaled 32.5 hours. The mean time spent surveying each site was 45.3 minutes (range 11 to 139 minutes, n = 43; Appendix 3) with one to four sites sampled per day. Average survey transect length was 493.5 m (range 22 to 2,250 m, n = 43; Appendix 3).



Amphibian Detections Of the 43 sites sampled, amphibians were found at 38 (88.4%) (Figures 2-6; Appendix 3). Four species of amphibians were observed. The Columbia Spotted Frog was found at 32 sites (74.4%), Long-toed Salamander at 12 (27.9.0%), Western Toad at 12 (27.9.0%) and Pacific Chorus Frog at two (4.7%; Table 1). No obvious geographic pattern in species distribution was observed (Figure 2-6). Breeding, as indicated by the presence of larvae or young of the year (young of the year B. boreas are the easiest to confirm because of the high numbers of metamorphs often present; other species were identified as young of the year based on size and professional experience) was confirmed at 62.8 % (27 of 43) of all sites sampled and at 71.1% (27 of 38) of sites with amphibians (Table 1 & Appendix 3). The greatest number of breeding sites were found for the Columbia Spotted Frog (n = 19), followed by the Western Toad (n = 12), Long-toed Salamander (n = 4), and Pacific Chorus Frog (n = 2; Table 1).



Figure 2. Amphibian sampling locations, 2008 and 2009.



Figure 3. Columbia Spotted Frog detection sites in the Columbia Forest District (n = 32), July 2009.



Figure 4. Long-toed Salamander detection sites in the Columbia Forest District (n = 12), July

2009.



Figure 5. Western Toad detections sites in the Columbia Forest District (n = 12), July 2009.



Figure 6. Pacific Chorus Frog detection sites in the Columbia Forest District (n = 2), July 2009.



Table 1. Amphibian occurrence and breeding site encounters in the Arrow Boundary and Kootenay Lake Forest District July- August 2008 and Columbia Forest District July 2009. A breeding site is defined by the presence of juveniles or subadults.

Forest District

Rana

luteiventris Pseudacris

regilla Ambystoma

macrodactylumBufo

boreas Rana

pipiens Number (%) of sites occupied

29 (72.5%) 17 (42.5%) 16 (40.0%) 11

(27.5%) 1 (2.5%)

Arrow Boundary

and Kootenay

Lake

Number (%) of sites where breeding was confirmed

18 (45%) 17 (42.5%) 16 (40.0%) 9 (22.5%) 1 (2.5%) *

Number (%) of sites occupied

32 (74.4%) 2 (4.7%) 12 (27.9%) 12

(27.9%) 0 (0.0%)

Columbia Number (%) of sites where breeding was confirmed

19 (44.2 %) 2 (4.7%) 4 (9.3%) 12

(27.9%) 0 (0.0%)

*Historic breeding site



Species richness was higher than that reported in the East Kootenays (Ohanjanian et al. 2006: Figure 7) but lower than that in the Arrow-Boundary and Kootenay Forest Districts (Dulisse and Hausleitner 2009). Twenty-one sites (48.8%) had one species present, 14 sites (32.6%) had two species, three sites (7.0%) had three species and no sites had four species present (Figure 7).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 species 1 species 2 species 3 species 4 species

East Kootenays

Arrow-Boundary and KootenayForest District

Columbia Forest District

Figure 7. Comparison of amphibian species richness at 57 sites surveyed in the East Kootenay June-October, 2005 (Ohanjanian et al. 2006), 40 sites in the Arrow-Boundary and Kootenay Forest Districts, July - August 2008 and 43 sites in the Columbia Forest District, July 2009. The number of amphibian species did not differ significantly (p = 0.13, F = 2.3, df = 81) between 2008 (μ = 1.9, SD = 1.1, n = 40) and 2009 (μ = 1.3, SD = 0.8, n = 43). Thus samples were pooled for further analysis. The number of amphibian species at sites where fish were not detected (μ = 1.7, SD = 1.0, n = 55) did not differ (p = 0.1, t = 2.1, df = 81) from sites where fish were detected (μ = 1.3 = SD = 0.8, n = 28). American beaver (Castor canadensis) activity was noted at most sites (67.4%, n = 29). There was no difference (p = 0.88, t = 0.3, df = 81) in species richness at wetlands where beavers were present (μ = 1.6, SD = 1.0, n = 47) and wetlands where they were absent (μ = 1.6, SD = 1.0, n = 36). Western Toads The proportion of breeding-sites (determined by the presence of egg masses, juveniles or subadults) encountered for the Western Toad was 0.28 (12 of 43).



Habitat Description The wetlands sampled in the Columbia Forest District (μ = 8.0, SD =0.5 n = 43) had significantly higher pH (p = 0.001, F= 11.8, df = 82) than those in the Arrow-Boundary and Kootenay Forest Districts (μ = 7.6, SD =0.7, n = 40; Table 2). Conductivity was also higher (p = 0.001, F= 21.3, df = 82) in the Columbia (μ = 243.7, SD =144.8, n = 43) than in the Arrow-Boundary and Kootenay Forest Districts (μ = 118.3, SD =96.3, n = 40; Table 2). The percent of open water was lower (p = 0.037, F= 4.5, df = 71) in the Columbia Forest District (μ = 17.7%, SD =17.2, n = 34) than in the Arrow-Boundary and Kootenay Forest Districts (μ = 30.0%, SD =29.6, n = 38; Table 2). Similarly, wetland size was smaller (p = 0.05, F= 3.9, df = 80) in the Columbia Forest District (Table 2). Table 2. Summary (mean and standard deviation) of quantifiable habitat characteristics in the Arrow-Boundary and Kootenay Forest Districts sampled in 2008 and the Columbia Forest District sampled in 2009.

Arrow Boundary and

Kootenay Forest District (n = 40)

Columbia Forest District (n = 43)

pH 7.6 (0.7)* 8.0 (0.5)*

Area (ha) 6.0 (7.6) * 3.3 (4.9) *

Conductivity 118.3 (96.3)* 243.7 (144.8)*

% Open Water 30.0 (29.6)* 17.7 (17.2)*

% Canopy Cover 2.6 (2.3) 2.2 (3.4)

Water Temperature (°C)

19.9 (5.7) 19.0 (5.3)

Elevation (m) 942.05 (299.9) 943.1 (190.8) *Means are significantly different (p < 0.05), ANOVA

Habitat characteristics measured at Columbia Spotted Frog, Western Toad and Long-toed salamander detection sites did not differ from those sites not detected within the Columbia Forest District (Table 3).



Table 3. Summary (mean and standard deviation) of quantifiable habitat characteristics where species were present or not detected in the Columbia Forest District July 2009.

Columbia Spotted Frog

(Rana luteiventris)

Pacific Chorus Frog (Pseudacris

regilla) *

Long-toed Salamander (Ambystoma

macrodactylum)

Western Toad (Bufo boreas)

Detected

Sites (n

=32)

Undetected Sites (n =11)

Detected

Sites (n =2)


Detected

Sites (n

=12)


Detected

Sites (n

=12)


pH 8.0

(0.5) 8.1 (0.4)

7.9 (0.4)

8.1 (0.5) 8.0

(0.4) 8.1 (0.5)

8.2 (0.8)

8.0 (0.3)

Area (ha) 3.6

(5.5) 2.2 (2.9)

0.5 (0.2)

3.4 (5.0) 2.0

(2.0) 3.8 (5.6)

2.4 (1.9)

3.6 (5.7)

Conductivity

233.8 (138.3)

272.7 (166.0)

25.0 (21.2)

254.4 (139.7)

260.8 (134.6)

237.1 (150.2)

226.7 (130.9)

250.3 (151.4)

% Open Water

17.7 (16.1)

17.5 (21.6)

21.5 (26.2)

17.4 (17.1)

18.5 (16.3)

17.3 (17.9)

23.6 (21.5)

15.5 (15.3)

% Canopy Cover

1.8 (1.8)

3.6 (6.1) 1.0

(1.4) 2.3 (3.4)

2.9 (2.8)

2.0 (3.5) 1.0

(1.3) 2.7 (3.8)

Water Temperature (°C)

19.4 (4.8)

18.1 (6.9)

25.8 (10.6)

18.7 (5.0)

17.6 (4.4)

19.6 (5.6)

19.2 (5.9)

19.0 (5.2)

Elevation (m)

952.5 (190.7)

915.8 (197.5)

807.5 (143.5)

949.7 (191.6)

911.9 (153.0)

955.2 (204.5)

992.4 (175.9)

924.0 (195.6)

* Means not compared

Wetland Site Description Sampled wetlands ranged in size from 0.1 ha to 31.1 ha (μ = 3.3, SD = 4.9, n = 43) and 41 (95.3%) of the wetlands were small (<10 ha) as defined by Machmer (2004) (Appendix 3). Twenty-one (48.8%) of the sampled wetlands appeared to fit into multiple (2-4) site associations according to MacKenzie and Moran (2004) and 22 wetlands (51.2%) contained at least one shallow-water wetland (Appendix 4). We were unable to classify four wetlands. Specific conservation concerns were identified at some sites. These included recreational use, mud bogging, chemical and road salt runoff, invasive weeds, clear-cutting and fish stocking (Appendix 4).



4.3. Amphibian Health A total of 65 skin swab samples were taken from adult and sub-adult Columbia Spotted Frogs (n = 56) and Western Toads (n = 9) (Table 4) from 32 sites. Forty-five of the samples taken (69.2%) tested positive for Bd (Table 4). Forty (71.4%) R. luteiventris and five (55.6%) B. boreas samples tested positive for Bd (Table 4) and the fungus was confirmed to occur at 93.1% (n = 27) of the 32 sites where amphibians were sampled (Figure 8). Table 4. Results of Bd testing for Columbia Spotted Frogs (Rana luteiventris) and Western Toads (Bufo boreas) from 32 wetlands in the Columbia Forest District, July 2009. Positive Negative Totals Bufo boreas 5 4 9 Rana luteiventris 40 16 56 Total 45 20 65



Figure 8. Distribution of positive chytrid samples, 2008 and 2009.



The only visible health issues (e.g. red skin, sloughing skin, missing limbs, extra limbs, etc.) noted in the field included a Columbia Spotted Frog at site 1266 which had lesions on its belly and an emaciated Western Toad at site 1654. Skin swabs from both individuals subsequently tested positive for Bd. 5.0. Discussion

5.1. Species Composition and Occupancy

Species composition was the same as that in the Arrow-Boundary and Kootenay Forest Districts with exception of the single Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens) detection in 2008 (Dulisse and Hausleitner 2009). A greater proportion of ponds were occupied (90% vs 88%) and had evidence of breeding (78% vs 63 %) in the Arrow-Boundary and Kootenay Forest Districts than the Columbia Forest District (Dulisse and Hausleitner 2009). The apparent occupancy rates for Columbia Spotted Frog and Western Toad were similar between regions, but much lower for the Pacific Chorus Frog and Long-toed Salamander in the Columbia Forest District (Dulisse and Hausleitner 2009). Range limits likely explain the lack of Pacific Chorus Frog detections—the species is not known to occur in the Golden area (Matsuda et al. 2006) and has a patchy distribution in the Revelsoke area (Doug Adama and Virgil Hawkes, pers. comm.). Range limits do not explain the lack of Long-toed Salamander detections but it is possible that our surveys missed some breeding activity as this species breeds earlier in the season than our other amphibians. The major bias existing for these surveys is that sites have only received a single repetition; some amphibian have gone undetected in the sampling and with only a single repetition we cannot make any assumptions about detection rates and rates of occupancy are under-reported. When designing an occupancy study, initial values of occupancy and detectability need to be assumed for the population parameter of interest (MacKenzie and Royle 2005). To estimate these species-specific rates, future monitoring needs to consider multiple repetitions (MacKenzie et al. 2006). Re-sampling sites visited in 2008/2009 would be one way to achieve this objective. Alternatively, two observers could sample independently but simultaneously at each future visit resulting in a minimum of two repetitions per site. If resources are available, sampling with two observers over multiple time periods is advised to maximize detection rates. Similarly, Bury and Major (1997) and Crisafulli (1997) recommend two site visits, especially when different species co-occur. The multiple surveyor technique was effective during pilot surveys for B. boreas in Alaska during a small time window at the peak of breeding season 4-5 week period (Wind, in review). For baseline data collection of B. boreas, provincial recommendations are to conduct a minimum of four repetitions at a large number of sites (50-100) in the first two years of study (Wind, in review). This serves to compile regional information on species distribution, occupancy rates and detectability and create a sampling plan for mid-level



monitoring (Wind, in review). We were only able to sample one to four sites per day (single repetition) but our apparent occupancy rates of B. boreas are higher than in other areas of North America (Ohanjanian et al. 2006, Payre et al. 2007, Dulisse and Hausleitner 2009, and Wind in review). The proportion of sites where breeding was evident for Western Toad was 0.28 (n = 43) in the Columbia Forest District, compared to 0.23 (n = 40) in the Kootenay and Arrow-Boundary Forest Districts, and 0.04 (n = 94) in Southeast Alaska (Payre et al. 2007). Ohanjanian et al. (2006) found a breeding-site encounter rate of 0.19 (n = 57) for the species in the East Kootenay but survey site selection was non-random. Our results suggest the Arrow-Boundary, Kootenay and Columbia Forest Districts represent an important breeding region for B. boreas.

5.2. Fish and Beaver Presence Biodiversity is an important measure in conservation biology. The simplest measure of biodiversity is the number of species, or species richness (Krebs 2001). In 2008, we found a negative correlation between species richness and fish presence (mostly trout Oncorhynchus spp.). This decrease in faunal richness in lentic systems has been previously reported in the presence of non-native trout (Tyler et al. 1998, Knapp 2005). Pooling our data from 2008 and 2009, we were unable to find a significant correlation between trout presence and the number of amphibian species. Similarly, trout presence did not influence amphibian species occupancy in lakes of south-central British Columbia however it did negatively impact amphibian abundance and body size (McGarvie-Hirner and Cox 2007). This inventory suggests that in our region, beavers are important in the creation and maintenance of amphibian habitat. We recommend continued data collection regarding beaver presence and activity.

5.3. Amphibian Health The Bd fungus can cause a skin disease called chytridiomycosis, which is often fatal to infected amphibians. The disease was first described in adult amphibians collected at sites of mass deaths in Australia and Panama from 1993 to 1998 (Berger et al. 1998). In some species, including Western Toad, the larval stages are also susceptible to exposure to Bd (Blaustein et al. 2005). Clinical signs of amphibian chytridiomycosis are abnormal posture, lethargy, and loss of righting reflex. Lesions, when apparent, can cause abnormal epidermal sloughing or ulceration; hemorrhages in the skin, muscle, or eye; hyperemia of digital and ventrum skin, and congestion of viscera (Berger et al. 2000). Occurrence of Bd in wetlands in the Columbia Forest District was very high (93%) compared to that in the Rocky Mountains (64%; Muths et al. 2008) and in the Arrow-Boundary and Kootenay Forest Districts (14%; Dulisse and Hausleitner 2009).



Individual prevalence is also high (69%) compared to that of a North America-wide study (13%; Oullet et al. 2005) and the Arrow-Boundary and Kootenay Forest Districts (7%). Research has indicated the persistence of Bd may be limited by increasing temperature, a variable constrained by elevation (Oullet et al. 2005, Muths et al. 2008). Elevation and temperature were not significantly different between the Arrow-Boundary, Kootenay Forest Districts and the Columbia Forest Districts indicating this may not be a factor influencing regional Bd occurrence/persistence. The Western Toad is susceptible to pathogens and particularly Bd infection (Blaustein et al. 2005). The prevalence of the fungus in Western Toads in Canada was first documented in Edith Lake in southwestern British Columbia (Deguise and Richardson 2009). Of 32 Western Toads sampled, nine (28 %) tested positive (Deguise and Richardson 2009). Although the sample size of B. boreas in the Columbia Forest District was not large (n = 9), a startling proportion of those (56%) tested positive for Bd and the five individuals that tested positive came from five different wetlands. No B. boreas skin samples (n = 4) tested positive in the West Kootenay in 2008 (Dulisse and Hausleitner 2009).

5.4. Wetland Classification We used the MacKenzie & Moran (2004) wetland classification system in order to standardize our surveys with other research across British Columbia. Although it is a worthwhile effort, there are some issues with the system which are summarized below:

Can be difficult to use and requires practice and training Requires familiarity with BEC system Some wetlands do not fit any described wetland class The classification system is not designed to be used on modified wetlands, which

excludes many sites (e.g. those modified by beaver activity) Describes terrestrial ecosystems only—many wetlands would be more

appropriately described as aquatic ecosystems Many wetlands have more than one adjacent Site Associations (often arranged

concentrically around standing water) —this can be confusing Requires considerable plant identification skills, especially with difficult

submergent and emergent wetland species There are many wetland classification systems and they are not all compatible—

see Machmer (2004) for a useful summary which is applicable to our area

5.5. Wetland Size and Health Machmer (2004) estimates that 175 vertebrate wildlife species in the Columbia Basin are associated with wetlands and 97 of these species depend on wetlands for survival. Small wetlands are particularly important to amphibians because they often lack fish that prey on amphibian larvae (Machmer 2004). Many of these wetlands are not known to local



land managers, biologists and naturalists and they receive little management attention. Although small wetlands are integral to the ecological integrity of our region, there is a general lack of binding legislation protecting this habitat (Machmer 2004). Sampling small wetlands is key to mid-level amphibian monitoring because they are more common on the landscape and often contain greater amphibian species richness than larger wetlands (Machmer 2004). Ross et al. (2006) have developed a rapid wetland “health” assessment process which was recently tested in the East Kootenay. Their methodology involves scoring wetlands by degree of alteration as measured quantitatively against a reference condition. Wetland sample sites were selected using the same GIS techniques we used so these projects could possibly be combined in the future. We recommend developing wetland health assessment protocols further. This field would compliment/enhance amphibian monitoring efforts as data could be shared. The results from both amphibian monitoring and rapid wetland assessments would help direct wetlands conservation actions.

5.6. Coordination with Other Monitoring Efforts Many parties throughout B.C. are in the process of initiating amphibian monitoring projects and there is a need for standardised and coordinated efforts so the results of the various projects are comparable. The B.C Ministry of Environment is taking a leadership role with regard to some amphibian projects (e.g. the B.C. Frogwatch Program, the forthcoming Western Toad Monitoring Plan and the provincial chytrid sampling program), but they have limited resources and most of these initiatives rely heavily on volunteer effort for data collection. Federal and provincial governments, conservation organizations and agencies such as the FWCP are all involved in amphibian conservation and monitoring but the roles and responsibilities of these groups with regard to leadership, coordination, communication, funding, data ownership and standardization etc. need to be discussed and clarified. We should continue to attempt to standardize our methods with province- and continent-wide amphibian monitoring efforts while creating an effective and custom-made monitoring plan for the entire FWCP area.

5.7. Future Directions The completion of base-level amphibian assessments throughout the FWCP area is a first step toward mid-level amphibian monitoring (Figure 1). Wind (in review) outlines the desirable characteristics of suitable long-term monitoring locations:

i. Sites should be located within an area with relatively high amphibian occupancy rates (e.g., amphibian breeding at a minimum of 20% of sites).

ii. Sites should not be threatened with short- or long-term development or disturbance pressures;



iii. Locations should be reasonably accessible for efficient site visits and; iv. If sites are located on private land, researchers must have permission to work on

the site and a long-term agreement should be in place. We recommend continuing and expanding base-level amphibian monitoring throughout the FWCP project area and proceeding to mid-and apex-level monitoring effort at some sites (Figure 1). If objectives are to describe amphibian occupancy in the East Kootenay, we advise conducting some random sampling of wetlands in this area. If long term monitoring reveals that regional amphibian species are in decline apex-level monitoring may help determine the causes. The BC Conservation Framework may be used to guide appropriate conservation actions (Bunnel et al. 2009) such as using the Forest and Range Practices Act, stewardship actions, land use planning, land acquisitions, protection of breeding areas and connectivity corridors, mitigating for road mortality and habitat enhancement/restoration. Non-habitat management tools might include captive breeding, population augmentation and translocations, disease monitoring/control, non-native species control, predator or competitor control, public education and private land owner outreach. These actions would require follow-up monitoring to ensure their efficacy. We recommend chytrid sampling continue in the region to map its prevalence and distribution. We recommend sampling for the fungus to be conducted at previously sampled sites where Bd was not detected in addition to all new wetlands surveyed. Sampling should be extended to more species if possible. Because skin samples are only taken from adult individuals, Columbia Spotted Frogs are disproportionately sampled because this is the only species that inhabits wetlands year-round. Targeting adult Western Toads, Pacific Chorus Frogs and Long-toed Salamanders would involve visiting wetlands earlier in the season when breeding adults are present.



6.0. Literature Cited Berger, L., R. Speare, P. Daszak, D.E. Green, A.A. Cunningham, C.L. Goggin 1998. Chytridiomycosis

causes amphibian mortality associated with population declines in the rain forests of Australia and Central America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, U.S.A. 95:9031–9036.

Berger L, R. Speare, and A. D. Hyatt. 2000. Chytrid fungi and amphibian declines: Overview,

implications and future directions. In: Campbell A, editor. Declines and disapparances of Australian frogs. Environmental Australia, Canberra, Australia: Environmental Australia p.21-31.

Blaustein, A.R., J.M. Romansic, E. A. Scheessele, B. A. Han, A. P. Pessier, and J. E. Longcore. 2005.

Interspecific variation in susceptibility of frog tadpoles to the pathogenic fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Conservation Biology 1460-1468.

Bunnel, F., D.F. Fraser and A. Harcombe. 2009. Increasing effectiveness of conservation decisions: a

system and its application. Natural Areas Journal 29: 79-90. Bury, R.B. and D.J. Major. 1997. Integrated sampling for amphibian communities in montane habitats. In

Sampling amphibians in lentic habitats. Edited by D. H. Olson, W.P. Leonard and R.B. Bury. Northwest Fauna Number 4. Society for Northwestern Vertebrate Biology. Olympia, Washington. Pp. 75-82.

Boyle DG, Boyle DB, Olsen V, Morgan JAT, Hyatt AD. 2004. Rapid quantitative detection of

chytridiomycosis (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) in amphibian samples using real-time Taqman PCR assay. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 2004, 60:141-148.

Canadian Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Network. 2010. Website (http://www.carcnet.ca) accessed

18Feb2010. Collins, J.T. and T.W. Taggart. 2009. Standard common and current scientific names for North American

amphibians, turtles, reptiles, and crocodilians. Sixth Edition. The Centre for North American Herpetology. Lawrence, USA.

Crisafulli, C.M. 1997. A habitat-based method for monitoring pond-breeding amphibians. In Sampling

amphibians in lentic habitats. Edited by D. H. Olson, W.P. Leonard and R.B. Bury. Northwest Fauna Number 4. Society for Northwestern Vertebrate Biology. Olympia, Washington. Pp. 83-111.

Deguise, I. and J.S. Richardson. 2009. Prevalence of the chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis)

in Western Toads in southwestern British Columbia, Canada. Northwestern Naturalist 90: 35-38. Dulisse, J. and D. Hausleitner. 2009. 2008 West Kootenay Amphibian Survey. Report prepared for the

Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program. Nelson, BC. Frost, D. R., T. Grant, J. Faivovich, R. H. Bain, A. Haas, C. F. B. Haddad, R. O. De Sá, A. Channing, M.

Wilkinson, S. C. Donnellan, C. J. 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:370.

Gosner, K.L. 1960. A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification.

Herpetologica 16: 183–190. Ketcheson, M.V., T.F. Braumandl, D. Meidinger, G. Utzig, D.A. Demarchi, and B.M.Wikeem. 1991.

Interior Cedar - Hemlock Zone. In: Ecosystems of British Columbia: Special Report Series 6. B.C. Min. For. Victoria, B.C. pp. 223-236.



Knapp, R.A. 2005. Effects of nonnative fish and habitat characteristics on lentic herpetofauna in Yosemite

National Park, USA. Biol. Conserv. 121: 265–279. Krebs, C.J. 2001. Ecology: the experimental analysis of distribution and abundance 5th Edition. Benjamin

Cummings, San Fracisco CA, USA. Machmer, M. 2004. Small wetland literature review and mapping. Report prepared for Columbia Basin

Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program. Nelson, BC. MacKenzie, D. I., and J. A. Royle. 2005. Designing occupancy studies: general advice and allocating

survey effort. Journal of Applied Ecology. 42: 1105–1114. MacKenzie, D.I., J.D. Nichols, J.A. Royle, K.H. Pollock, L.L. Bailey, J.E. Hines. 2006. Occupancy

estimation and modeling: Inferring patterns and dynamics of species occurrence. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 324 pp

MacKenzie, W.H. and J.R. Moran. 2004. Wetlands of British Columbia: a guide to identification. Res. Br.,

B.C. Min. For., Victoria, B.C. Land Manage. Handb. No. 52. Matsuda, B.M., D.M. Green and P.T. Gregory. 2006. Amphibians and reptiles of British Columbia. Royal

BC Museum Handbook. Royal BC Museum, Victoria, Canada. McGarvie- Hirner, J. L., and S. P. Cox. 2007. Effects of rainbow trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss) on

amphibians in productive recreation fishing lakes of British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 64: 1770-1780.

[MELP] Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks. 1998. Inventory Methods for Pond-breeding

Amphibians and Painted Turtle. Standards for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity No. 37. Prepared by Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks Resources Inventory Branch for the Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force Resources Inventory Committee. March 13 1998. Version: 2.0

[MoE] Minsitry of Environment. 2008. Standard Operating Procedures: Interim Hygiene Protocols for

Amphibian field staff and researchers. Ecosystem Branch, Ministry of Environment. Victoria, B.C.

Muths, E., D. S. Pilliod, L. J. Livo. 2008. Distribution and environmental limitations of an amphibian

pathogen in the Rocky Mountains, USA. Biological Conservation 141: 1484-1492. Ohanjanian, P., D. Adama and A. Davidson. 2006 An amphibian inventory of the East Kootenays with an

emphasis on Bufo boreas. Report prepared for the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, Nelson, B.C.

Oullet M, Mikaelian I, Pauli BD, Rodrigue J, Green DM. 2005. Historical evidence of widespread chytrid

infection in North American amphibian populations. Conservation Biology 2005:1431-1440. Pyare, S., Christensen, R.E., III, and Adams, M.J., 2007, Preliminary assessment of breeding site

occurrence, microhabitat, and sampling of western toads in Glacier Bay, in Piatt, J.F., and Gende, S.M., eds., Proceedings of the Fourth Glacier Bay Science Symposium, October 26–28, 2004: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5047, p. 16-19.

Ross, T., M. Keefer, and B. Jamieson, 2006. The development and testing of a reconnaissance level

wetland assessment form on the TaTa/Skookumchuck Range Unit. Report prepared for: Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, Nelson, B.C.



Smith, H.M. and D. Chiszar. 2006. Dilemma of name-recognition: why and when to use new combinations of scientific names. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 1(1):6-8.

Tyler, T., W.J. Liss, L.M. Ganio, G.L. Larson, R. Hoffman, E. Deimling, and G. Lomnicky. 1998.

Interaction between introduced trout and larval salamanders (Ambystoma macrodactylum) in high-elevation lakes. Conservation Biology 12:94–105.

Wind, E. (in review). Development of a Long-term Western Toad Monitoring Program in British

Columbia. Report prepared for the Ministry of Environment.Victoria, B.C.



7.0. Appendix 1. Field Data Sheet.


8.0. Appendix 2. Field Data Sheet Legend.



9.0. Appendix 3. Summary of sampling effort, amphibian species observed and breeding status (J=juvenile, S=subadult, A=adult) from 43 wetlands in the Columbia Forest District July 2009.

Site ID Total Time

(min) Transect (m)

Wetland size (ha)

Rana luteiventris

Pseudacris regilla

Ambystoma macrodactylum

Bufo boreas

1034 53 694 8.2 J,A 1138 33 182 3.8 A S 1147 30 345 1.2 J 1157 21 423 1.7 1199 76 901 5.9 J,A A 1266 55 304 1.0 J,A 1279 56 758 1.8 A 1378 61 462 2.5 S,A 1389 34 255 1.0 J,A S J 1391 34 526 1.9 A 1392 63 637 6.4 J,S,A J 1421 17 102 0.1 J 1425 11 22 0.5 1455 33 310 0.4 A A 1475 73 1440 0.3 S,A A J 1541 41 232 1.2 A 1559 51 501 4.7 J,A J 1562 46 400 3.7 A J 1578 46 455 1.4 A 1612 40 201 0.4 J,A J 1622 68 666 1.5 J,A J,A 1633 42 236 0.8 J 1652 52 886 3.9 A 1654 37 630 1.6 S A 1656 67 762 10.6 1696 31 387 1.7 1732 38 200 0.6 S,A J J 1746 139 2250 31.1 A 1767 48 877 3.0 S,A 1806 65 480 0.8 J,S,A A 1835 27 178 2.8 J 1856 41 240 6.7 A 1888 79 660 4.2 J,S,A A 1922 30 169 5.6 A 1942 27 199 0.5 1977 27 294 2.6 A 1999 38 539 3.9 A 2016 48 370 2.0 S,A 2033 26 150 0.3 A J 2036 61 701 2.5 J,A J 2042 16 109 0.7 S,A 2057 55 972 4.8 A A,S 2087 12 117 0.3 J

Total 1,948 min 21,222 m 140.6 ha 19 breeding,

13 adult 2 breeding

4 breeding, 8 adult

12 breeding

Dulisse & H

10.0. Appendix 4. Summary of wetland classification and site comments/threats of 43 wetlands sampled in the Columbia Forest District, July 2009.

Site ID Occupied by Amphibians

Wetland Class/Site Association Site Comments/Threats

1034 Y

Wf06/Shallow-water Yellow Pond-lily/Shallow-water Narrow-leaved Bur-reed

old logging landing on upper site with burned stumps in water

1138 Y

Wf07/Wm01/Shallow-water-Yellow pond-lily, Richardson's pondweed/Shallow-water-narrow-leaved bur-reed

1147 Y Ws06 wetland looks susceptible to drying out

1157 N Wf02

1199 Y

Wm01/Narrow-leaved Bur reed/Yellow pond-lily-Richardson's Pondweed

logging--recent cutting into riparian zone

1266 Y Wm01

1279 Y Wf11

1378 Y Wf06/Shallow-water Muskgrass/Wm01

1389 Y Wm02?

1391 Y

Shallow-water-Yellow pond-lily/common pondweed/Wf05

quad/truck access with dock and rafts--recreation lake; yellow hawkweed

1392 Y

Wm01/Wm02/Shallow water-White water buttercup/Shallow water-narrow-leaved bur-reed

FSR

1421 Y unk

1425 N unk clear-cut, highway runoff, drying up

1455 Y Ws02

although highway is 40 m away downstream, there are likely runoff effects on W edge of polygon; lots of iron deposit--red colour and oil slick look on water

1475 Y

Shallow-water yellow pond-lily, common Pondweed/unclassifiable bog surrounding

quadders, mud boggers

1541 Y Wm01 next to FSR

1559 Y

Wf06/Shallow-water-Yellow pond-lily-Richardson's pondweed

recent clear-cut 50m from head of wetland

1562 Y

Wf06/Sallow-water-Yellow pond-lily-bladderwort

harvest ribbons near wetland

1578 Y Shallow-water Common pondweed recent clear-cut right to edge of water

1612 Y Wf07/Shallow water-Narrow-leaf Bur-reed within 100m of busy paved road

1622 Y

Wb05/Wm01/Shallow-water narrow-leaved bur-reed

brook trout

1633 Y Wf06

ausleitner 2010 29


Site ID Occupied by Amphibians

Wetland Class/Site Association Site Comments/Threats

1652 Y

Wm01/Wm02/Shallow water-White water buttercup/Shallow water-narrow-leaved bur-reed

fluctuating Columbia River levels

1654 Y unk horses, human use

1656 N Wm02/Wm06/Wm05/Wm01 fluctuating Columbia River levels

1696 N

Shallow-water Yellow pond-lily-Richardson's pondweed/Wm05/Wm06/Ws01

highly used recreational lake, litter, beaver changing water levels

1732 Y Shallow-water Common pondweed power line ROW, highway runoff, historic logging

1746 Y

Wf06/Wm06/Shallow-water-Yellow Pond-lily Bladderwort/Shallow-water-Richardson's Pondweed

knapweed/yellow hawkweed along old access road 300m from wetland

1767 Y

Wb13/Wf06/Shallow-water Common Pondweed

clear-cut nearby

1806 Y Wf11 new clear-cut above with herbicide application

1835 Y Ws06 near FSR

1856 Y Wm02 trout

1888 Y

Wf05/Wm01/Shallow-water-Narrow-leaved bur-reed

adjacent FSR/ clearcut

1922 Y Wm01/Ws06 changing water course

1942 N Ws02 no more beaver activity--wetland succession leading to less open water

1977 Y Wm02/Shallow-water Muskgrass 350m from recent clearcut

1999 Y Wm02 thistle; changing water levels with beaver activity

2016 Y Shallow-water-Muskgrass natural succession (beavers gone)

2033 Y unk drying up

2036 Y

Wb11/Ws10/Shallow-water_White (yellow) water-buttercup (with Cattail, carex)

change in beaver activity

2042 Y Wf02/Shallow-water Unk drying up

2057 Y Ws06

2087 Y Wf07 drying up


2009 amphibian survey columbia forest district...monitoring plan which is currently being developed...

Documents