columbia river project water use plan kinbasket and arrow

Columbia River Project Water Use Plan KINBASKET AND ARROW LAKES RESERVOIR Reference: CLBMON-37 Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs: Amphibian and Reptile

Life History and Habitat Use Assessment Study Period: 2008

LGL Limited environmental research associates Sidney, BC

February 2009

EA3075

KINBASKET AND ARROW LAKES RESERVOIRS Monitoring Program No. CLBMON-37

Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs: Amphibian and Reptile Life History and Habitat Use Assessment

Annual Report – 2008

Prepared for

BC Hydro Generation Water Licence Requirements

6911 Southpoint Drive Burnaby, BC

BC Hydro Reference No. Q8-7971

Prepared by Virgil C. Hawkes, MSc., RPBio.

and Krysia Tuttle, MSc.

LGL Limited environmental research associates

9768 Second Street Sidney, British Columbia, V8L 3Y8

24 February 2009

Kinbasket & Arrow Amphibian and Reptile Life History and Habitat Use Assessment

Suggested Citation Hawkes, V.C. and K. Tuttle. 2009. Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs: Amphibian

and Reptile Life History and Habitat Use Assessment. Annual Report – 2008. LGL Report EA3075. Unpublished report by LGL Limited environmental research associates, Sidney, BC, for BC Hydro Generations, Water License Requirements, Burnaby, BC. 107 pp + Appendices.

Cover photos

From left to right: Common Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) © Krysia Tuttle; Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris) Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta) © Virgil C. Hawkes; and Long-toed Salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum) © Krysia Tuttle.

© 2009 BC Hydro.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior permission from BC Hydro, Burnaby, BC.

Kinbasket & Arrow Amphibian and Reptile Life History and Habitat Use Assessment Executive Summary

Page i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A reconnaissance-level survey of amphibians and reptiles was completed between May and September within and adjacent to the drawdown zones of Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs during 2008. The data collected were used to develop a long-term amphibian and reptile monitoring program to be implemented in 2009 and continue through 2018. The over-arching goals of this program are to address the management questions and objectives of CLBMON-37.

Through a review of available literature and data in association with standardized survey and handling protocols, we documented the presence of five amphibian and reptile species in Kinbasket Reservoir (Western Toads, Columbia Spotted Frogs, Long-toed Salamanders, Western Terrestrial Garter Snakes, and Common Garter snakes) and eight species in Arrow Lakes Reservoir (Western Toads, Columbia Spotted Frogs, Pacific Treefrog, Long-toed Salamanders, Western Terrestrial Garter Snakes, Common Garter snakes, Painted Turtles, and Northern Alligator Lizards). With the exception of Western Terrestrial Garter Snakes in Kinbasket Reservoir and Long-toed Salamanders in Arrow Lakes Reservoir, each of these species was using habitats in or immediately adjacent to the drawdown zone. In some places (e.g., Revelstoke Reach in Arrow Lakes Reservoir and Bush Arm km 79 in Kinbasket Reservoir), there was extensive use of the drawdown zone by amphibians and reptiles. Western Toads were the most commonly encountered amphibian in Arrow Lakes Reservoir while Common Garter Snakes were the most commonly encountered reptile. In Kinbasket reservoir, Columbia Spotted Frogs were by far the most commonly encountered amphibian and again, Garter Snakes were the most commonly encountered reptile.

The reconnaissance surveys of 2008 also enabled us to identify various regions within the drawdown zone of each reservoir that can be included in the long-term monitoring program, either because of their accessibility, or more importantly, because of the size of the amphibian and/or reptile communities that occur. In some cases (e.g., Revelstoke Reach), many different species are using similar habitats in the drawdown zone, making it relatively easy to monitor several species at once. For 2009, we have identified a minimum of five geographic areas to monitor in Kinbasket Reservoir, extending from the north end of the reservoir near Valemount south to Bush Arm (and east to the east end of the reservoir). The southern end of Kinbasket (Beavermouth) contains very little suitable amphibian and reptile habitat.

We adapted a habitat suitability index model developed for Long-toed Salamanders to the Valemount Peatland to test the utility of this approach in mapping the distribution of potential breeding habitat for this species in the drawdown zone. The resultant output suggests that the HSI approach has merit and it will be refined during 2009 and possibly expanded to other areas within Kinbasket Reservoir and possibly to Arrow Lakes Reservoir.

Reservoir levels in Arrow Lakes were not ideal, with water levels increasing rapidly in late May and early July reducing the total area of exposed drawdown zone that could be surveyed for amphibians and reptiles. We are recommending an earlier start to the field session in 2009 so that the extent of available ponds can be better mapped and used as a proxy for species presence. The timing of inundation of those ponds can then be determined and an assessment made of spatial and temporal habitat availability can be derived.

Kinbasket & Arrow Amphibian and Reptile Life History and Habitat Use Assessment Acknowledgements

Page ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors express their appreciation to the following individuals for their assistance in coordinating and conducting this study: Doug Adama and Eva-Maria Boehringer (BC Hydro), Dr. Patrick Gregory (University of Victoria), Leigh Anne Isaac, Lisa Lasmanis (KKDC, Cranbrook); Robin Tamasi (LGL Limited), Jamie Fenneman (LGL Limited) and Dr. Purnima Govinderajalu (BC Ministry of Environment). Manning, Cooper, and Associated provided amphibian and reptile location data for Kinbasket Reservoir. Doug Adama, Ed Hill, and Guy Martel provided useful comments on a previous version of this report. Dr. Patrick Gregory provided comments on the proposed monitoring program including proposed methods and statistical approach.

Kinbasket & Arrow Amphibian and Reptile Life History and Habitat Use Assessment Table of Contents

Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................................................i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................ ii LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................v LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. vii LIST OF MAPS....................................................................................................................................xi LIST OF APPENDICES......................................................................................................................... xii 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 13 2 STUDY OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................ 15

2.1 Year 1 – 2008 Objectives............................................................................................. 16 2.2 Monitoring Program Objectives & Hypotheses ............................................................ 16

3 STUDY AREA........................................................................................................................... 18 3.1 The Columbia Basin..................................................................................................... 18

Physiography ........................................................................................................................ 18 Climatology ........................................................................................................................... 18 Kinbasket Reservoir.............................................................................................................. 19 Arrow Lakes Reservoir.......................................................................................................... 20

4 LITERATURE REVIEW & DATA MINING....................................................................................... 24 4.1 Natural History and Ecology of Amphibians and Reptiles ........................................... 25

Amphibians ........................................................................................................................... 25 Reptiles ................................................................................................................................. 26

4.2 Amphibians and Reptiles in the Columbia Basin ......................................................... 27 Western Toad (Anaxyrus (Bufo) boreas) .............................................................................. 27 Columbia Spotted Frog (Lithobates (Rana) luteiventris) ...................................................... 29 Wood Frog (Lithobates (Rana) sylvatica) ............................................................................. 30 Pacific Treefrog (Hyla regilla) ............................................................................................... 31 Long-toed Salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum) ......................................................... 32 Coeur d’Alene Salamander (Plethodon idahoensis)............................................................. 33 Western Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta) ........................................................................... 34 Common Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) ...................................................................... 35 Western Terrestrial Garter Snake (Thamnophis elegans).................................................... 37 Rubber Boa (Charina bottae)................................................................................................ 37 Western Skink (Eumeces skiltonianus) ................................................................................ 39 Northern Alligator Lizard (Elgaria coerulea).......................................................................... 41

4.3 Wildlife-Habitat Relationships ...................................................................................... 42 4.4 Management and Monitoring of Amphibian and Reptiles ............................................ 44

Conservation of Amphibians and Reptiles............................................................................ 44 Chytrid fungus....................................................................................................................... 46

4.5 Conclusions.................................................................................................................. 46 5 Methods ................................................................................................................................ 47

5.1 Study Design ................................................................................................................ 47 5.2 Field Sampling and Data Collection............................................................................. 47 5.3 Amphibian and Reptile Surveys ................................................................................... 48

General Survey Protocol....................................................................................................... 48 Pond-breeding Amphibian Surveys ...................................................................................... 49 Reptile Surveys..................................................................................................................... 51 Mark-Recapture Techniques ................................................................................................ 51

5.4 Habitat Suitability Mapping........................................................................................... 52 5.5 Statistical Analyses ...................................................................................................... 53 5.6 Development of Monitoring Program ........................................................................... 53

6 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 53 6.1 Kinbasket Reservoir ..................................................................................................... 53

6.1.1 Field Sampling..................................................................................................... 53 6.1.2 Environmental Conditions.................................................................................... 53

Kinbasket & Arrow Amphibian and Reptile Life History and Habitat Use Assessment Table of Contents

Page iv

6.1.3 Reservoir Conditions ........................................................................................... 54 6.1.4 Amphibian and Reptile Surveys .......................................................................... 56

6.2 Arrow Lakes Reservoir................................................................................................. 62 6.2.1 Field Sampling..................................................................................................... 62 6.2.2 Environmental Conditions.................................................................................... 62 6.2.3 Reservoir Conditions ........................................................................................... 64 6.2.4 Amphibian and Reptile Surveys .......................................................................... 65

6.3 Habitat Suitability Mapping........................................................................................... 72 7 Discussion............................................................................................................................. 76

7.1 2008 Reconnaissance Surveys.................................................................................... 76 7.2 Development of the Monitoring Program ..................................................................... 77

7.2.1 Amphibian and Reptile Monitoring Locations...................................................... 77 7.2.2 Amphibian and Reptile Monitoring Methods........................................................ 79 7.2.3 Statistical Analyses.............................................................................................. 82

8 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................ 85 9 LITERATURE CITED.................................................................................................................. 86 10 APPENDICES..................................................................................................................... 108

Kinbasket & Arrow Amphibian and Reptile Life History and Habitat Use Assessment List of Tables

Page v

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Provincial and federal status of species of amphibians and reptiles that

occur in the Columbia Basin. Species names in bold are expected to occur in the drawdown zones of Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs..................................................................................................................14

Table 2. Monitoring years, activities, and locations for CLBMON-37, amphibian and reptile life history and habitat use. ....................................................15

Table 3. BEC zones, subzones and variants that occur in the Kinbasket Reservoir study areas. .............................................................................................19

Table 4. Elevation bands and elevation range (metres above sea level) delineated for the drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir. ......................................20

Table 5. BEC zones, subzones and variants that occur in the Arrow Lakes Reservoir study areas..............................................................................22

Table 6. Elevation bands and elevation range (metres above sea level) delineated for the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir. ..................................22

Table 7. Summary of environmental conditions as recorded at Mica Dam during each field session. ...................................................................................54

Table 8. Kinbasket Reservoir elevations (minimum, maximum, and mean) for each of the six 2008 field sessions...................................................................55

Table 9. Proportion of time (year) that Kinbasket Reservoir elevations (metres above sea level; m ASL) exceeded a particular elevation band (m ASL) for the period 1997 – 2008. Blank cells indicate that the reservoir did not exceed a given elevation band in that year. ............................................56

Table 10. Total survey time (hours) and captures by survey location, month, and species for survey sites located in the drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir. Blanks indicate life stage or species not detected. ................57

Table 11. Summary of environmental conditions as recorded at Revelstoke, Nakusp, and Castlegar during each field visit to the Arrow Lakes Reservoir during 2008. Max Min and Mean refer to daily temperature, Precip (mm) is total rainfall for the period................................................63

Table 12. Arrow Lakes Reservoir elevations (minimum, maximum, and mean) for each of the six 2008 field sessions..........................................................64

Table 13. Total survey time (hours) and captures by geographic area, month, and species for survey sites located in the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir. Blanks indicate life stage or species not detected. ................67

Table 14. Total area mapped as having high, moderate, low, and nil breeding potential for Long-toed Salamanders in the Valemount Peatland. Area calculations constrained to the elevational gradient of 741 m to 754 m ASL and include terrestrial and aquatic habitats. ....................................74

Table 15. Location and description of primary study sites included in amphibian and reptile monitoring program for 2009. See Table 1 for expanded species codes. ......................................................................................................78

Kinbasket & Arrow Amphibian and Reptile Life History and Habitat Use Assessment List of Tables

Page vi

Table 16. Null hypotheses, study components and proposed statistical methods to address management questions of CLBMON-37. ‘x’: study component required to address the hypothesis. ........................................................84

Table 17. Relationship between habitat variables and life requisites for the long-toed salamander model. ........................................................................133

Kinbasket & Arrow Amphibian and Reptile Life History and Habitat Use Assessment List of Figures

Page vii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of Kinbasket Reservoir and 2007 vegetation sampling locations

(pink). Place names in bold were sampled in 2008 and naming follows Hawkes et al. (2007). Scale ~ 1:250,000.................................................21

Figure 2. Arrow Lakes Reservoir showing the distribution of Biogeoclimatic zones, subzones, variants, and study sites sampled in 2008. Scale ~ 1:250,000..................................................................................................................23

Figure 3. Two different colour morphs of Western Toads taken at Arrow Lake Reservoir in 2008. Photos © Krysia Tuttle...............................................28

Figure 4. Adult Columbia Spotted Frog (left) and empty egg mass of Columbia Spotted Frog (right). Photos © Virgil C. Hawkes (left) and Krysia Tuttle (right). ......................................................................................................29

Figure 5. Adult Wood Frog (left) and tadpole (right). Photos: © Virgil C. Hawkes. ..... 31

Figure 6. Colour variation in the Pacific Treefrog. Photos © Virgil C. Hawkes. ..........32

Figure 7. Long-toed Salamander juvenile (left) and larva (right). Photos © Krysia Tuttle........................................................................................................33

Figure 8. Western Painted Turtles; left photo of large female and smaller individual (sex unknown); right photo shows typical plastron coloration and pattern in these turtles. Photos © Krysia Tuttle. ..................................................35

Figure 9. Common Red-sided Garter Snakes; left photo of a large female (> 1m) with a Western Toad in her stomach; right photo of a neonate (<200 mm) born in July 2008. Photos © Krysia Tuttle........................................................36

Figure 10. Western Terrestrial Garter Snakes observed at Arrow Lake Reservoir 2008. Photos © Krysia Tuttle...................................................................37

Figure 11. Juvenile Rubber Boa (left) and adult (right) captured near Vernon BC. Photos © Krysia Tuttle.............................................................................38

Figure 12. Adult Western Skink (left) and typical habitat for this species (right), near Trail, BC. 27 May 2008. Photos © Krysia Tuttle. .....................................40

Figure 13. Northern Alligator Lizards; photo of adult with visible lateral line on left; photo of gravid female with regenerated tail giving birth on right. Photos © Krysia Tuttle.............................................................................................41

Figure 14. Maximum, minimum, and average temperatures and daily rainfall for Mica Dam for the period 1 May through 1 October 2008. The 20-yr average (1987 – 2007) is also shown. Breaks in temperature data indicate no data available. http://climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/canada_e.html. ..........54

Figure 15. Kinbasket Reservoir elevations (metres above sea level; m ASL) for 2008. Also shown are a low water year (2002), a high water year (1978) and the 31 year average (1977 – 2008). The operations minimum is 707.41 m ASL and the maximum is 754.38 m ASL. Data for 2008 were available for 1 January through 31 October only.....................................55


Page viii

Figure 16. Example of Western Toad tadpoles documented in the drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir, 2008. Photos © Virgil C. Hawkes (left) and Krysia Tuttle (right). ............................................................................................59

Figure 17. Elevational distribution of reptiles and amphibians documented in and adjacent to the drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir in 2008. AMMA = Ambystoma macrodactylum; BUBO = Bufo boreas; RALU = Rana luteiventris; THEL = Thamnophis elegans; THIS = Thamnophis sirtalis. 61

Figure 18. Habitat associations of amphibians and reptiles documented in the drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir in 2008. CO = Clover–Oxeye Daisy; CT = Cottonwood–Clover; DR= Driftwood; FO= Forest; KS= Kellogg’s Sedge; MA= Marsh Cudweed–Annual Hairgrass; SH= Swamp Horsetail; WB= Wool-grass–Pennsylvania Buttercup; WS= Willow–Sedge; NC = not classified. See Appendix 4 for descriptions of each habitat type. .............................................................................................61

Figure 19. Average maximum, minimum, and mean daily temperatures recorded at Revelstoke, Nakusp, and Castlegar, BC for the period 1 May through 30 September 2008. The 20 year average (1987 – 2007) is also shown.....63

Figure 20. Daily precipitation as recorded at Nakusp and Castlegar, BC for the period 1 May through 30 September 2008. The 20 year average 1987 – 2007) is also shown.................................................................................64

Figure 21. Arrow Lakes Reservoir elevations (metres above sea level; m ASL) for 2008 (in pink). Also shown are a low water year (2001), a previous high water year (2007) and the 20 year average (1987 – 2007). The operational minimum is 418.64 m ASL and the maximum is 440.1 m ASL..................................................................................................................65

Figure 22. Long-toed salamander larvae documented near the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir in Revelstoke Reach, August 2008. Photo © Virgil C. Hawkes. ..............................................................................................69

Figure 23. Elevational distribution of amphibians documented in and adjacent to the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir in 2008. AMMA = Ambystoma macrodactylum; BUBO = Bufo boreas; HYRE = Hyla regilla; RALU = Rana luteiventris. Maximum reservoir elevation ~ 440m ASL. ................71

Figure 24. Elevational distribution of reptiles documented in and adjacent to the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir in 2008. CHPI = Chrysemys picta; THAM sp. = Thamnophis species; THEL = Thamnophis elegans; THIS = Thamnophis sirtalis. Maximum reservoir elevation ~ 440m ASL.71

Figure 25. Habitat associations of amphibians documented in the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir in 2008. BE = non- to sparsely-vegetated sands or gravels; CR = Cottonwood-riparian; IN= Industrial / Recreational / Residential; PA= Reed Canarygrass-Redtop upland; PC = Reed Canarygrass-Lenticular Sedge Mesic; PE= Reed Canarygrass-horsetail middle to lower slope; PO= Waterlily-Potamogeton open water; RH = Redtop–Hare’s-foot Clover upland; RS= Willow–Red-osier Dogwood stream entry; SS = Non-vegetated sand and/or gravels, steep; NC = not classified. See Appendix 4 for descriptions of each habitat type.............73


Page ix

Figure 26. Habitat associations of reptiles documented in the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir in 2008. BE = non- to sparsely-vegetated sands or gravels; CR = Cottonwood-riparian; IN= Industrial / Recreational / Residential; PA= Reed Canarygrass-Redtop upland; PC= Reed Canarygrass-Lenticular Sedge Mesic; PE= Reed Canarygrass-horsetail middle to lower slope; PO= Waterlily-Potamogeton open water; RH= Redtop – Hare’s-foot Clover upland; RS= Willow – Red-osier Dogwood stream entry; SS = Non-vegetated sand and/or gravels, steep; NC = not classified. See Appendix 4 for descriptions of each habitat type.............73

Figure 27. Total area mapped as high, moderate, low, and nil habitat suitability for Long-toed Salamanders in the Valemount Peatlands, Kinbasket Reservoir. ................................................................................................74

Figure 28. Output of the Long-toed Salamander HSI for the Valemount Peatland at the north end of Canoe Reach, Kinbasket Reservoir. The area mapped for potential breeding habitat suitability corresponds to the area covered by the 2008 aerial photos. .......................................................................75

Figure 29. Graphical relationships between habitat variables and HSI components used in the Long-Toed Salamander model. ..........................................135

Figure 30. Examples of habitat types occurring in the Beavermouth region of Kinbasket Reservoir. Photos © Virgil C. Hawkes. .................................138

Figure 31. Yellow Jacket Creek before (15 June 2008) inundation from Kinbasket Reservoir. Photos © Krysia Tuttle. ........................................................139

Figure 32. Ptarmigan Creek before (June 2008) and after (September 2008) inundation from Kinbasket Reservoir. Photos © Krysia Tuttle...............140

Figure 33. Examples of the habitat types occurring at Mt. Blackman in 2008 (left panel) and 2007 (right panel). Photos © Krysia Tuttle (left) and Virgil C. Hawkes (right). ......................................................................................141

Figure 34. Various types of ponds observed in the Valemount Peatland. Top left = equisetum marsh; top right = shallow, mud bottom pond; bottom left = large perched pond; bottom right = peatland after inundation. Photos © Krysia Tuttle...........................................................................................143

Figure 35. Examples of habitat types occurring in Succour Creek, Kinbasket Reservoir. Photos © Virgil C. Hawkes. ..................................................144

Figure 36. Shallow marshes alongside the Bush Arm Causeway (km 65). Top left photo taken after inundation from the Bush River (June 2008). Photos © Krysia Tuttle (left) and Virgil C. Hawkes (right)......................................146

Figure 37. Photographs of Bush Arm equisetum marsh before (June 2008) and after (July 2008) inundation. Photos © Krysia Tuttle. ....................................147

Figure 38. Revelstoke Reach (9 mile) before (May 2008) and after (July 2008) inundation. Photos © Krysia Tuttle. .......................................................148

Figure 39. Example of habitat types present in the drawdown zone near Blanket Creek Provincial Park. Photos © Krysia Tuttle. .....................................149

Figure 40. Near Shelter Bay ferry terminal at Arrow Lakes Reservoir in May 2008 before inundation. Photos © Krysia Tuttle. ............................................150


Page x

Figure 41. Example of habitat types present in the drawdown zone at the east end of Beaton Arm. Photos © Krysia Tuttle......................................................152

Figure 42. Nakusp town beach areas at Arrow Lakes Reservoir in May 2008. Photos © Krysia Tuttle. ......................................................................................153

Figure 43. McDonald Creek Provincial Park at Arrow Lakes Reservoir in May 2008. Photos © Krysia Tuttle...........................................................................154

Figure 44. Photographs of Burton Creek before (May 2008) and after (September 2008) inundation. Photos © Krysia Tuttle. .............................................155

Figure 45. Edgewood recreation area and boat launch at Arrow Lakes Reservoir in May 2008. Photos © Krysia Tuttle. ........................................................156

Figure 46. Renata Creek area at Arrow Lakes Reservoir in June 2008. Photos © Krysia Tuttle...........................................................................................158

Figure 47. Syringa Provincial Park area at Arrow Lakes Reservoir in June 2008. Photos © Krysia Tuttle...........................................................................159

Figure 48. Pond above drawdown zone near Hugh Keenleyside Dam, Arrow Lakes Reservoir. Photo © Krysia Tuttle. ..........................................................160

Figure 49. Road-side pond just outside of the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir in Revelstoke Reach. Photos © Virgil C. Hawkes. ................160

Figure 50. Beaver pond just above the normal operational maximum of Kinbasket reservoir adjacent to the Valemount Peatland. Photo © Krysia Tuttle...161

Figure 51. Perched wetland at ~km 79 on Bush Arm FSR, Kinbasket Reservoir. Photos © Virgil C. Hawkes. ...................................................................161

Kinbasket & Arrow Amphibian and Reptile Life History and Habitat Use Assessment List of Maps

Page xi

LIST OF MAPS Map 1. Species documented in the Valemount Peatland, Kinbasket Reservoir.

...............................................................................................................112

Map 2. Species documented along East Canoe FSR (north), Kinbasket Reservoir. ..............................................................................................113

Map 3. Species documented along East Canoe FSR (central), Kinbasket Reservoir. ..............................................................................................114

Map 4. Species documented along East Canoe FSR (south), Kinbasket Reservoir. ..............................................................................................115

Map 5. Species documented at Ptarmigan Creek, Kinbasket Reservoir. ..........116

Map 6. Species documented at Hugh Alan Bay, Kinbasket Reservoir. .............117

Map 7. Species documented at Bush Arm (km 79), Kinbasket Reservoir. ........118

Map 8. Species documented at Bush Arm (causway), Kinbasket Reservoir.....119

Map 9. Species documented at Beavermouth, Kinbasket Reservoir ................120

Map 10. Species documented along Airport Way, Arrow Lakes Reservoir. ........121

Map 11. Species documented at “6 mile”, Arrow Lakes Reservoir......................122

Map 12. Species documented at “9 mile”, Arrow Lakes Reservoir......................123

Map 13. Species documented at “12 mile”, Arrow Lakes Reservoir....................124

Map 14. Species documented at Shelter Bay, Arrow Lakes Reservoir. ..............125

Map 15. Species documented at Halfway River, Arrow Lakes Reservoir. ..........126

Map 16. Species documented at Burton Creek, Arrow Lakes Reservoir. ...........127

Map 17. Species documented at Syringa Provincial Park, Arrow Lakes Reservoir................................................................................................................128

Kinbasket & Arrow Amphibian and Reptile Life History and Habitat Use Assessment List of Appendices

Page xii

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1. Work Schedule 2008. ............................................................................109 Appendix 2. Survey locations and amphibian and reptile captures made during the

2008 reconaissance-level surves to Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs. ............................................................................................111

Appendix 3. Long-toed Salamander HSI Model. .......................................................129 Appendix 4. Description of Study Sites .....................................................................137

Kinbasket & Arrow Amphibian and Reptile Life History and Habitat Use Introduction

Page 13

1 INTRODUCTION Hydroelectric development in British Columbia has had numerous negative impacts on wetland ecosystems throughout the province (Hawkes, 2005a). These impacts are not only restricted to the direct flooding and loss of riparian and wetland habitats upstream of the dam, but extend downstream of the dam through disturbance of the annual flooding regimes that are needed to maintain the health of floodplain environments (MacKenzie and Shaw, 2000). Small-scale developments (e.g., Bear Creek and Diversion Reservoirs on southern Vancouver Island) can have serious impacts at the local level (Hawkes, 2005a); however, the impacts that large hydroelectric developments, such as those on the Peace River and Columbia River systems, have by there very nature, larger spatial impacts (Hawkes et al., 2007). To date, most studies of the effects of impoundment have focused primarily on the instream and riparian effects downstream of the dam (e.g., Burt and Munde, 1986; Hayes and Jennings, 1986; Kupferberg, 1986; Ligon et al., 1995; Lind et al., 1996). The need to understand reservoir-effects on wildlife and their habitat remains high, and that is the focus of this study.

On a global scale, current extinction rates of plants and animals are estimated to be up to 1000 times greater than rates inferred from the fossil record (Wilson, 1999; Ballie et al., 2004) and amphibians and reptiles are among the taxa most threatened with extinction (Stuart et al., 2004; Beebee and Griffiths, 2005; Cushman, 2006). Amphibians are vulnerable to higher rates of extinction for several reasons: 1) relatively low vagilities, which may amplify the effects of habitat fragmentation; 2) increased mortality risk associated with migration to and from breeding ponds, combined with an increasing proportion of habitat with lowered suitability on the landscape; 3) narrow habitat tolerances, which exacerbates the effects of habitat loss; and 4) a vulnerability to pathogens, increased UV-B exposure, and environmental pollution (Houlahan et al., 2000; Carr et al., 2002; Cushman, 2006). Reptile populations are also vulnerable to habitat loss and fragmentation, and since many species of snake rely on amphibians as a crucial component of their diet (Rossman et al., 1996; Matthews et al., 2002), they are linked to the same threats affecting amphibian populations.

Our ability to infer population-level impacts of habitat alteration on amphibians and reptiles is confounded by the fact that many populations of amphibians and reptiles exhibit significant spatial and temporal variation in population size, and by our generally imprecise knowledge of their patterns of distribution (Cushman, 2006). Furthermore, few amphibian studies have been conducted at the landscape level, resulting in a greatly reduced ability to associate population-level changes with changes in habitat structure or quality (McGarigal and Cushman, 2002). Moreover, effective conservation of amphibian and reptile populations is limited by a lack of geographic, species-specific life history and ecological knowledge, and a lack of landscape-level studies of the effects of habitat change on movement, survival rates, and population dynamics (McGarigal and Cushman, 2002; Cushman, 2006). Amphibians and reptiles are increasingly becoming threatened worldwide (IUCN et al., 2004). Over one third of all amphibians are threatened (IUCN et al., 2004) and reptiles are not faring much better (Gibbons et al., 2000). Factors implicated in these declines include introduced species (Bradford, 1989; Case & Bolger, 1991), pollution and UV-B radiation (Blaustein et al., 2003), disease (Daszak et al., 1999; Johnson et al., 2006), habitat loss (Dodd and Smith, 2003; Lehtinen, 1999), climate change (Pounds, 2001), or a combination of these factors (Blaustein & Kiesecker, 2002; Pounds et al., 2006). Of the 16 species of amphibians and reptiles that occur in the Columbia Basin, 7 species of amphibians and 5 species of reptiles occur along the impounded waters of the Columbia River (Table 1). Of these, 4

Kinbasket & Arrow Amphibian and Reptile Life History and Habitat Use Introduction

Page 14

species are considered at risk; the Northern Leopard Frog is listed as endangered and Western Toad, Western Skink, and Painted Turtle are listed as special concern. Recently, concerns have been raised over the status of Columbia Spotted Frogs (Wente et al., 2005).

Table 1. Provincial and federal status of species of amphibians and reptiles that occur in the Columbia Basin. Species names in bold are expected to occur in the drawdown zones of Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs.

STATUS† GROUP AND SPECIES Species Code REGION* CDC COSEWICAMPHIBIANS Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens)** A-RAPI KIN R E Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris) A-RALU KIN/ARR Y Wood Frog (Rana sylvatica) A-RASY KIN Y Pacific Treefrog (Hyla regilla) A-HYRE KIN/ARR Y Western Toad (Bufo boreas) A-BUBO KIN/ARR Y SC Long-toed Salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum) A-AMMA KIN/ARR Y Coeur d’Alène Salamander (Plethodon idahoensis) A-PLID ARR B SC Rocky Mountain Tailed Frog (Ascaphus montanus) A-ASMO N/A R REPTILES Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta) R-CHPI ARR B SC Western Terrestrial Garter Snake (Thamnophis elegans) R-THEL KIN/ARR Y Common Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) R-THSI KIN/ARR Y Rubber Boa (Charina bottae) R-CHBO ARR Y SC Racer (Coluber constrictor) R-COCO ARR B SC Pacific Northern Rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus) R-CROR ARR B T Western Skink (Eumeces skiltonianus) R-EUSK ARR B SC Northern Alligator Lizard (Elgaria coerulea) R-ELCO ARR Y

*Region: KIN = Kinbasket Reservoir; ARR = Arrow Lakes Reservoir; N/A = Not applicable to Kinbasket or Arrow Lakes Reservoirs. †Status: CDC = British Columbia Conservation Data Centre: B = Blue; R = Red; Y = Yellow; COSEWIC = Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; SC = Special Concern. ** Probably extirpated from study area.

The decline of some species of amphibians has been attributed to changes to hydrological regimes resulting from hydroelectric developments (see Lind et al., 1996; Brandao and Araujo, 2008). Lind et al. (1996) found that flow rates and water levels may affect pond breeding amphibians by increasing egg and larval mortality caused by flooding, habitat loss, changes in water temperature (which affects larval development and survival), and changes to prey base. However, their study was downstream of a dam and was not related to reservoir habitats (i.e., drawdown zones). Alternatively, the more recent study by Brandao and Araujo (2008) showed that in Brazil, Cerrado amphibians showed a rapid decline during and after flooding of a new reservoir created for hydroelectric power generation.

The incorporation of biodiversity goals into landscape-scale management planning requires an understanding of how habitat changes affect the distribution and abundance of species (Patrick et al., 2006). It is also important to understand how habitats change as a result of management strategies that are designed to preserve habitat function and to preserve species diversity and abundance. Implicit in these goals is the need to understand the species-specific habitat relationships of the landscape being managed.

Kinbasket & Arrow Amphibian and Reptile Life History and Habitat Use Study Objectives

Page 15

During the Columbia River Water Use Planning process (WUP), concerns were expressed regarding the potential impacts of the operation of the Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs on amphibians and reptiles. However, a lack of information with respect to the abundance, distribution, life history, and habitat use made it difficult to assess the impact of current operations and operating alternatives on these species. In addition to addressing these uncertainties, there is also a desire to assess the effectiveness of physical works (Arrow Lakes Reservoir only) and revegetation of the drawdown zone (Arrow Lakes and Kinbasket Reservoirs) to enhance habitat for amphibians and reptiles.

This report summarizes the findings of the Year 1 reconnaissance surveys for BC Hydro’s Contract No. Q8-7971, Monitoring Program CLBMON-37, Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs: Amphibian and Reptile Life History and Habitat Use Assessment.

2 STUDY OBJECTIVES BC Hydro is implementing a multi-year amphibian and reptile program that will:

• Determine which species use habitats in the drawdown zones of the Arrow Lakes and Kinbasket Reservoirs;

• Determine seasonal patterns of habitat use (e.g. breeding, rearing, foraging, over-wintering, etc) for amphibians and reptiles;

• Identify habitats and habitat features important to amphibians and reptiles; • Inform how physical works and revegetation can be designed to mitigate adverse

impacts to amphibian and reptile populations resulting from reservoir operations; • Develop a long–term monitoring program to:

a) assess the impact of current operations and operating alternatives of the Arrow Lakes and Kinbasket Reservoirs on amphibian and reptiles; and

b) assess the effectiveness of physical works (Arrow Lakes Reservoir only) and revegetation of the drawdown zones (Arrow Lakes and Kinbasket Reservoirs) to enhance habitat for amphibians; and

• Monitor amphibian and reptile populations to assess (a) and (b), above.

The first year of this study (2008) consisted of information gathering and reconnaissance level surveys to determine the distribution of amphibians and reptiles along the Arrow Lakes and Kinbasket Reservoirs. These data form the basis of a multi-year monitoring program that will occur in Years 2 and 3, and then every year other until 2018 (Table 2).

Table 2. Monitoring years, activities, and locations for CLBMON-37, amphibian and reptile life history and habitat use.

YEAR YEAR NUMBER ACTIVITY LOCATION

2008 1 Information gathering and reconnaissance surveys Arrow and Kinbasket

2009 2 Monitoring Year 1 Arrow and Kinbasket 2010 3 Monitoring Year 2 Arrow and Kinbasket 2011 4 2012 5 Monitoring Year 3 Arrow and Kinbasket 2013 6 2014 7 Monitoring Year 4 Arrow and Kinbasket 2015 8 2106 9 Monitoring Year 5 Arrow and Kinbasket 2017 10 2018 11 Monitoring Year 6 Arrow and Kinbasket


Page 16

2.1 Year 1 – 2008 Objectives To assess the long-term functionality of the drawdown zone of a reservoir to support riparian-associated amphibians and reptiles, it was first necessary to document the presence and distribution, as well as preliminary habitat-associations of the species that occurred in and adjacent to the drawdown zones of Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs.

The objectives of the first year of this study were to:

1. Obtain relevant data from various sources, including published and unpublished reports and documents (e.g., Dykstra, 2004; Ohanjanian et al. 2006; Hawkes et al. 2007) and through interviews with local naturalists, develop a preliminary overview of the distribution of amphibians and reptiles relative to the drawdown zones of Arrow Lakes and Kinbasket Reservoirs. In addition, potentially suitable amphibian and reptile habitats were identified from various sources including aerial photos, CLBMON-33 and CLBMON-10 mapping products, and from data sources such as the Columbia Basin wildlife habitat relationships database (Steeger et al. 2001);

2. Obtain information on amphibian and reptile distribution and habitat use within the drawdown zones of Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes reservoirs via reconnaissance-level surveys; and

3. Develop a long-term monitoring program for years 2 – 11 (2009 – 2018) that will

a. determine which species use the drawdown zones of Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs;

b. determine seasonal patterns of habitat use (e.g., breeding, rearing, foraging, over-wintering, etc);

c. assess the impact of operations of Arrow Lakes and Kinbasket Reservoirs on amphibian and reptile populations; and

d. assess the effectiveness of physical works (Arrow Lakes Reservoir only) and revegetation (Arrow and Kinbasket Reservoirs) to enhance habitat for amphibians and reptiles.

These objectives were examined directly through field surveys conducted in 2008. The data collected, along with the information obtained from the literature review, data mining and habitat suitability mapping, were used to form the basis of the monitoring program that LGL developed for future years (Years 2 – 11; Hawkes and Tuttle, 2008).

2.2 Monitoring Program Objectives & Hypotheses Management questions to be addressed by this monitoring program relating to the impacts of the operations of Arrow Lakes Reservoir and Kinbasket Reservoir on amphibians and reptiles include:

1. Which species of reptiles and amphibians occur (utilize habitat) within the drawdown zone and where do they occur?

2. What is the abundance, diversity, and productivity (reproduction) of reptiles and amphibians utilizing the drawdown zone and how do these vary within and between years?

3. During what portion of their life history (e.g., breeding, foraging, and over-wintering) do reptiles and amphibians utilize the drawdown zone?


Page 17

4. Which habitats do reptiles and amphibians use in the drawdown zone and what are their characteristics (e.g., pond size, water depth, water quality, vegetation, elevation band)?

5. How do reservoir operations influence or impact reptiles and amphibians directly (e.g., desiccation, inundation, predation) or indirectly through habitat changes?

6. Can minor adjustments be made to reservoir operations to minimize the impact on reptiles and amphibians?

7. Can physical works projects be designed to mitigate adverse impacts on reptiles and amphibians resulting from reservoir operations?

8. Does revegetating the drawdown zone affect the availability and use of habitat by reptiles and amphibians?

9. Do physical works projects implemented during the course of this monitoring program increase reptile or amphibian abundance, diversity, or productivity?

These questions will be tested directly with our proposed monitoring program, which is aimed at determining the habitat use/associations and distribution of amphibians and reptiles in the drawdown of Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs relative to reservoir operational regimes, including changing water levels. The monitoring program is also designed to address whether or not the proposed physical works and/or revegetation programs will enhance habitat suitability for amphibians and reptiles in the drawdown zone of each reservoir. The management questions have been formulated into the following null hypotheses:

H01: Annual and seasonal variation in water levels in the Arrow Lakes and the Kinbasket Reservoirs and the implementation of soft operational constraints and potential effects of Revelstoke Unit 5 in Arrow Lakes Reservoir (“reservoir operations”) do not directly or indirectly impact reptile and amphibian populations.

H02: Reservoir operations do not result in a decreased abundance of amphibians or reptiles in the drawdown zone.

H03: Reservoir operations do not increase the mortality rates of amphibians or reptiles in the drawdown zone.

H04: Reservoir operations do not result in decreased site occupancy of amphibians or reptiles in the drawdown zone.

H05: Reservoir operations do not result in decreased productivity of amphibians or reptiles in the drawdown zone.

H06: Reservoir operations do not reduce the availability and quality of breeding habitat, foraging habitat and over-wintering habitat for amphibians or reptiles in the drawdown zone.

H07: The physical works projects and revegetation efforts do not increase the utilization of habitats by amphibians or reptiles in the drawdown zone.

H08: Revegetation and physical works do not increase species diversity or seasonal (spring/summer/fall) abundance of amphibians or reptiles in the drawdown zone.

H09: Revegetation and physical works do not increase amphibian or reptile productivity in the drawdown zone.

H010: Revegetation does not increase the amount or improve habitat for amphibians and reptiles in the drawdown zone.

Kinbasket & Arrow Amphibian and Reptile Life History and Habitat Use Study Area

Page 18

3 STUDY AREA

3.1 The Columbia Basin

Physiography The Columbia Basin in southeastern British Columbia is situated between the Rocky Mountains, the Selkirk Mountains, the Purcell Range of the Columbia Mountains and the Monashee Mountains. The headwaters of the Columbia River begin at Columbia Lake in the Rocky Mountain Trench and the river flows northwest along the trench for about 250 km before it empties into Kinbasket Reservoir behind Mica Dam (BC Hydro, 2007). From Mica Dam, the river continues southward for about 130 km to Revelstoke Dam. The river then flows almost immediately into Arrow Lakes Reservoir behind Hugh Keenleyside Dam. The entire drainage area upstream of Hugh Keenleyside Dam is approximately 36,500 km2. The Columbia Basin is characterized by steep valley side slopes and short tributary streams that flow into Columbia River from all directions.

The Columbia River valley floor elevation falls from approximately 800m near Columbia Lake to 420m near Castlegar. Approximately 40% of the drainage area within the Columbia River Basin is above 2000m elevation. Permanent snowfields and glaciers predominate in the northern high mountain areas above 2500m elevation, and about 10% of the Columbia River drainage area above Mica Dam exceeds this elevation.

Climatology Precipitation in the basin occurs from the flow of moist low-pressure weather systems that move eastward through the region from the Pacific Ocean. More than two-thirds of the precipitation in the basin falls as winter snow. The persistence of below freezing temperatures results in substantial snow accumulations at middle and upper elevations in the watersheds. Summer snowmelt is reinforced by rain from frontal storm systems and local convective storms.

Temperatures over the basin tend to be more uniform than precipitation. With allowances for temperature lapse rates, station temperature records from the valley can be used to estimate temperatures at higher elevations. The summer climate is usually warm and dry, with the average daily maximum temperature for June and July ranging from 20°C to 32°C. The average daily minimum temperature ranges from 7°C to 10°C. The coldest month is January when the average daily maximum temperature in the valleys is near 0°C and average daily minimum is near -5°C.

During the spring and summer months, the major source of streamflow in the Columbia River is water stored in large snow packs that developed during the previous winter months. Snow packs often accumulate above 2000m in elevation through the month of May and continue to contribute runoff long after the snow pack has depleted at lower elevations. Runoff begins to increase in April or May and usually peaks in June to early July, when approximately 45% of the runoff occurs. Severe summer rainstorms are not unusual in the Columbia Basin. Summer rainfall contributions to runoff generally occur as short-term peaks superimposed upon high river levels caused by snowmelt. These rainstorms may contribute to annual flood peaks under the current Treaty operations. The mean annual local inflow for the Mica, Revelstoke and Hugh Keenleyside projects is 577 m3/s, 236 m3/s, and 355 m3/s, respectively.


Page 19

Kinbasket Reservoir The Mica hydroelectric dam, located 135 km north of Revelstoke, BC, spans the Columbia River and impounds Kinbasket Reservoir (Figure 1). Completed in 1973, the Mica powerhouse has a generating capacity of 1,805 MW. The Mica Dam is one of the largest earth fill dams in the world and was built under the terms of the Columbia River Treaty to provide water storage for flood control and power generation.

Kinbasket Reservoir is 216 km long and has a licensed storage volume of 12 MAF (BC Hydro, 2007). Of this, 7 MAF1 is operated under the terms of the Columbia River Treaty. The normal operating range of the reservoir is between El. 754.38 m and 707.41 m. However, application may be made to the Comptroller of Water Rights for additional storage for economic, environmental, or other purposes if there is a high probability of spill.

The Biogeoclimatic (BEC) zones that occur in the lower elevations of Kinbasket Reservoir are the Interior Cedar-Hemlock (ICH) zone and the Sub-Boreal Spruce (SBS) zone. Four subzones and variants characterize the ICH and one subzone and variant characterizes the SBS zone: ICHmm, ICHwk1, ICHmw1, ICHvk1, and SBSdh1 (Figure 1; Table 3). The ICHmm and SBSdh1 occur only in the Prince George Forest Region, the ICHwk1 occurs in both the Prince George and Nelson Forest Region and the ICHmw1 and ICHvk1 occur in only the Nelson Forest Region. Of the six zones, subzones, and variants listed in Table 3 all but the ICHvk1 and ICHmk1 occurred in the 13 geographic areas selected for sampling. Table 3. BEC zones, subzones and variants that occur in the Kinbasket Reservoir

study areas.

Reservoir Zone Code Zone Name Subzone &

Variant Subzone/Variant

Description Forest Region & District

Kinbasket ICHmm Interior Cedar – Hemlock mm Moist Mild Prince George

(Robson Valley Forest District)

Kinbasket ICHmk1 Interior Cedar – Hemlock mk1 Kootenay

Moist Cool Nelson Forest Region (Columbia Forest District)

Kinbasket ICHwk1 Interior Cedar – Hemlock wk1 Wells Gray

Wet Cool

Prince George (Robson Valley Forest District) and Nelson Forest Region (Columbia Forest District)

Kinbasket ICHmw1 Interior Cedar – Hemlock mw1 Golden

Moist Warm Nelson Forest Region (Columbia Forest District)

Kinbasket ICHvk1 Interior Cedar – Hemlock vk1 Mica

Very Wet Cool Nelson Forest Region (Columbia Forest District)

Kinbasket SBSdh1 Sub-Boreal Spruce dh1 McLennan

Dry Hot Prince George (Robson Valley Forest District)

Most of the watershed remains in its original forested state. Dense forest vegetation thins above 1500m elevation and tree lines are generally at about 2000m elevation. The forested lands around both Kinbasket Reservoir and Arrow Lakes have been and are being logged, with active logging (2007) occurring on both the east and west sides of the reservoir.

For Kinbasket Reservoir, study sites were closely tied to the area of interest considered for CLBMON-10 (i.e., the potential revegetation sites), which includes a 13 m change in

1 An acre foot is a unit of volume commonly used in the United States in reference to large-scale water resources, such as reservoirs, aqueducts, canals, sewer flow capacity, and river flows. It is defined by the volume of water necessary to cover one acre of surface area to a depth of one foot. Since the area of one acre is defined as 66 by 660 feet then the volume of an acre foot is exactly 43,560 cubic feet. Alternatively, this is approximately 325,853.4 U.S. gallons, or 1,233.5 cubic metres or 1,233,500 litres.


Page 20

elevation, ranging from 741 m to 754 m ASL (Table 4). The areas considered in CLBMON-10 included six, non-randomly selected geographic areas, consisting of 68 sites (i.e., vegetation enhancement polygons; Hawkes et al., 2007). The six geographic sites were further divided to delineate 13 geographic areas identifiable by mapped features or regions of Kinbasket Reservoir (Figure 1). Aerial photos of the six geographic areas were obtained in 2007 and 2008, although not all elevation bands were photographed in 2008.

In addition to the sites sampled by Hawkes et al. (2007), additional sites within the drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir, or just outside of the drawdown were visited in 2008 including sites in Bush Arm and Sprague Bay. Table 4. Elevation bands and elevation range (metres above sea level) delineated

for the drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir. Band Elevation Range Band Elevation Range

1 741-742 7 747-748 2 742-743 8 748-749 3 743-744 9 749-750 4 744-745 10 750-751 5 745-746 11 751-752 6 746-747 12 752-753

13 753-754

Arrow Lakes Reservoir Arrow Lakes Reservoir is an approximately 230 km long section of the Columbia River drainage between Revelstoke and Castlegar, BC (Figure 2). It has a north-south orientation, set in the valley between the Monashee Mountains in the west and Selkirks in the east. The Hugh Keenleyside Dam, located 8 km west of Castlegar, spans the Columbia River and impounds Arrow Lakes Reservoir. Completed in 1968, the Hugh Keenleyside Dam was built to provide storage and does not contain a powerhouse. Arrow Lakes Reservoir has a licensed storage volume of 7.1 MAF (BC Hydro, 2007). The normal operating range of the reservoir is between El. 440.1 m and 418.64 m.

Two Biogeoclimatic zones occur within the study area: the Interior Cedar Hemlock (ICH) and the Interior Douglas-fir (IDF) (Figure 2; Table 5). The majority of the area occurs within the ICH, with three subzones and four variants represented. The IDF is restricted to the southernmost portion of the area and consists of a single subzone (IDFun). The subzones are a reflection of increasing precipitation from the dry southern slope of Deer Park to the wet forests near Revelstoke (Enns et al., 2007). The Arrow Lakes Reservoir study is primarily situated within the Arrow Boundary Forest District, with a small northerly portion in the Columbia Forest District.


Page 21

Figure 1. Location of Kinbasket Reservoir and 2007 vegetation sampling locations

(pink). Place names in bold were sampled in 2008 and naming follows Hawkes et al. (2007). Scale ~ 1:250,000.


Page 22

Table 5. BEC zones, subzones and variants that occur in the Arrow Lakes Reservoir

study areas. Reservoir Zone

Code Zone Name Subzone & Variant

Subzone/Variant Description Forest Region & District

Arrow Lakes ICHdw1 Interior Cedar – Hemlock dw1 West Kootenay

Dry Warm Nelson Forest Region (Arrow Forest District)

Arrow Lakes ICHmw2 Interior Cedar – Hemlock mw2

Columbia-Shuswap

Moist Warm

Nelson Forest Region (Columbia Forest District)

Arrow Lakes ICHmw3 Interior Cedar – Hemlock mw3 Thompson

Moist Warm Nelson Forest Region (Columbia Forest District)

Arrow Lakes ICHwk1 Interior Cedar – Hemlock wk1 Wells Gray

Wet Cool Nelson Forest Region (Arrow Forest District)

Arrow Lakes IDFun Interior Douglas-fir un Undefined Nelson Forest Region

(Arrow Forest District)

Kinbasket ICHmm Interior Cedar – Hemlock mm Moist Mild Prince George

(Robson Valley Forest District)

For Arrow Lakes Reservoir, an approximate 10 m change in elevation, ranging from 430 m to 440 m ASL (Table 6) was selected as the primary area of interest because of the relationship to other BC Hydro initiatives occurring in Arrow Lakes Reservoir (e.g., CLBMON-33, CLBWORKS-2), which would make it possible to utilize the products of those projects in this study (e.g., vegetation community mapping). Aerial photos of the six geographic areas were obtained in 2007 and 2008, although not all elevation bands were photographed in 2008. In addition to sampling areas within the drawdown zone, areas immediately adjacent to, but above the normal operational maximum, were also sampled. Areas identified for proposed Physical Works (e.g., Revelstoke Reach) were sampled in 2008. The areas proposed for Physical Works overlap extensively with the areas mapped as part of CLBMON-33.

Table 6. Elevation bands and elevation range (metres above sea level) delineated for the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir.

Band Elevation Range Band Elevation Range1 430-431 6 435-436 2 431-432 7 436-437 3 432-433 8 437-438 4 433-434 9 438-439 5 434-435 10 439-440

Within the drawdown zone of each reservoir, study site selection followed Hawkes et al. (2007) and Enns et al. (2007) who identified areas that had high or moderate suitability for amphibians and reptiles. For Kinbasket Reservoir, these areas included Beavermouth, Bush Arm, Encampment Creek, Canoe Reach (i.e., the Valemount Peatland), and Ptarmigan Creek (Figure 1). For Arrow Lakes Reservoir, these areas included Revelstoke Reach, Nakusp, Faquier, Deer Park, and Beaton Arm (Figure 2). Other areas of Arrow Lakes Reservoir, such as the area just upriver of Revelstoke, were already inundated at the start of 2008 field sampling. These areas will be visited in subsequent years.


Page 23

Figure 2. Arrow Lakes Reservoir showing the distribution of Biogeoclimatic zones,

subzones, variants, and study sites sampled in 2008. Scale ~ 1:250,000.

Kinbasket & Arrow Amphibian and Reptile Life History and Habitat Use Literature Review & Data Mining

Page 24

4 LITERATURE REVIEW & DATA MINING Aquatic ecosystems are valuable natural resources, as they are water sources for drinking, irrigation, industrial activities, and support the existence of aquatic plants and wildlife. Due to intensified agricultural practices and increases in urban worldwide populations, the demands for water have escalated over the past 50 years, and the cumulative impacts of human water-related activities has led to the alteration of hydrology and habitat, as well as potential water quality and environmental contamination issues (CCME, 2006). In particular, hydroelectric developments have the enormous potential of impacting aquatic ecosystems through, alteration of waterways and influencing both wildlife and ecosystem processes. Thus, it is important to monitor and evaluate the long-term effects of human-related water management practices within the environment (e.g., hydroelectric dams), especially in areas considered to be of high biodiversity (e.g., wetlands).

Wetland ecosystems provide habitat for many plant and animal species, as well as contribute to important biological processes (e.g., nutrient cycling). Due to various human activities, wetland loss in North America has occurred over the past five decades, changing landscape habitat and ecosystem hydrology, as well as displacing organisms that rely on these sensitive habitats ecosystems (Boyer and Grue, 1995; Bishop et al., 2000). Amphibians and reptiles are important biological components of wetland ecosystems (e.g., large biomass, source of trophic nutrient transfer) and amphibians in particular have the potential to be used as bioindicators of anthropogenic impacts and ecosystem health (Pechmann and Wilbur, 1994).

Amphibians are particularly susceptible to the adverse effects of human-related-hydrology alterations due to their reliance on aquatic habitat for reproduction and development (Bishop and Pettit, 1992; Carey and Bryant, 1995). This risk can be magnified in species whose reproductive cycles and other seasonal activities entirely occur in wetlands or ponds that occur in the flooding region of a reservoir. Conversely, reservoirs, ponds or wetland areas created from hydroelectric activities may also play an important role in the creation of habitat for amphibians in areas of water shortage (Knutson et al., 2004). Given recent global amphibian (and reptile) declines, the need to understand the impacts of human water-related activities on these groups and their habitat remains high, and that is the focus of this study (Blaustein and Wake, 1990; Kiesecker et al., 2001; Stuart et al., 2004; Cushman, 2006).

The following literature review summarizes the existing scientific research and grey literature examining the life history, habitat use and management of amphibian and reptile populations. The focus of this discussion is on habitat-related studies of amphibian and reptiles, emphasizing (where possible) material on previous studies investigating the impacts of human-water-related activities (e.g., hydroelectric developments) on wetland habitats and the species that occur in or around those areas (Lind et al., 1996; Lehtinen et al., 1999; Hawkes, 2005a; Brandao and Araujo, 2008). This summary provides the necessary background information on the life histories of the species, aids in the development/refinement of hypotheses, statistical analyses, and field sampling protocols, as well as highlights important wildlife-habitat associations to be examined in years 2-10 of the monitoring program. Summarized topics include: natural history and ecology background information for amphibians and reptiles, particularly focusing on the life history of BC pond-breeding and semi-aquatic species; the relationships between wildlife and habitat, focusing on amphibians and reptiles in aquatic environments; and the management of amphibian and reptile populations, including summaries and recommendations of previous or


Page 25

currently existing monitoring programs in North America. In addition, federal (e.g., COSEWIC) or provincial (e.g., BC CDC) listed species are highlighted and given special focus within this literature review.

4.1 Natural History and Ecology of Amphibians and Reptiles Natural history studies typically focus on quantitative descriptions of animals in their natural environments (Greene, 1986; Arnold, 2003), whereas life history studies are concerned with patterns of resource allocation toward different functions of an organism, such as growth or reproduction, as well as the conditions that lead to the evolution of certain demographic traits (Roff, 1992). In tandem, natural history and life history studies contribute to the answers to fundamental questions in ecology such as: 1) What factors limit the distribution and abundance of organisms? and 2) How and why do demographic and other ecological traits vary among individuals, populations, and species (Roff, 1992)?

In turn, answers to such questions are relevant to conservation and management of the world’s biotic diversity. Amphibians and reptiles make up a quarter of the world’s vertebrate species and they show tremendous diversity in morphology (e.g., size, shape, colour pattern), habits (e.g., food, defences, etc.), reproductive modes (e.g., fertilization, oviparity versus viviparity), habitats used (e.g., aquatic versus terrestrial), and other life history characteristics (Pough et al., 2004). For species that have not been well described, natural history studies are especially important for laying the groundwork for future experimental or hypothesis-driven research.

Community ecology as a discipline focuses on the patterns of species assemblages that occur within a site or across a landscape, as well as the processes and mechanisms (e.g., competition, predation, environmental conditions) that generate those patterns. Studies of amphibian and reptile communities have provided insight into patterns of species richness, habitat use, predator-prey relationships and metapopulation dynamics. Herpetofauna are often considered ideal subject to study community dynamics because they often have small home ranges, densities large enough to attain adequate sample size, and can be investigated through a variety of field and laboratory experiments. Additionally, reptiles and amphibians often occupy the same areas and have complex interactions (e.g. competition for food or space, predator-prey relations) and can be considered ‘bioindicators’ of environmental quality (Green, 1997), hence information concerning the status of their populations is important for understanding and managing ecological systems.

The potential to integrate natural history and life history studies with long-term monitoring programs to assess the magnitude and direction of reservoir impacts on amphibians and reptiles has never been attempted at a scale similar to that being implemented for CBLMON-37. Answering questions such as whether or not reservoir operations limit population size (through reduced juvenile survivorship or fecundity) and habitat use and distribution will begin to address questions around whether or not reservoirs provide suitable habitat for amphibians and reptiles and whether or not these ecosystems are operating within the context of a properly functioning ecosystem. A functioning ecosystem is not restricted to vegetation, but also includes chemical and physical components such as hydrological, soil, wildlife functions, and the interaction of all natural habitat components, including animals (Loreau et al. 2001).

Amphibians There are approximately 6,000 species of amphibians living worldwide that fall into three distinct lineages: apodans (caecilians); caudates (salamanders); and anurans (frogs and


Page 26

toads). All amphibians have moist, glandular, permeable skin lacking scales, which facilitates gas and water exchange, but also makes them susceptible to desiccation (Frost, 1985; Pough et al., 2004). Thus, most species are nocturnal, and either partially or wholly dependent on aquatic habitats to fulfill their life history requirements.

Amphibians can be herbivorous, carnivorous or a combination of both depending on species, life stage, habitat and available food resources. Aquatic larvae feed via suction or suspension feeding, whereas adults have a variety of feeding mechanisms, such as projectile tongues. Most species are generalists and eat a variety of prey taxa.

Many species of amphibians (most frogs and some salamanders) exhibit complex life cycles which include: (1) eggs that are typically laid in water; (2) hatching of eggs into a larval stage of either tadpoles (e.g., frogs and toads) or larvae (e.g., mole salamanders); (3) metamorphosis into juveniles; and (4) growth and maturation into an adult stage. Some species exhibit further specialization in stages of development including paedomorphosis (e.g., reproductive adults that retain larval characteristics). Conversely, many species of terrestrial salamanders (e.g., Plethodontids) lack a larval stage and exhibit direct development with terrestrial eggs hatching directly into juveniles.

Many species of anurans exhibit vocalizations for territorial calls, alarm calls or more commonly for species identification and the attracting of mates (e.g., male frogs). Such vocalizations are commonly used as a locating technique when studying species that have conspicuous calls. Most species of anurans exhibit external fertilization (in BC exceptions include tailed frogs) and often involve courtship or amplexus (e.g., inguinal or pectoral). Some salamanders display external fertilization, but most species exhibit internal fertilization, whereby females pick up spermatophores dropped by males.

Reptiles There are six major groups of ‘reptiles’ (~8,000 extant species), three of which are found in BC: turtles; lizards; and snakes (Pough et al., 2004). In general, reptiles are less dependent on aquatic environments than amphibians, largely due to the development of keratinized scales (e.g., reduces desiccation) and the evolution of the amniotic egg. The evolution of skull structure, jaw kinesis and tongue morphology in reptiles has been hypothesized to be closely linked to diet of a species. Most reptiles are carnivorous (e.g., all snakes, many lizards are insectivores), and only a few are herbivorous (e.g., some adult turtles). Most species are generalists and eat a variety of prey taxa, although specialization does occur.

Reptiles exhibit a wide diversity of life history traits, such as age at sexual maturity, the number of clutched per year, size and number of eggs per clutch and mode of parity. Reptile embryos are all internally fertilized and they do not exhibit complex life cycles. All turtles and most species of lizards and snakes lay eggs (i.e., oviparous or ovoviviparous); young hatch as small versions of adults and do not require any parental care. A few species of lizard and snake are viviparous and give live birth to fully developed offspring. The sex of most reptiles is determined genetically, although many species of turtle exhibit temperature dependent sex determination, whereby sex of the embryo is determined by temperature at which the eggs are incubated.

All reptiles are ectotherms (i.e., cold-blooded); thus, their daily activity patterns and use of habitats is affected not only by the abundance of critical resources (e.g., food, shelter, basking sites), but by temperature (Gibbons and Semlitsch, 1987). In the temperate zone, most reptiles hibernate for the cold season, by going below the frost line underground or in the mud at the bottom of a pond (Gregory, 1982). Some species of


Page 27

snake (e.g., Thamnophis sirtalis) have increased tolerance to low temperatures, and some species of turtle (e.g., Chrysemys picta) have increased resistance to freezing.

4.2 Amphibians and Reptiles in the Columbia Basin The study of life-history variation of animals in their natural surroundings is a fundamental part of wildlife ecology (reviewed in Roff, 1992; Stearns, 1992). Pronounced geographic variation in life-history traits is often present in species with large ranges (Gregory and Larsen, 1993; Sorci et al., 1996), especially when a species’ range extends across different habitat and temperature regimes; these quantitative, variable traits include body size, growth and maturation, clutch size, age- or size-specific mortality rates (Bronikowski and Arnold, 1999; Gregory and Larsen, 1993). Body size influences many aspects of an animal’s ecology and is closely tied to life-history characteristics such as probability of survival and measures of reproductive success (Sauer and Slade, 1987; Barbault, 1988). For example, timing and duration of metamorphosis or growth to a particular body size may determine time to sexual maturation and an animal’s future ability to secure and exploit resources, such as food, space or mates. The widespread occurrence of sexual size dimorphism (SSD) within these groups further suggests that the two sexes often differ in aspects of their life-history strategies because size differences will have different ecological consequences for survival and/or reproductive fitness of males and females (Shine, 1993) Examining the trade-offs between growth and reproduction is an important step towards understanding the various components of a species’ life-history strategy (Stearns, 1989; Shine, 2003) and of the plasticity seen in many species, both within and between populations. Furthermore, studying these trade-offs in the landscape context within which they occur can lead to an increased understanding of how habitat features influence variation and plasticity of life history. Obtaining information on how a particular species or a group of species interacts with its natural environment is fundamental to our understanding of the natural world we live in. Equally as important, or perhaps more so, is understanding how the life history of a given species is affected by human-induced habitat alteration, including the development of reservoirs created by impounding rivers. Understanding how an animal’s ecology is affected by human-altered habitats is integral when developing management strategies that enable animal populations to persist in altered landscapes. The long-term life history study being implemented by CLBMON-37 will evaluate how amphibian and reptile ecology is affected by reservoir operations in the Columbia Region of BC. There are 16 species of amphibians and reptiles that occur in the Columbia Basin, 12 of which (7 species of amphibians and 5 species of reptiles) occur along the impounded waters of the Columbia River. The following sections provide relevant life history and ecological information for each of the species that could occur in study area. Indicate why species are or are not in this list. Western Toad (Anaxyrus (Bufo) boreas) Western Toads are stocky bodied amphibians with short legs, parotoid glands, horizontal pupils, and dry, bumpy skin ranging in colour from beige, green to brown with red spots (Figure 3; BCCDC, 2008a). Adults range in size from 55 to 145mm SUL (snout-urostyle length) with males (60-110mm), on average, smaller in size than females (up to 125mm). During the breeding period, male toads develop enlarged forearms and have a dark pad on their thumbs to aid in grasping females in amplexus. Tadpoles are small and black (25-30mm total length) with square snouts, eyes in from the margins of the head, and narrow tail fins.


Page 28

Figure 3. Two different colour morphs of Western Toads taken at Arrow Lake

Reservoir in 2008. Photos © Krysia Tuttle.

This species is widespread in western North America and toads utilize a variety of terrestrial habitats in BC (found in >80% of province), including forest and woodlands, shrubland/chaparral, mountain meadows, grasslands, old fields, and suburban/orchard areas (Wind and Dupuis, 2002). Toads generally use three different habitats annually: breeding areas (e.g., ponds, marshes, bogs); summer foraging habitat (e.g., aquatic and terrestrial areas); and over-wintering hibernation sites (e.g., ground burrows in upland areas). Toads have been reported to migrate long distances (usually 1-2km, up to 7.5 km) between hibernation sites and breeding ponds (Davis, 2000). Breeding usually occurs early in the spring, but can occur later in the season at higher latitudes. Eggs are small and black, laid singly in long strands in shallow ponds with mud bottoms (Wind and Dupuis, 2002). This species exhibits high site fidelity to natal breeding ponds (Olson, 1992).

Western Toads are explosive breeders and tadpoles often are found in high densities and exhibit rapid development under ideal conditions (e.g., hatch in 3-5 days, metamorphosis within 3 months). Toads typically exhibit metamorphic synchrony (temporal proximity of metamorphosis from the water) and aggregation (spatial proximity of animals) during development (Devito et al., 1998). These behaviours are hypothesized to be either antipredator behaviour (predator satiation or selfish herd effect) or mass exodus from drying ponds to prevent desiccation (Arnold and Wassersug, 1978). Therefore, the rate of development of toad tadpoles is often plastic, varying due to the presence of predators, type of breeding habitat, water temperature, availability or food resources and competition.

Adult toads are dietary generalists and will prey upon many species of invertebrates depending on seasonal availability, including flying insects, earthworms, spiders and ants (Wind and Dupuis, 2002). Tadpoles are herbivorous and eat primarily algae, detritus and aquatic plants. The greatest mortality within Western Toad populations occurs at the tadpole and juvenile stage (Campbell 1970). Both tadpoles and adult toads are preyed upon by garter snakes, birds (e.g., corvids, great blue herons) and mammals (Olson, 1989; Belden et al., 2000). Tadpoles have been shown to metamorphosize earlier in the presence of aquatic predators (e.g., garter snakes; Devito et al., 1998). A study from Oregon reports the predation of small toadlets by adult Oregon Spotted Frogs, but no published records exist yet for the predation of toads by Columbia Spotted Frogs (Pearl and Hayes, 2002). Other sources of mortality include habitat loss, pollution and road kill. High incidences of road mortality are often due to a combination of factors


Page 29

including toad abundance, traffic intensity, and quality of water bodies for breeding (Santos et al., 2008).

Western Toads are yellow list provincially (BC MWLAP, 2002a), and a species of special concern by COSEWIC (2002a). Previous studies of this species have examined population dynamics (Campbell, 1970; Marco et al., 1998; Taylor and Smith, 2003), diet and predation (Samallow, 1980; Livo, 1999), seasonal movements (Bartelt et al., 2004; Schmetterling and Young, 2008), habitat use (Muths, 2003; C. Pazcoski, pers. comm.), as well as management and conservation issues (Corn and Vertucci, 1992; Carey, 1993; Corn, 2000). In BC, there have been several inventories (Adama and Ohanjanian, 2005; Ohanjanian et al., 2006) and studies conducted on this species (Davis, 2000; Hengeveld, 2000; Wind and Dupuis, 2003; Dykstra, 2004; Slough, 2004), including reports on management and conservation (Gyug, 1996; Davis, 2002; Ovaska et al., 2004). Many populations of Western Toads in BC remain stable, while other are showing signs of decline, however, no long-term monitoring has taken place within the province (BCCDC, 2008b). Identified threats may include habitat loss and fragmentation, road mortality, introduced predators (e.g., fish), and disease and parasites.

Columbia Spotted Frog (Lithobates (Rana) luteiventris) Columbia Spotted Frogs are medium-sized ranid frogs (50-100mm), characterized by long hind limbs, visible tympanums, two dorsolateral folds, and round pupils in slightly upward angled eyes (Figure 4; BCCDC, 2008c). Females are larger than males, but both sexes are similarly coloured green to brown with irregular spots on dorsal surface, gut males have reddish legs. Tadpoles are darker green with gold flecks and visible intestines, and are distinguished from toads by their larger size and rounded head shape.

Figure 4. Adult Columbia Spotted Frog (left) and empty egg mass of Columbia

Spotted Frog (right). Photos © Virgil C. Hawkes (left) and Krysia Tuttle (right).

Spotted frogs are widespread, found in forests, grasslands, and high elevation mountain areas throughout BC, Alberta, Yukon, Alaska and the north western United States. These frogs are highly aquatic and rely on a variety of ponds, marshes, streams, and lakes with abundant aquatic and shoreline vegetation for cover (Bull, 2005). Water bodies that do not fully freeze are required for over-wintering, whereas shallower ponds are used more frequently in the active season. Adults will often move between ponds throughout a season and life (up to 6km, but generally within 1km), making this species vulnerable to habitat fragmentation (Bull and Hayes, 2001).

Courtship and breeding takes place early in the spring in shallow ponds (Bull and Shepherd, 2003). Males have weak calls and are not as conspicuous as other species


Page 30

(e.g., Pacific Tree Frogs). Up to 1500 eggs are laid in shallow water (30-300mm) as a free-floating, spherical jelly cluster. Tadpoles may metamorphosize in the same summer as eggs or may over-winter depending on local conditions. Tadpoles eat algae and aquatic detritus, where as juvenile and adult diets include aquatic insects, snails, crustaceans and spiders. Predators of adult frogs include Great Blue Herons, River Otters, garter snakes and fish.

Columbia Spotted Frogs are yellow listed in BC, and are not currently of conservation concern because of their widespread distribution and the amount of available ecological information for this species (BC MWLA 2002b). Previous studies of this species have examined population structure (Reaser, 2000; Engle, 2001; Funk et al., 2005b), diet (Bull, 2003), seasonal movements (Bull and Hayes, 2001; Pilliod et al., 2002; Funk et al., 2005a), hibernation sites (Blomquist and Tull, 2002; Bull and Hayes, 2002), habitat use (Munger et al., 1998; Welch and MacMahon, 2005), and management and conservation of this species (James, 1998; Loeffler, 2001; Olson et al., 2007). In BC, there have few studies conducted on this species (Ovaska et al., 2004; Ohanjanian et al., 2006).

Wood Frog (Lithobates (Rana) sylvatica) Wood Frogs are medium-sized, slender-bodied amphibians with long barred legs, visible tympanums, dorso-lateral folds, and a black mask covering the eye and tympanum (Clark, 1998). They range in colour from light beige to dark brown and sometimes have a bright white stripe running down the centre of the back (Figure 5; BCCDC, 2008). Adults range in size from 35 to 55mm SUL (snout-urostyle length) with males on average, smaller in size than females (Mazerolle, 2001; Matsuda et al., 2006). During the breeding period, male frogs develop nuptial pads to aid in grasping females in amplexus and have paired vocal sacs. Tadpoles are grey, brown or black, hatch at about 7-10 mm and can grow up to 50 mm long. They have short, round with short snouts, widely spaced eyes, and high, long tail fins.

This species is the most widespread frog in North America and uses a variety of terrestrial habitats in BC (found in >80% of province), including damp forests and woodlands, grasslands, and muskegs (Matsuda et al., 2006). It is the only frog species that occur within the Arctic Circle and has special cold-tolerance adaptations to contend with freezing temperatures (e.g. tolerates being frozen being increasing glucose levels in the blood). Wood frogs generally use three different habitats annually: breeding areas (e.g., ponds, marshes, bogs); summer foraging habitat (e.g., aquatic and terrestrial areas); and over-wintering hibernation sites (e.g., in forest litter). Adults may migrate up to several hundred metres between breeding ponds and winter sites (Vasconcelos and Calhoun, 2004).

Breeding usually occurs early in the spring, often before the ice is melted from the pond surface. Males arrive at pond first and remain calling in breeding congregation for 2-3 weeks. Small eggs (1.6 mm) are laid in a globular mass of 40-1500 eggs in shallow ponds either free-floating or attached to submerged sticks (Guttman et al., 1991). This species exhibits high site fidelity to natal breeding ponds (Berven and Grudzien, 1991). Wood Frogs are explosive breeders and tadpoles often are found in high densities and exhibit rapid development under ideal conditions (e.g., hatch in 1-2 weeks, metamorphosis by mid-summer; Biesterfeldt et al., 1993; Regosin et al., 2003).

Wood frogs are chiefly diurnal and spend time foraging both within ponds and in terrestrial areas surrounding the ponds. Adult frogs eat mainly insects and other invertebrates depending on seasonal availability (Matsuda et al., 2006). Tadpoles are herbivorous and eat primarily algae, detritus and aquatic plants (Petranka et al, 1994;


Page 31

Petranka and Kennedy, 1999). Both tadpoles and adult frogs are preyed upon by garter snakes, birds (e.g., corvids, great blue herons) and mammals (Russell and Bauer, 2000)

Figure 5. Adult Wood Frog (left) and tadpole (right). Photos: © Virgil C. Hawkes.

Breeding usually occurs early in the spring, often before the ice is melted from the pond surface. Males arrive at pond first and remain calling in breeding congregation for 2-3 weeks. Small eggs (1.6 mm) are laid in a globular mass of 40-1500 eggs in shallow ponds either free-floating or attached to submerged sticks (Guttman et al., 1991). This species exhibits high site fidelity to natal breeding ponds (Berven and Grudzien, 1991). Wood Frogs are explosive breeders and tadpoles often are found in high densities and exhibit rapid development under ideal conditions (e.g., hatch in 1-2 weeks, metamorphosis by mid-summer; Biesterfeldt et al., 1993; Regosin et al., 2003).

Wood Frogs are yellow-listed provincially (BC-MWLAP, 2002), and currently have no COSEWIC status, as they are widespread throughout northern BC and North America. Previous studies of this species have examined population dynamics (Squire and Newman, 2002), seasonal movements and habitat use (Heatwole, 1961; Berven and Grudzien, 1991; Guttman et al., 1991; Hopey and Petranka, 1994; Vasconcelos and Calhoun 2004), and reproduction (Berven, 1988; Berven and Chandra, 1988; Regosin et al. 2003). In BC, there have been very few inventories or studies of Wood Frogs (Ovaska et al., 2004; Ohanjanian et al., 2006) and most reports are incidental observations from other studies. For example, at Bush Arm (north of Golden BC) Wood Frogs were reported by Ohanjanian and Teske (1996) and tadpoles were observed in 2005 (Ohanjanian et al., 2006). Most populations of Wood Frogs in the province are likely to be stable, however, no long-term monitoring has taken place within the province as of yet (BCCDC, 2008). Possible threats to Wood Frog populations may include habitat loss and fragmentation, road mortality, introduced predators (e.g., fish), and disease and parasites.

Pacific Treefrog (Hyla regilla) Pacific Treefrogs (Hyla regilla or Pseudacris regilla) are small frogs (25-50mm) with long hind limbs, toe pads and a dark eye stripe from nose to shoulder (Figure 6; BCCDC, 2008d). Females are larger than males, but both sexes are similarly coloured green to brown with irregular spots or stripes on dorsal surface. Males have darker throats during breeding season. Tadpoles are greenish-grey with iridescence, visible intestines and high tail fins (Matsuda et al., 2006). Treefrogs are widespread in southern BC, introduced to the Queen Charlotte Islands, and occur along the US Pacific Coast into Mexico. This species is found in a wide variety of habitats: grassland; chaparral; woodland; forests; and farmland, usually among low vegetation near water. Pacific


Page 32

Treefrogs breed in marshes, lakes, ponds, ditches, reservoirs and slow-moving streams (Stebbins, 1985), with large choruses of males actively calling to females (Brenowitz and Rose, 1999). Females lay eggs (20-80 in loose clusters) on submerged plant stems. Females will lay multiple clutches per season, and tadpoles metamorphosize in the same year as hatching.

Figure 6. Colour variation in the Pacific Treefrog. Photos © Virgil C. Hawkes.

Adult treefrogs eat a variety of crawling and flying insects using projectile tongues. Tadpoles are herbivores eating algae, diatoms and benthic detritus. Predators of treefrogs include garter snakes, birds, bullfrogs, fish and small mammals.

Pacific Treefrogs are yellow listed in BC, and due to their abundance are not currently of conservation concern (BC MWLA 2002c; BCCDC 2008d). Previous studies of this species have examined reproduction and calling behaviour (Schaub and Larsen, 1978; Perrill and Daniel, 1983; Brenowitz and Rose, 1999), habitat use (Morey, 1990; Munger et al., 1998), and diet (Kupferberg et al., 1994). In BC, there have very few inventories or studies conducted on this species (Reimchen, 1990; Ovaska et al., 2004; Astley, 2005; Ohanjanian et al., 2006). Threats to the species include general threats to most amphibians such as introduced predators, habitat destruction, and chemical pollution of water bodies used for breeding. None of these have had significant impact on the species to date (Astley, 2005).

Long-toed Salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum) Three of the five subspecies of Long-toed Salamander occur in BC; the Northern Long-toed Salamander (A. m. krausei) occurs in the Rocky Mountain region (Matsuda et al., 2006; BCCDC 2008e). Adult Long-toed Salamanders are long and slender bodied (100-200mm), with brown or dark green glossy skin, usually with a blotched yellow-green dorsal stripe. Aquatic larvae (up to 7.5 cm long) are light olive-grey to brownish grey, with a large head and large external gills (Figure 7). It is difficult to distinguish males from females, although males have longer tails and enlarged vents.

Long-toed salamanders are habitat generalists and found in many forests, woodlands, riparian areas and grasslands throughout the province, in southeastern Alaska, and down the coast to California. They are commonly found in ponds, marshes, and along major river valleys, including high elevation areas (Funk and Dunlap, 1999). Adults spend much of their time under cover (e.g., logs, rocks, underground), but will emerge in search of food at night or in damp conditions. Adults eat a variety of invertebrates including snails and worms, while larvae feed on all aquatic invertebrate small enough to be ingested (Fukumoto 1995; Powell et al., 1997). Predators of Long-toed Salamanders are garter snakes and Bullfrogs, as well as aquatic insects on larval stages.


Page 33

Figure 7. Long-toed Salamander juvenile (left) and larva (right). Photos ©

Krysia Tuttle.

Winter hibernation aggregations are located under ground below the frost line; hibernation sites are often associated with root systems or other crevasses. Although some salamanders travel up to 900 m, most remain within several hundred metres of the nearest pond (Graham, 1997). Breeding occurs in the very early spring, often while ice is still upon the pond surface. Males arrive at the pond before females, courtship occurs in the water and females leave within a few days, whereas males may remain for a few weeks (Verrell, 2001, 2006). Fertilization is internal via spermatophore, and females lay up to 60 eggs either singly or in small clumps attached to submerged vegetation. Hatching occurs in a couple of weeks and larvae metamorphosize that year or the following depending on resources.

Long-toed Salamanders are yellow listed in BC, and due to their abundance are not currently of conservation concern (BCCDC 2008e). Previous studies of this species have examined population dynamics (Howard and Wallace, 1985; Russell et al., 1996; Wildy et al., 1991; Verrell et al., 2001), habitat use (Beneski et al., 1986; Graham, 1997; Funk and Dunlap, 1999; Hoffman et al., 2003), and diet (Anderson, 1968). In BC, there have very few inventories or studies conducted on this species (Ovaska et al., 2004; Ohanjanian et al., 2006). Threats to the long-toed salamander in Canada that have caused or have potential to cause population declines include: predation by introduced bullfrogs and fish, road mortality, habitat degradation caused by forestry and ATV use, habitat destruction, chemical pollution, and UV radiation (Tyler et al., 1998; Belden et al., 2000; COSEWIC 2005b).

Coeur d’Alene Salamander (Plethodon idahoensis) Adult Coeur d’Alene Salamanders are small salamanders, with long and slender bodies, (50-120mm), slightly webbed toes, parotoid glands and nasiolabial groove. Females are slightly larger than males, but otherwise the sexes are similar in brown or black glossy skin, with a yellow, orange, or red dorsal stripe, and a yellow throat patch.

This small lungless salamander has a restricted range and is found only in Idaho, and parts of Montana and southeastern British Columbia (Wilson et al., 1989, 1997; Cassirer et al., 2004; Matsuda et al., 2006). Coeur d’Alene Salamanders are currently found in only a narrow portion of BC (~ 20 locations), between Kootenay Lake and the Purcell mountains, and in the Columbia Valley (up to north of Revelstoke; Wilson and Ohanjanian, 2002; J. Hobbs, pers. comm.).


Page 34

Coeur d’Alene Salamanders inhabit a relatively specialized habitat type throughout their distribution, including wet, shaded, rocky seepages or riparian stream-sides in coniferous forests. Plethodontid salamanders respire through their skin; and are therefore restricted to cool, damp environments for oxygen transfer across moist skin to occur. Most of the surface activity for this species is during the spring and fall, but they also may be active in summer at waterfall sites or if habitat conditions are moist. To avoid desiccation in summer and freezing in winter, these salamanders spend much of the year underground (up to seven months), typically in cool, moist spaces between rocks. In BC Coeur d’Alene Salamanders have been found in steep gradient springs or seeps, waterfall splash zones, rock walls or caves with seepages, deep, wet talus, moist avalanche paths, as well as edges of streams and in riparian vegetation (Ohanjanian, 1996-2000; Hobbs, pers. comm.).

Coeur d’Alene salamanders are nocturnal, and come above ground feed primarily on insects and other invertebrates (Wilson and Larsen, 1988) within the moist spray zones, seeps, or streamside rocks and vegetation. Courtship and reproduction also occurs at the surface, typically during the early spring (Lynch, 1984; Matsuda et al., 2006). Males deposit a spermatophore on the ground and the female picks it up with her cloaca for internal fertilization. Females can store sperm for up to 9 months, and then lays 4-12 eggs (milky white in colour) in rocky crevices. Larvae (up to 35mm long) exhibit direct development and hatch looking like miniature adults.

Due to its restricted distribution in the province and its sensitivity to disturbance in the hydrology at occurrence sites, the Coeur d’Alene Salamander is provincially blue-listed and federally a species of special concern (COSEWIC, 2007). Threats these animals are largely due to habitat loss and disturbances (e.g., hydrology alterations via forestry practices or road development). Within BC several inventories have been conducted on this species, largely documenting locations and habitat descriptions (Ohanjanian and Teske, 1996; Ohanjanian, 1997-2001; Dupuis and Ohanjanian, 1998; Dulisse, 1999; D'Eon and L. Larson, 2007a, 2007b).

Western Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta) The Western Painted Turtle (C. p. bellii) is the largest subspecies of painted turtle, and is widely distributed throughout North America (Matsuda et al., 2006; BCCDC, 2008f). Characteristics of these turtle include an external shell housing the body (e.g., brown to grey coloured carapaces and brightly red coloured plastrons, 200-250mm;Figure 8), yellow striped necks and legs, clawed webbed feet, sexual size dimorphism with females on average being larger than males, temperature-dependent sex determination; delayed reproduction; and longevity.

These are aquatic turtles found in ponds, marshes and streams with muddy bottoms and emergent aquatic vegetation. Turtles spend most of the time in water (e.g., feeding, mating, sleeping, etc.), but due to thermoregulatory requirements will often bask in large aggregations on logs, mudbanks or rocks during sunny days (Krawchuk and Brooks, 1999). Painted turtles usually hibernate at the bottom of ponds from October to March, depending on water temperature (St. Clair and Gregory, 1990). Adult turtles are omnivorous, eating a variety of plants, insects and small vertebrates. Juveniles are completely carnivorous, with small invertebrates making up the bulk of their diet. Predators of Painted Turtles include Great Blue Herons, corvids, and Coyotes.


Page 35

Figure 8. Western Painted Turtles; left photo of large female and smaller individual

(sex unknown); right photo shows typical plastron coloration and pattern in these turtles. Photos © Krysia Tuttle.

Mating occurs in the spring and is the only time where this species shows aggression towards conspecifics. Nest digging and egg laying occur terrestrially by females beginning in late June. Nests are shallow, flask-shaped holes, usually positioned on south-facing hillsides within 150m of a pond. Females begin breeding at age 3-4 and have clutches of between 6-22 eggs. Eggs are covered by soil and are considered the most critical stage of life for these turtles due to frequent nest predation. Hatching occurs in late summer, although hatchlings (25mm) usually over-winter in nest and emerge in the spring of the following year.

Western Painted Turtles are found in only four regions of the province: Vancouver Island; Fraser Delta; Okanagan Valley; and in the Kootenays. This species is provincially blue-listed and designated as a species of special concern (COSEWIC), as they are the only remaining native turtle left in BC and are threatened by habitat loss and other anthropogenic disturbances (St. Clair et al., 1994; Blood and Macartney, 1998). Previous studies of this species have examined population and reproductive strategies (Mitchell, 1988; Iverson, 1991; Iverson and Smith, 1993; Lindeman, 1991, 1996) and habitat use in northern environments (Peterson, 1987; Churchill and Storey, 1991; Packard and Packard, 1995; Koper and Brooks, 2000) and diet (Cooley et al., 2003); however most studies were conducted in the 1980s and 1990s. In BC, there have several inventories and studies conducted on this species (St. Clair and Gregory, 1990; Blood and Macartney, 1998; Maltby, 2000a, 2000b; Clark and Gruenig, 2001; Ovaska et al., 2004;).

Common Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) The Common Garter Snake is a medium-sized, diurnal snake, with several recognized subspecies found throughout North America (Common Red-sided subspecies in B.C., T. sirtalis parietalis; Rossman et al., 1996; BCCDC, 2008g). Male and female snakes are dark bodied with three distinct yellow dorsal/lateral stripes and generally have red hatching or bars along their sides (Figure 9). These snakes range in size from under 200mm when born to over a metre in length when adult (Matsuda et al., 2006). Males are smaller in head dimensions and body size than females, although they have longer tails relative to body length. Such sexual dimorphism has been attributed to reproductive investment in females, as fecundity increased with body size.


Page 36

Figure 9. Common Red-sided Garter Snakes; left photo of a large female (> 1m) with

a Western Toad in her stomach; right photo of a neonate (<200 mm) born in July 2008. Photos © Krysia Tuttle.

Reproduction occurs in the spring (usually end of April – early May) in the vicinity of the den site. Males emerge first and wait to court females, and both sexes may have multiple pairings each year. Females usually start to reproduce in their third year, and may have litters every one to three years, depending on resources. Females carry developing eggs (16-35, max. 85) for 12-16 weeks, and young are born from mid-July through to early September.

These snakes have a broad habitat preference, found in grasslands, forests and are commonly associated with aquatic environments (e.g., wetlands, ponds, marshes, river valleys). Northern populations of this species are noteworthy for their communal hibernation behaviour and the extensive migrations (up to 15 km) they make between summer wetland habitats and winter den sites (Gregory, 1977a). Winter den sites are usually rock sinks or mammal burrows that allow snakes to get below freezing winter temperatures (Shine et al., 2001).

Adult snakes are dietary generalists and will prey upon many different species, including earthworms, frogs, toads, fish, fledgling birds and occasionally small mammals, depending on seasonal availability of prey and location. Young snakes feed directly after birth, and are more restricted in diet due to gap-limitations, eating primarily small worms and recently metamorphosized frogs. These snakes tend to occupy areas of high prey density, thus their habitat selection is often correlated with habitat selection by their prey (Reinert, 1993). Both young snakes and adults are preyed upon mainly by birds (e.g., corvids, great blue herons, hawks) and occasionally by mammals.

Common Garter Snakes are the most widespread and northerly occurring species of garter snake, ranging from the southern U.S. to slightly north of 60 degrees latitude in the Northwest Territories (Larsen, 1986). Because of this wide distribution and the species’ frequent local abundance, most research on the ecology and life history of high-latitude temperate-zone garter snakes have focused on this species (Fitch, 1965; Gregory 1977; Larsen, 1986). There have been several studies within BC on this species including body size, food habits (Gregory, 1984; Gregory and Nelson, 1991), defensive behaviours (Isaac, current PhD research 2008), and hibernation (Macartney et al., 1989). Common Garter Snakes are yellow-listed in BC and not at great risk for population decline as long as hibernation sites and marsh areas for foraging are available.


Page 37

Western Terrestrial Garter Snake (Thamnophis elegans) There are two subspecies of the Western Terrestrial Garter Snake occurring in BC, of which the Wandering Garter Snake (Thamnophis elegans vagrans) occurs in the Columbia Basin and Kootenay regions (BCCDC, 2008h). Western Terrestrial Garter Snakes are very similar to Common Garter Snakes in morphology; both species are similar in body size (T. elegans generally under a metre, T. sirtalis reaches larger maximum sizes), although T. elegans usually has a larger head relative to neck size and is usually dusty brown to beige in dorsal body colour, with a wavy yellow dorsal line, lined by two rows of dark spots (Figure 10; Rossman et al., 1996).

Figure 10. Western Terrestrial Garter Snakes observed at Arrow Lake Reservoir 2008.

Photos © Krysia Tuttle.

Western Terrestrial Garter Snakes are similar to Common Garter Snakes in many habits and life history traits (e.g., body size, reproduction). Mating occurs in the spring and females give birth to between 1-20 live young in mid to late summer. These snakes often hibernate communally with conspecifics and occasionally with other species, depending on the availability of over-wintering sites.

This species is commonly found in sympatry with Common Garter Snakes, and it is generally regarded as being more of an aquatic snake. Habitats within which these snakes occur include marshes, streams, fields and forests. Western Terrestrial Garter Snakes are generalist foragers and commonly include worms, slugs, leeches, frogs, small mammals, birds, and fish in their diets (Jennings et al., 1992; Matthews et al., 2002). In coastal and freshwater riparian areas large snakes will often be quite piscivorous (i.e., fish eating).

This species is yellow-listed in BC and not at great risk for population decline as long as hibernation sites and foraging areas are available. There have been several studies within BC on Western Terrestrial Garter Snakes including body size (Farr and Gregory, 1991), reproduction (Charland, 1995; Gregory and Skebo, 1998), food habits (Gregory 1984; Gregory et al., 1990), population dynamics (Waye, 1999), defensive behaviours (Gregory and Gregory, 2006), habitat use (Charland and Gregory, 1995; Engelstoft and Ovaska, 2000), and defensive behaviours (Isaac, pers. comm. 2008).

Rubber Boa (Charina bottae) The Rubber Boas are medium-sized, heavy-bodied snakes with a short and blunt tails, and round heads with tiny vertical pupils (BCCDC, 2008), and they get their name from the rubbery appearance of the skin (Figure 11). Male and female snakes are uniformly dark brown coloured on their dorsum, and light yellow on their ventral surface. These snakes range in size from 180 mm when born to 800 mm when adult (Matsuda et al.,


Page 38

2006). Males are smaller in body size than females, and may have tiny spurs in pits on either side of the vent used during copulation.

Figure 11. Juvenile Rubber Boa (left) and adult (right) captured near Vernon BC.


Rubber Boas are found only in northwestern North America, from southern British Columbia south to eastern and coastal California, east to Montana and Wyoming. They occur in the valleys of the southern interior BC, north to the Chilcotin region and east to the southern Rocky Mountain Trench, as well as on the southwest mainland coast (lower Fraser Valley). Most records are from the Okanagan Valley and other warm, dry interior valleys along the USA-Canada border (Nussbaum and Hoyer, 1974; COSEWIC, 2003). Due to their habitat preferences for forested areas with an abundance of cover, the likelihood of encountering them in the drawdown zone of the Arrow Lakes Reservoir is low.

Rubber Boas inhabit a relatively wide range of habitat types throughout their distribution, including forests, clearings, riparian areas, grasslands, and even disturbed areas (COSEWIC, 2003; Matsuda et al., 2006). It is primarily a nocturnal species and spends daylight hours in burrows and rock crevices or beneath cover objects such as rocks or logs (Stebbins, 2003; Matsuda et al., 2006). The presence of coarse woody debris, crevices, burrows, and other sources of cover appears to be one of the most critical habitat components for this species (COSEWIC, 2003). Artificial cover objects, such as plywood, have been shown to be more attractive to Rubber Boas than natural cover objects (COSEWIC, 2003).

Aspects of the home range and dispersal distance of the Rubber Boa are very poorly understood. It is possible that it undergoes short-distance migrations to and from suitable hibernacula at higher elevations, but this is somewhat speculative (Morey and Basey, 2002; St. Clair and Dibb, 2004).

The reproductive behaviour of this snake is also very poorly known (Matsuda et al., 2006). Mating occurs in the early spring (March-May) following emergence from winter dens (COSEWIC, 2003). Females give birth to live young (2 to 8 young per litter) in the early autumn (August-September) following mating in the spring (COSEWIC, 2003; Matsuda et al., 2006). Reproductive capacity appears to be relatively low based on the small number of juvenile individuals (~10% of all animals detected) present in some populations (COSEWIC, 2003). This snake is long-lived and may reach 40 or 50 years of age in nature (Stebbins, 2003).

Insects, terrestrial gastropods (snails), and immature small mammals (pocket gophers, mice, shrews.) comprise the bulk of the diet of this snake (Dorcas et al., 1997; COSEWIC, 2003). Its sluggish demeanour prevents it from preying on most adult


Page 39

animals, so it tends to prey on young animals before they leave the nest (COSEWIC, 2003; Matsuda et al., 2006). The Rubber Boa also feeds on lizards, salamanders, eggs, bats, baby rabbits, and small birds (COSEWIC, 2003). This species is a constrictor, and kills its prey through suffocation or heart failure associated with this constriction (Matsuda et al., 2006). It is an accomplished swimmer and climber, although these behaviours are rarely observed, and can burrow into loose soils in search of prey (Stebbins, 2003).

Rubber Boas are preyed upon by birds such as Common Ravens (Corvus corax), owls, and Red-tailed Hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), as well as carnivorous mammals such as Striped Skunks (Mephitis mephitis) and Raccoons (Procyon lotor; Morey and Basey, 2002; COSEWIC, 2003). Its nocturnal habits prevent it from being predated on by most diurnal birds; however, because it tends to rest on warm roads during the night, Rubber Boas are often the victim of vehicle-related mortality (Figure 11; COSEWIC, 2003).

Although provincially yellow-listed, the Rubber Boa is federally listed as a species of special concern, likely due to it being a long-lived species with a slow maturation rate and small litter size, making it slow to recover from population-level disturbances (COSEWIC, 2003). The relatively short summers may prevent some pregnant females from receiving sufficient warmth to complete the development of their embryos during cool years (COSEWIC, 2003), further reducing its ability to reduce or reverse population declines. Among documented threats to this species are the removal of forest floor woody debris by forest managers and mortality associated with roads and vehicles (COSEWIC, 2003). Several studies have examined Rubber boas in BC, including examining aspects of their life history, diet, habitat use and thermal biology (Hoyer and Stewart, 2000; St. Clair and Dibb, 2004).

Western Skink (Eumeces skiltonianus) Western Skinks are small lizards (80 mm SVL), with short legs, long, slender bodies, and pointed heads (Figure 12; BCCDC, 2008). Individuals have three broad stripes (brown bordered with white) on their dorsal surface and intense blue or grey-coloured tails, depending on age of the individual. Hatchling (25mm) and juvenile skinks look similar to adults, with the exception of having a bright blue tails. Males have darker reddish-orange throat patches during breeding periods (Rutherford and Gregory, 2003). Skinks can autotomize their tails in response to predator threats and will regenerate tails within several months.

Western Skinks are widespread throughout much of the dry western United States, from Washington, Oregon, and California and east to western Montana, Idaho, Utah, and northern Arizona. Southernmost populations are in Baja California, Mexico, while the northernmost populations extend into southern British Columbia. In BC, this species occurs in the dry southern interior, in the Okanagan and Similkameen Valleys, and east through the Boundary and West Kootenay regions to Creston Valley (Dulisse, 2004, 2006). The northernmost extent of the species’ range in B.C. is the central Okanagan Valley (Kelowna area) and Balfour in the West Kootenays, although COSEWIC (2002) indicates that a population also resides in the Shuswap Lake area near Salmon Arm. Skinks have also been observed to occupy rock areas of the drawdown zone at the southern tip of Arrow Lakes Reservoir (J. Dulisse, pers. comm.).


Page 40

Figure 12. Adult Western Skink (left) and typical habitat for this species (right), near

Trail, BC. 27 May 2008. Photos © Krysia Tuttle.

The Western Skink is most common in lightly wooded and grassland habitats where there is an abundance of woody debris, rocks, leaf litter, and vegetation (Ortega and Pearson, 2001; Dulisse, 2004). It is also frequently encountered along river banks (COSEWIC 2002; Matsuda et al. 2006). Skinks are commonly associated with talus (COSEWIC, 2002) or habitats with abundant herbaceous cover. In B.C., locations supporting Western Skinks typically have a warm, southerly aspect (COSEWIC, 2002) or are in otherwise sunny areas (e.g., forest breaks; Stebbins, 2003). They are commonly found basking in open, rocky areas and are quite fast moving and secretive. Their range overlaps with the yellow listed Northern Alligator Lizards and both species are often found in the same wintering dens and summer habitats (Rutherford and Gregory, 2003).

This species is active mostly during daylight hours (Stebbins, 2003). Western Skinks do not likely undergo any significant migrations during the year and typically remain within a relatively small area (Rutherford and Gregory, 2001). Above-ground movements appear to be most frequent during the summer when herbaceous vegetation provides maximum cover (COSEWIC, 2002). Mating occurs in the spring (May-June) and eggs are laid in early summer (June-July); clutch size ranges from 2 to 6 eggs (COSEWIC, 2002; Matsuda et al., 2006). The eggs are laid in excavated depressions in the soil beneath rocks or other cover objects and are often tended by the female until hatching (COSEWIC, 2002; Matsuda et al., 2006). Once the eggs hatch in late summer (July-August), the young quickly disperse from the nest (Matsuda et al., 2006).

The Western Skink forages almost entirely on small invertebrates, including insects, spiders, and isopods (COSEWIC, 2002). Insects such as grasshoppers, ants, moths, beetles, caterpillars, and crickets form the bulk of its diet, and it will even consume insect eggs on occasion (COSEWIC, 2002). A wide variety of bird, mammal, and snake species likely predate Western Skinks in British Columbia (COSEWIC, 2002). The documented predators of this species in B.C. include Western Rattlesnake, Western Garter Snake (Thamnophis elegans), Racer, and Rubber Boa (COSEWIC, 2002). It is also likely preyed upon by small mammalian carnivores (foxes, skunks, etc.) and perhaps predatory birds (hawks, crows, ravens, etc.).

Western Skinks are provincially blue-listed and a species of special concern (Ovaska and Engelstoft, 2002). Several studies have examined Western Skinks in BC, likely due to their specific habitat requirements and restricted distribution within Canada (Rutherford and Gregory, 2001; Dulisse, 2004, 2006). The established populations of


Page 41

Skinks appear to be relatively secure in British Columbia, but, because these populations are at the northern limit of the species’ range, they may be susceptible to declines during years of excessive cold weather. These climatic conditions limit the amount of suitable habitat that is available for this species, restricting it to warm, usually south-facing aspects (COSEWIC, 2002). Habitat fragmentation may also impact this species by reducing its ability to re-colonize areas that have seen population declines. This may be particularly important for the Western Skink because it is known to undergo large annual fluctuations in numbers (COSEWIC, 2002) that could lead to the local extirpation of some smaller populations. Without recruitment capabilities from larger nearby populations, this could impact the overall capacity for this species to persist in a particular region.

Northern Alligator Lizard (Elgaria coerulea) Northern Alligator Lizards are small lizards (max. 200mm), with short legs, long brown coloured bodies, a lateral fold of skin and triangular shaped heads (Figure 13; BCCDC, 2008i). Females are larger than males (Stewart, 1985; Rutherford, 2004). Alligator lizards can autotomize their tails in response to predator threats and will regenerate tails within several months. Predators of this species include snakes, Northern Shrikes, corvids, and hawks. They are quite fast moving and secretive as a species, but are commonly found basking in open, rocky areas.

Figure 13. Northern Alligator Lizards; photo of adult with visible lateral line on left;

photo of gravid female with regenerated tail giving birth on right. Photos © Krysia Tuttle.

Mating occurs in the spring and females give birth to between 4-6 live young (25-30mm) in late summer. These lizards will hibernate communally with conspecifics and occasionally with other species, depending on the availability of over-wintering sites (e.g., rocky crevices). These lizards occur in the Pacific northwestern region of North America, from BC to California, and are found only in southern parts of BC (Vindum and Arnold, 1997). These lizards are adapted to wetter climates, and can be found in forests, grasslands, and riparian zones, and typically require a significant amount of rock related cover (e.g., talus slopes). Adults and juveniles are insectivores, eating a variety of beetles, caterpillars, scorpions, grasshoppers, spiders and millipedes.

Only a couple of studies have examined Northern Alligator Lizards in BC, likely due to their widespread distribution and yellow-listed status compared to other species (Rutherford, 2000; Rutherford and Gregory, 2001). Their range overlaps with the blue-listed Western Skink and are often found in the same wintering dens and summer habitats (Rutherford and Gregory, 2003). On Vancouver Island, populations of Northern


Page 42

Alligator Lizards are potentially negatively influenced by the introduced European Wall Lizard (Podarcis muralis) through competition for space and food resources (Allan et al., 2006).

4.3 Wildlife-Habitat Relationships Studies of habitat use and movement patterns are two fundamental areas of research in wildlife ecology. The environment is often described as a patchwork of habitats, within which organisms are constrained to particular areas in which they must procure specific resources in order to gain nourishment, grow and reproduce (Morris, 2003). Habitat has been broadly defined as the resources and conditions of a given landscape (Hall et al., 1997). Heterogeneity of the landscape and varying resources are precursors for habitat selection, a process by which an animal preferentially occupies a non-random area and set of conditions (Morris, 2003). More recently, studies of habitat selection have looked at the comparison of what aspects of habitat an animal uses compared to what is available in the greater landscape (Manly et al., 2002). This can occur at several different scales (Johnson, 1980), and ideally a study would examine habitat use at both coarse and fine scales.

Many studies also examine the movements of animals through different habitats as a tool to predict use over time (Gregory et al., 1987). Animals presumably move in response to resource variation across the landscape (Dingle, 1980). For many species this information is lacking, and in order to manage and conserve species, it is crucial to understand the variation that occurs between individuals, populations and species’ use of habitats and movement patterns. The results from habitat and movement studies are important firstly, to predict animal occurrence, temporally and seasonally, secondly, to highlight life history strategies of animals based on the trade-offs they are faced with, and thirdly, to help to mitigate the increasing anthropogenic effects on wildlife and habitat.

Habitat preference, selection and use have been studied in detail for a number of amphibian and reptile species. The analysis of habitat use for this group can be highly reliable, because of the close association between habitat use and physiological condition (Reinert, 1993). Amphibians and reptiles are ectotherms; thus, their use of habitats is affected not only by the abundance of critical resources (e.g. food, shelter, breeding and basking sites), but also by temperature (Gibbons and Semlitsch, 1987; Huey, 1982). This is especially true in the temperate zone, where seasonal temperature variation can be extreme. In such environments, winter is a particular challenge and animals need to find over-wintering sites that provide access to sites below the frost level (Fitch 1965; Gregory, 1982; Gregory, 1984b; Macartney et al., 1989). In summer, by contrast, animals require habitats that provide adequate food, cover, and appropriate conditions for breeding (Charland & Gregory, 1995; Blouin-Demers & Weatherhead, 2001). For some species, hibernation sites, breeding grounds and summer foraging sites are located in widely separated areas, thus requiring animals to undertake seasonal movements between them (Gregory & Stewart, 1975). The use and selection of optimum habitats improves individual performance and fitness, thus, studying use of habitat within a landscape is essential to understanding demographic processes and a population’s conservation needs.

AMPHIBIANS – For most amphibians, use of habitat is largely affected by the availability of water or moisture. Amphibians (e.g., salamanders, frogs, and toads) inhabit a variety of permanent or temporary aquatic habitats including ponds, streams, rivers or wetlands, with many species depending on aquatic environments to fulfill their life-history needs (e.g., growth, reproduction and survival; Stebbins and Cohen, 1995;


Page 43

Hecnar, 1997; Hawkes, 2007). These aquatic environments can often be a limiting factor in the distribution and abundance of a species.

For amphibian species with complex life cycles, mating, egg deposition, and embryo development occur in aquatic habitats. Free-swimming larvae depend on aquatic environments for growth (e.g., food resources) and survival prior to metamorphosis. Some larvae over-winter in ponds prior to metamorphosis and require permanent water sources for several years. Additionally, some species continue to require aquatic habitats throughout their lives for foraging activities, hibernation, thermoregulation, moisture acquisition or protection from predators.

Ephemeral ponds (i.e., vernal ponds) are temporary bodies of water that are dry for most of the year, filling naturally from precipitation (e.g., snow melt, seasonal rains) or anthropogenically from agricultural or hydrology-related activities. Several species of amphibians, known as explosive breeders2, commonly use ephemeral ponds for reproduction (Wiggins et al., 1980; Pechmann et al., 1989). Ephemeral ponds are stressful environments for organisms to exist within, as they are particularly susceptible to the accumulation of nitrogen compounds, and experience high biomass, increased vegetation growth, increased temperature, decreased dissolved oxygen levels, and increased chemical concentration via evaporation rate of water and low dilution rate (Kadlec and Bevis, 1996). Such species are often tolerant of more extreme aqueous conditions such as increased thermal regime, ion concentrations and altered pH levels.

For amphibian species that rely on these temporary ponds, growth during the larval stage is an important life history variable and indicative of lifetime fitness. Individuals that are larger at metamorphosis have increased survivorship and reproductive success than individuals that metamorphose at smaller sizes; thus, growth to a large size before metamorphosis is favoured (Smith, 1987). As temporary ponds experience variable water levels associated with rainfall and drying rate, crowding, and resource limitation, favourable pond conditions are an important environmental component in amphibian population sizes and viability (Scott, 1994).

REPTILES – Reptiles have been shown to select habitats based on both intrinsic factors, such as body size and reproductive condition (Reinert, 1993), and extrinsic factors such as distribution of prey (Reinert 1993; Blouin-Demers and Weatherhead, 2001), hibernation sites (Reinert, 1993), temperature (Huey, 1982; Row and Blouin-Demers, 2006) and moisture (Drummond, 1983). However, unlike amphibians, egg deposition and birthing in reptiles occurs entirely within the terrestrial landscape. Therefore, even if a particular reptile species (pond turtles and aquatic snakes) spends a significant portion of their year or life in aquatic environments, foraging, thermoregulating, seeking shelter or hibernating (e.g. turtles); it still is partially dependant on terrestrial habitat to fulfill its life history requirements.

Many ecological studies on reptiles have highlighted temperature (as opposed to moisture) as a key influence on habitat use (Huey, 1982; Gregory, 1984a; Peterson, 1993; Pringle et al., 2003). Thermal responses of reptiles have been shown to restrict their activities, both spatially and temporally (Nelson and Gregory, 2000), as well as the overall geographic range of a species (Passek and Gillingham, 1997). Vegetation is an important structural characteristic of habitat, and likely has a large impact on the thermal properties of a microhabitat site used by a reptile (Reinert and Kodrich, 1982). For example, the relative availability of sun and shade has been used to measure thermal 2 Explosive breeding in amphibians is a strategic response to unpredictable environmental conditions (e.g., pond drying conditions). Females lay large numbers eggs and larvae exhibit rapid rates of development often reaching metamorphosis early (Newman, 1988, 1992).


Page 44

suitability in habitats used by Black Rat Snakes (Weatherhead and Charland, 1985), Wood Turtles (Compton et al., 2002) and Milksnakes (Row and Blouin-Demers, 2006).

WETLANDS – Wetland losses and associated declines in wildlife communities is a prevalent conservation issue (Dahl, 1990). Although contemporary management strategies include various mitigation measures such as creation of wetland reserves, protection of key species habitat, regulating inputs of agricultural, municipal and industrial effluents, and establishing terrestrial buffer zones around wetlands, there are still many conservation issues and species experiencing in decline (Roe and Georges, 2007).

While numerous studies over the past few decades have documented the increased occurrence of amphibians (and some aquatic reptiles) in anthropogenic-made ponds (e.g., agricultural ponds, sewage ponds, restored wetlands; e.g., Stevens et al. 2002; Barry et al. 2008), the study of how anthropogenic activities, such as reservoirs, affect existing ponds and the species that occur there are less frequent (Lind et al. 1996). Although little quantitative information is available, there is a possibility that amphibians may benefit from human-made ponds, river flooding or reservoir inundation, especially in areas where water levels that naturally decrease through the season are maintained (Bateman et al., 2008). Conversely, there is evidence that ponds receiving reservoir water negatively affect aquatic species occurring there due to rapid influx of cooler water from the reservoir at critical tadpole/larva developmental stages (Lind et al. 1996; Hopkins, 2007; Brandao and Araujo, 2008).

Usually small in size, the physiochemical conditions of ponds in drawdown areas are likely to be greatly affected when inundation from a reservoir occurs (Kadlec and Bevis, 1996; Knutson et al., 2004). Thus, studies examining the effects of reservoir inundation on wildlife should assess (1) abiotic conditions (e.g., water temperature and physiochemistry) of the aquatic environment, (2) biotic conditions (e.g., vegetative cover, presence of predators), and (3) amphibian or reptile population trends (e.g., densities and survivorship) over a period of several years. Where possible, comparison of inundated ponds to natural ponds may help to factor in any annual or site variation (Pechmann et al., 1991).

4.4 Management and Monitoring of Amphibian and Reptiles Conservation of Amphibians and Reptiles In the last few decades, scientists have documented the decline, range reduction and extinction of many of the world’s wildlife populations. Recent declines over the past 25 years in amphibians have been particularly alarming, and much research has been conducted to investigate potential threats and causes driving these changes (Blaustein and Wake, 1990; Wake, 1991; Blaustein et al., 1994; Alford and Richards, 1999, 2008; Houlahan et al., 2000; Gardner 2001; Green, 2003; Stofer 2003; Stuart et al., 2004). It has been suggested that amphibian population declines are linked to a stressed environment associated with decreased water quality and ecosystem biodiversity (Vitt et al., 1990). The complex life cycles, permeable skin and eggs, and dependence on aquatic habitats are thought to make them especially sensitive to environmental changes, especially pertaining to water contaminants and altered hydrology. Global threats to amphibians often include habitat loss and fragmentation (Dodd and Smith, 2003; Cushman, 2006), exotic species invasions (Hayes and Jennings, 1986), harvesting, pollutants (Relyea, 2005), climate change (Beebee, 1995; Pounds et al., 2006), disease and pathogens (Muths et al., 2003; Lips et al., 2006), and natural


Page 45

fluctuations in population size compounded by other factors (Pechmann et al., 1991; Kiesecker et al., 2001).

Although less information is available for reptiles, habitat loss and fragmentation also appears to be the most significant threat (Dodd, 1987; Gibbons et al., 2000). Several studies have shown that reptiles respond unequally to habitat alterations; some species are more sensitive and decline in response to changes in the landscape, whereas other can thrive or increase in disturbed areas (Luiselli and Capizzi, 1997; Filippi and Luiselli, 2000, Kjoss and Litaitis, 2001; Segura et al., 2007). Generalist species that use a variety of habitats are predicted to respond to altered habitat better than habitat specialists (Foufpoulos and Ives, 1999; Reed and Shine, 2002). A reptile’s vulnerability to decline is also associated with several biological traits including maturation age, reproduction frequency, and feeding specializations (Webb et al., 2002).

Especially important is that the population trends, life history traits and other ecological information for many amphibian and reptile species are often poorly understood. The ideal study would examine as many variables as possible including population size and structure, survivorship and sources of mortality, habitat preference, spatial, temporal and activity patterns (e.g., migrations), reproductive traits (e.g., frequency of breeding activity, age at maturity, clutch size), behaviours (e.g., aggregative, defensive), feeding ecology and genetic variability. Unfortunately, much of the above information on basic biology is lacking or difficult to acquire for many species due to a variety of reasons; this being a major constraint to effective conservation.

In 2005, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) created the Amphibian Specialist Group (ASG) by merging the existing Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force (DAPTF), the Global Amphibian Specialist Group (GASG) and the Global Amphibian Assessment to address the issue of global amphibian decline. The primary goals were to outline effective and standardized concepts, methodologies, and protocols for gathering base line data (Heyer et al., 1994), establish conservation status for species and fund/support long-term monitoring programs and studies. There are several monitoring programs currently in place in North America such as ARMI (2000)3, NAAMP (1996)4, and Frogwatch USA or Canada. These and several other independent studies in temperate (Shirose et al., 1997; Crouch and Paton, 2002; Dodd, 2003) and tropical regions (Pearman et al., 1995; Icochea et al., 2002; Kaiser, 2008) are gathering baseline population data required for assessing whether changes in populations represent natural fluctuations or are due to anthropogenic influences (Pechmann et al., 1991, 1994).

In 2007, a global assessment declared amphibians as the most threatened vertebrate group with a third of the species worldwide listed as species of conservation concern, and another 6% listed as threatened (Stuart et al., 2004; IUCN, 2007). The situation in BC is even more dire with 64% of the frogs and 30% of the salamander species listed either federally or provincially to be of conservation concern. Reptiles are not far behind in their declining worldwide status (Gibbons et al., 2000; Whitfield et al., 2007) and in BC, 30% of lizard species, 66% of snake species, and 100% of turtle species are listed as a conservation concern (e.g., red or blue).

Several programs have been initiated within BC to address biodiversity and herpetofaunal declines. Examples include the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund (HCTF), which has funded BC Frogwatch and Reptiles of BC monitoring programs to collect information and pass data on to the Ecosystems Branch of the BC Ministry of

3 National Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative (ARMI, U.S.A.; Muths et al., 2005) 4 North American Amphibian Monitoring Program (NAAMP, Canada and U.S.A)


Page 46

Environment (MOE), the Conservation Data Centre of the BC Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (SRM), FWCP, and the Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network (EMAN). Research funded by universities and the private sector contribute additional information and monitoring of amphibian and reptile populations in BC.

Reintroduction programs have been implemented for several species of amphibian and reptile, and are usually accompanied by long-term or post-release monitoring (Griffiths and Pavajeau, 2008). Reintroduction programs have been established for Natterjack Toads (Denton et al., 1997), Wyoming Toads (Muths and Creitz, 2008), Oregon Spotted Frogs (e.g., Hawkes 2005b; 2006), Yellow-legged Frogs (Lind et al., 2005); and Northern Leopard Frogs (e.g., Adama and Beaucher, 2006).

Chytrid fungus Recent evidence suggests that disease may be an important factor in the declines of certain amphibian populations in some regions (Daszak et al., 1999; Muths et al., 2003; Lips et al., 2006). Pathogens or disease may infect amphibians at various life stages and can be the proximate causes of mortality or can lead to sublethal damage (e.g., developmental abnormalities). A particularly alarming pathogen is the spread of Chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis; Blaustein et al., 2005).

In general, chytrids are a group of fungi that are found ubiquitously in soil, water, and even in the rumens of cows. This particular chytrid, however, seems to be specific to amphibians. It has been documented in various frogs, toads, and salamanders both in captivity and in the wild. Infection by this fungus causes thickening of the skin, and infected toads and frogs tend to shed skin frequently. Infection can be lethal in some amphibian species, including boreal toads, but the mode of death is unknown. The thickening of the skin may impair gas exchange and affect the animal's ability to absorb water. Chytrid fungus infects both larval and postmetamorphic stages but is believed to kill only postmetamorphic stages (Berger et al. 1998, 1999). An alternate hypothesis is that the fungus may produce a toxin (Johnson et al., 2006).

The origin, geographic distribution, and effects of B. dendrobatidis in North America remain poorly understood. Increased attention and sampling for the disease since the mid-1990s have revealed its presence in eastern Canada, the desert southwest, California, the Pacific northwest, and the Rocky Mountains (Green et al., 2002; Muths et al., 2003). Chytridiomycosis may be linked to local declines of Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas) in Colorado (Muths et al., 2003), and Yosemite Toad (Bufo canorus) and Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana muscosa) in California (Fellers et al., 2001), as well as the near extinction of the Wyoming Toad (Bufo baxteri) in Wyoming (Taylor et al., 1999) and Leopard Frogs in BC (D. Adama, pers. comm.). Because of the mortality rates associated with Chytrid fungus, detection of its presence and pervasiveness in populations of amphibians is important. Conducting swabs of frogs and toads for Chytrid fungus is recommended for long-term population monitoring.

4.5 Conclusions Aquatic systems receiving annual water from reservoir inundation are likely to differ from natural ponds in a number of ways (e.g., temperature, pH levels, dissolved oxygen levels), largely due to the large volume of freshwater input into a relatively small system. Amphibian eggs and skin have semi-permeable membranes that facilitate water and ion exchange, and due to this permeability, environmental alterations to normal water conditions may potentially affect embryo development, hatching success, metamorphosis, or individual survival. Reptiles depend on aquatic environments for a

Kinbasket & Arrow Amphibian and Reptile Life History and Habitat Use Methods

Page 47

variety of resources (e.g., foraging habitat, cover) and may also be affected by changing aquatic conditions.

At this point, there is very little research considering the effects of reservoir operations on amphibian and reptile populations upstream of the dam area. Our study aims to investigate some of these effects on populations of amphibians and reptiles occurring in the Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoir areas of the Columbia Basin.

5 Methods

5.1 Study Design This study is designed as a longer-term monitoring program, spanning a period of eleven years (2008 – 2018). Year 1 (2008) constitutes a reconnaissance year with the results of that effort being used to develop and implement a long-term monitoring program to be executed in years 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11. During Years 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11, field sampling, aerial photograph interpretation, and results from concurrently running BC Hydro projects will be used to characterize the occurrence and distribution of amphibian and reptile communities that exist in the drawdown zone of Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs.

Specific areas and elevations in the drawdown zones of Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoir were sampled (Table 4; Table 6) for CLBMON-37. Sampling during 2008 was designed to:

1. Document the amphibian and/or reptile species that occur in or adjacent to the drawdown zones of each reservoir;

2. Determine the distribution of each species, related to specific habitat types in or adjacent to the drawdown zones;

3. Identify the specific habitat features associated with each species;

4. Identify whether fluctuating water levels (i.e., reservoir operating regime) in 2008 created conditions that contributed to changes in seasonal habitat use of amphibians and reptiles within the drawdown zones; and

5. Use the above data to develop a monitoring program for focal species at specific sites within the drawdown zone of Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs.

We also visited areas outside of the drawdown zone (i.e., areas above the normal reservoir operational maximum) in 2008 and these areas will be considered for monitoring in future years to ensure that results obtained in the drawdown zones are indicative of responses at the local (i.e., reservoir) level and not indicative of regionally-based changes in amphibian and/or reptile populations.

5.2 Field Sampling and Data Collection Field sampling occurred during the months of May through September. Prior to commencing field work, historical, current, and predicted water levels were assessed for Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs to determine how much of the drawdown zone would be available for sampling. The timing of the sampling sessions was designed to facilitate an assessment of how fluctuating water levels affect amphibian and reptile populations and their use of habitats in the drawdown zone of each reservoir.

Variation in timing of visits to each reservoir occurred due to variation in the seasonal conditions and temperatures between the Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs. Early


Page 48

spring field visits were timed to correspond with the breeding season of amphibians and emergence of reptiles from hibernation. This period also corresponded with low reservoir water-levels, which ensured that the lower extent of the drawdown zones could be delineated and surveyed. Early summer visits were timed to include larval amphibian surveys and reptile surveys. In mid to late summer, surveying techniques followed a slightly different sampling scheme, as water levels were near their highest and the majority of the drawdown zone was unavailable for sampling.

During site visits we recorded weather conditions using a Kestrel® 4000 or 4500 pocket weather tracker, total survey time (i.e., sampling effort), reservoir, general survey area (e.g., Bush Arm, Ptarmigan Creek, etc.) and notable conditions that may affect the survey results. All captured animals were weighed, measured, and most were photographed, and a UTM coordinate for each observation (or group of observations if multiple specimens of the same species were encountered) was obtained using a handheld Garmin® GPSMap 60Csx handheld receiver. A small number of amphibians (Western Toads and Columbia Spotted Frogs; see results) were sampled for Chytrid fungus following BC Ministry of Environment Chytrid sampling protocols.

All amphibian and reptile observations and captures, including incidental observations, were georeferenced and all observational data were plotted in our GIS to determine the vegetation community [as per Hawkes et al. (2007) and Enns et al. (2007)] and elevation band in which the observation was made. The presence of fish, aquatic insects (e.g. dragonfly nymphs), predatory birds or other predators was also noted when they occurred.

When ponds were encountered in the drawdown zone, a GPS track of the pond was collected and mapped in a GIS to determine total area and location relative to position within the drawdown zone (i.e., the elevation of the pond). This permitted an assessment of how long each pond would be available to amphibians. Mapping the distribution of ponds in the drawdown zone also contributed important data used in the HSI modelling exercise (see section 5.4).

During field surveys, we recorded all other animal observations and their sign (e.g., tracks, scat, hair, nest, etc.). All wildlife observation data (including UTM coordinates) will be provided to the principal investigators of CLBMON-11A, CLBMON-11B, CLBMON-36, CLBMON-40, and CLBMON-8.

5.3 Amphibian and Reptile Surveys Prior to commencing fieldwork, LGL Limited obtained a permit issued under the Wildlife Act by the Permit and Authorization Services Bureau of the Ministry of Environment (Permit V108-44254) that permits the live-capture and on-site release of amphibians and reptiles during all times of the year in Kootenay Region 4, MUs 4-9, 4-14, 4-15, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-36, 4-37, and 4-40, and in Omineca Region 7A, MUs 7-1 and 7-2, specifically in the drawdown zones of Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs.

The following sections identify the specific methods used to sample for amphibians and reptiles during 2008. General Survey Protocol Selected sites within the drawdown zone of each reservoir were surveyed using standardized sampling methodologies to determine occupancy and preliminary patterns of habitat use. The following Resources Inventory Standards Committee (RISC) protocols were used:


Page 49

• Amphibians RISC 1998a: Inventory methods for pond-breeding amphibians and Painted Turtle (Version 2.0).

• Painted Turtle: RISC 1998a: Inventory methods for pond-breeding amphibians and Painted Turtle (Version 2.0).

• Snakes RISC 1998b: Inventory methods for snakes (Version 2.0).

As the detection of amphibians and reptiles often varies within and among species, by season, and by habitat (Parker and Plummer, 1987; Bailey et al., 2004; Campbell Grant et al., 2005, Gooch et al., 2006), several survey methods/techniques were employed for different species and seasons (see below). In general, daytime surveys for amphibians and reptiles occurred between the hours of 0730 to 2100 and night-time surveys occurred after moonrise (usually after 2200) and lasted until around midnight. When daytime temperatures exceeded 25oC, surveys occurred in the morning prior to 1300 and in the late-afternoon / early evening (e.g., 1800 – 2100) to maximize the probability of observing animals. Morphometric and habitat data were collected for each species observed via all survey methods.

Road surveys have been used to map the occurrence and/or distribution of amphibians and reptiles, although due to the remoteness, relative lack of roads (particularly around Kinbasket Reservoir), and widespread nature of the sampling areas, animals observed via this technique were incorporated into our dataset on an incidental basis only. For certain areas (e.g., Airport Way on the east side of Revelstoke Reach and east Canoe FSR), it may be possible to incorporate road surveys of specific areas into the monitoring protocol.

Pond-breeding Amphibian Surveys Amphibian surveys occurred via several techniques: 1) nocturnal calling surveys (NCS); 2) egg mass surveys (EMS); 3) larval surveys (LVS); 4) visual encounter surveys (VES; e.g. area-constrained or time-constrained searches); and 5) incidental observations. Procedures for carrying out these surveys are described below and in Hawkes and Tuttle (2009), and are based on RISC protocols (RISC, 1998a), as well as on adaptations to methods used in other studies (e.g. Donnely et al., 1994; Heyer et al., 1994; Olson et al., 1997).

During the first sampling session (e.g. early spring) of the reconnaissance year, all survey methods were used to document the presence of amphibians. For the remaining sampling sessions (i.e., post breeding), nocturnal calling and egg mass surveys were dropped from the suite of sampling techniques. In 2008, the goal was to determine the presence of each species within the drawdown zone of each reservoir. As such, systematic surveys were not conducted at each site. Rather, we spent the majority of our time documenting the location of individuals, the location of egg masses, or the location of suitable breeding ponds within the drawdown zone of each reservoir. We did not attempt to collect data in such a way to derive estimates of relative abundance. In general, the 2008 reconnaissance surveys provided information on species presence, species richness, seasonal habitat use and also provided a general sense of the abundance of most species within and adjacent to the drawdown zone.

The following is a brief description of each survey type used and the species targeted using each method. A more complete description of these methods can be found in Hawkes and Tuttle (2009). For all methods, the total time expended for a given method and the number of surveyors must be recorded so that accurate detection rates can be calculated.


Page 50

1) Nocturnal calling surveys (NCS) were conducted to target primarily Pacific Treefrogs (can be heard over long distances) and any Wood Frogs in the area; however, Western Toads and Columbia Spotted Frogs may also be detected by this survey method if they are in close range to the surveyor. Only males are detected via call surveys, but ground-truthing (e.g., nocturnal searches at call locations) helped to locate breeding females in the area. NCS are conducted in the spring (e.g. May), when air temperatures were not below 5°C or in winds exceeding 15 km/h. A pre-determined amount of time (usually 6–8 minutes) is spent listening for calling male frogs. An estimate of the numbers of calling males of each species heard is made using standardized methods. The amount of time spent listening per area is standardized so that comparisons of the number of calling males between ponds and areas can be made.

2) Egg mass surveys (EMS) were conducted in the spring to identify breeding ponds for all amphibian species (e.g., Wood Frog, Pacific Treefrog, Columbia Spotted Frog, Western Toad, and Long-toed Salamander). Egg mass surveys are conducted during daytime hours and can occur in conjunction with NCS. NCS can be used to determine the location of breeding sites and EMS can be used during subsequent follow-up surveys to document how many egg masses of each species are present at each site. EMS typically involve walking the perimeter of the breeding pond looking for egg masses or using a boat to travel around the pond/ In general, EMS are used to make a count, or estimate, of the number of egg masses of each species deposited in a given breeding location. As with other methods, the amount of time searching is either standardized, or corrected for total pond area such that larger ponds are searched for an amount of time that is proportionately longer than the time spent at smaller ponds.

3) Larval surveys (LVS) were conducted throughout the spring and summer through visual surveys (i.e., time-constrained searches) and dipnetting to identify hatching success of pond-breeding amphibians (e.g., Long-toed Salamander, Western Toad, Columbia Spotted Frog, Wood Frog, and Pacific Treefrog). Larval Surveys occur later in the breeding season relative to NCS and EMS. LS can be competed via visual surveys (i.e., estimating the number of larvae observed) and dipnetting to capture larvae to determine species. In some cases, a dipnet is used to sweep a breeding pond for larvae and an estimate of the number of larvae per sweep is generated. Typically, the area swept is standardized across ponds so that a relative comparison of the number of larvae per pond can be calculated.

4) Visual encounter surveys (VES; time-constrained searches) were the primary survey technique used during all seasons for the detection and capture of conspicuous species of amphibian (e.g. Columbia Spotted Frog, Western Toad, etc). Visual encounter surveys occur across the period of amphibian activity and involve visually searching an area for conspicuous individuals of each species. VES are typically paired with time-constrained searches so that equal amounts of time are spent searching various areas or habitat types. An estimate of individuals per unit time can be generated and compared between areas. The amount of time spent searching is either standardized so that each area receives the same amount of searching, or larger areas are searched for longer periods of time than smaller areas.

5) Incidental observations include any observation not made using a specific method (i.e., NCS, EMS, LS, or VES). For example, an observation of a road-killed toad would be considered an incidental observation (unless made during a VES involving road surveys). Incidental observation data are used to expand our understanding of


Page 51

the distribution or presence of a species relative to the drawdown zones of Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs.

Reptile Surveys Reptile surveys occurred via visual encounter surveys (i.e., time-constrained searches) or incidental observations (e.g., reports from other studies, road kill, etc.). Sampling for reptiles coincided with sampling for amphibians. The following is a brief description of each survey type and the relevant species it targets for the detection of reptiles based on RISC protocols (RISC, 1998b). A more complete description of these methods can be found in Hawkes and Tuttle (2009).

1) Visual encounter surveys (VES) were conducted throughout the season during the day to detect garter snakes (e.g. Common Garter Snake and Western Terrestrial Garter Snake), lizards, and Painted Turtles. Visual encounter surveys occur across the period of reptile activity and involve visually searching an area for conspicuous individuals of each species. VES are typically paired with time-constrained searches so that equal amounts of time are spent searching various areas or habitat types. An estimate of individuals per unit time can be generated and compared between areas. The amount of time spent searching is either standardized so that each area receives the same amount of searching, or larger areas are searched for longer periods of time than smaller areas.

2) Incidental observations include any observation not made using a specific method (i.e., NCS, EMS, LS, or VES). For example, an observation of a road-killed snake would be considered an incidental observation. Incidental observation data are used to expand our understanding of the distribution or presence of a species relative to the drawdown zones of Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs.

Mark-Recapture Techniques Mark-recapture studies are used to estimate population parameters such as abundance, survival and recruitment. Briefly, animals are captured, marked with an individually identifiable tag and released. First capture provides information about abundance while subsequent recaptures provide survival information about the individual. Marks can consist of individual photographs of unique markings or structures, or by physically marking an animal in a unique way that can be recognized upon a future capture.

The following marking scheme was used for CLBMON-37:

Amphibians: Photograph identification (Forester 1977; Gill 1978; Tilley 1980; Davis and Ovaska 2001; Adama and Beaucher 2006)

Snakes: Clipping subcaudal scutes in unique patterns (Blanchard and Finster, 1933)

Although 2008 was a reconnaissance year, we photographed all Columbia Spotted Frogs and Western Toads captured and marked all garter snakes. We took a minimum of two photographs of the dorsum of each frog and toad and marked snakes by clipping their subcaudal scutes.

We documented the photo numbers for each individual amphibian and recorded the subcaudal scute mark for each snake. Because snakes were physically marked, it will be relatively easy to identify recaptures in subsequent years as the clipping of the scutes leaves a visible scar on the snake.

To identify recaptured amphibians, it was necessary to build a photo-identification database. The development of the photo-ID databases required several steps:


Page 52

1. Label all photos based on a searchable string of characters that identifies species, date, and location

2. Select best photo of each individual

3. Upload best photos into photo-identification software. We selected Interactive Individual Identification System Software (I3S available free at http://www.reijns.com/i3s/). I3S requires that specific spot distribution patterns be mapped for each individual. The spot patterns of different individuals are then compared and a list of candidate photos is presented (as closest matches). The correct individual can then be selected from the list of candidates.

The development of the database will occur during the remainder of 2008 and will be available for use prior to the 2009 field season. An example of how photo ID would work for Columbia Spotted Frogs can be viewed in Hawkes and Tuttle (2008).

5.4 Habitat Suitability Mapping Preliminary habitat suitability mapping (HSI) for Long-toed Salamanders was used to determine whether an HSI approach can predict the distribution of certain amphibian species in the drawdown zone of either reservoir. The application of habitat suitability mapping in this project may help to address several of the management questions and hypotheses H01 to H06.

Habitat suitability mapping provides a means to predict the distribution of certain species (e.g., Long-toed Salamander) in the drawdown zone. Ponds that fall within the area of predicted occurrence will be surveyed for species presence. When located, the species, its abundance, life stage, and whether or not breeding has occurred at the site can be documented, as well as other pertinent information will be documented.

Habitat suitability mapping was based in part on the habitat suitability methods in RISC (1999) and on the Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) developed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974. The general approach recommended is to develop a life requisite habitat model for the selected species, collect data through field or GIS/remote sensing methods to run the model, then apply the model to the various habitat units represented on TEM or other mapping bases. Structural and physical features of habitat are measurable and because vegetation succession is predictable to a certain extent, and the outcome of enhancements can be known, future natural or enhanced/modified habitat values can be projected with some confidence. Therefore, it is possible to also compute habitat capability using the HEP approach.

HEP consists of six procedures:

1. Select evaluation species.

2. Delineate and quantify relatively homogeneous habitat types.

3. Develop habitat suitability models for each evaluation species. The models consist of relationships between measurable habitat components (relating to life requisites) and habitat suitability and a unifying algorithm.

4. Measure the habitat components identified in the habitat suitability models.

5. Measure habitat use data for checking and “fine-tuning” the model.

6. Calculate HSI’s and Habitat Units (HU’s) for each species based on the suitability and spatial extent of each habitat type.

http://www.reijns.com/i3s/�

Kinbasket & Arrow Amphibian and Reptile Life History and Habitat Use Results

Page 53

The methodology for each of these six procedures is described in Appendix 3, as is the development of an HSI model for Long-toed Salamander.

5.5 Statistical Analyses Because the 2008 survey year was a reconnaissance-level survey, only summaries of our observations are provided (i.e., we did not make any statistical comparisons of captures or morphometric data). The summaries includes the number of species captured and/or observed during each field session, for each geographical area searched, and for each reservoir along with a range of age and size classes. For certain species (e.g., Western Toad, Common Red-sided Garter Snake) we provide figures of size distribution for each reservoir and geographic area sampled within each reservoir.

Reservoir elevation and meteorological data were summarized to relate reservoir elevation to the timing of our field sessions and to plot the general temperature patterns experienced across the sampling period (May through September). A discussion of proposed statistical analyses is presented in Hawkes and Tuttle 2009 (Sampling Protocol).

5.6 Development of Monitoring Program We developed a monitoring program based on methods and techniques used in several existing monitoring programs within the literature, as well as the methods used during the 2008 reconnaissance-level surveys. The basis of the monitoring program is presented in the Discussion section below and described in greater detail in Hawkes and Tuttle (2009).

6 RESULTS

6.1 Kinbasket Reservoir

6.1.1 Field Sampling Field sampling occurred from mid-June through mid-late September to coincide with the period of activity of amphibians and reptiles. Due to the large spatial extent of the Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs and the differences in climatic regimes, sample sites were surveyed over five time periods (see Appendix 1 for a detailed description of areas visited during each field session):

• Field Session 1: 12 – 19 June 2008 • Field Session 2: 23 – June – 2 July 2008 • Field Session 3: 16 – 23 July 2008 • Field Session 4: 22 – 31 August 2008 • Field Session 5: 15 - 24 September 2008

Distributing field visits across the 4 month period also provided an indication of seasonal abundance and habitat use for each species.

6.1.2 Environmental Conditions Environmental conditions in Kinbasket Reservoir were generally good (Table 7). During field session 2 (23 June – 2 July) temperatures reached a maximum of 32.5 °C. Rainfall was generally low, with the most rain falling in August in association with late summer


Page 54

thunder showers. Figure 14 shows the variation in temperature and rainfall across all five field sessions for Mica Dam relative to the 20 year average for the same period. Table 7. Summary of environmental conditions as recorded at Mica Dam during

each field session. Field Session Dates (2008) Max Min Average Rain (mm)

1 12 - 19 June 25.50 4.00 13.83 11.20 2 23 June - 2 July 32.50 5.50 17.06 8.80 3 16 - 23 July 29.60 8.00 17.62 0.30 4 22 - 31 August 18.00 3.10 11.60 56.60 5 15 - 24 September 19.50 1.00 9.63 19.90

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

22.00

24.00

26.00

28.00

30.00

1-M

ay-0

8

8-M

ay-0

8

15-M

ay-0

8

22-M

ay-0

8

29-M

ay-0

8

5-Ju

n-08

12-J

un-0

8

19-J

un-0

8

26-J

un-0

8

3-Ju

l-08

10-J

ul-0

8

17-J

ul-0

8

24-J

ul-0

8

31-J

ul-0

8

7-A

ug-0

8

14-A

ug-0

8

21-A

ug-0

8

28-A

ug-0

8

4-S

ep-0

8

11-S

ep-0

8

18-S

ep-0

8

25-S

ep-0

8Date

Tem

pera

ture

(°C

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Prec

ipita

tion

(mm

)

2008 Rain (mm) 20 year average precip (mm) 2008 Mean Temp 20 year average Temp

Figure 14. Maximum, minimum, and average temperatures and daily rainfall for Mica

Dam for the period 1 May through 1 October 2008. The 20-yr average (1987 – 2007) is also shown. Breaks in temperature data indicate no data available. http://climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/canada_e.html.

6.1.3 Reservoir Conditions Amphibian and reptile sampling occurred when the reservoir was at ~730 m ASL (Field Session 1) to ~752 m ASL (Field Session 5) and all elevation bands considered for the vegetation mapping study (CLBMON-10; Table 4) were sampled during 2008. The reservoir elevation during each field session is shown in Table 8 and a hydrograph of 2008 reservoir elevations is provided in (Figure 15).

http://climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/canada_e.html�


Page 55

Table 8. Kinbasket Reservoir elevations (minimum, maximum, and mean) for each of the six 2008 field sessions. Field Session† Dates (2008) Min Max Mean

1 12-19 June 730.99 733.2 732.01 2 23 June - 2 July 734.52 738.36 736.28 3 16 - 23 July 743.77 745.28 744.55 4 22 - 31 August 750.28 751.29 750.73 5 15 - 24 September 751.85 751.97 751.89

†Field surveys did not occur during May in Kinbasket Reservoir

707.00

709.50

712.00

714.50

717.00

719.50

722.00

724.50

727.00

729.50

732.00

734.50

737.00

739.50

742.00

744.50

747.00

749.50

752.00

754.50

757.00

759.50

1-Ja

n

15-J

an

29-J

an

12-F

eb

26-F

eb

12-M

ar

26-M

ar

9-Ap

r

23-A

pr

7-M

ay

21-M

ay

4-Ju

n

18-J

un

2-Ju

l

16-J

ul

30-J

ul

13-A

ug

27-A

ug

10-S

ep

24-S

ep

8-O

ct

22-O

ct

5-N

ov

19-N

ov

3-D

ec

17-D

ec

31-D

ec

Date

Res

ervo

ir El

evat

ion

(m A

SL)

Average (1977 - 2008)

Min Year (2002)

Max Year (1978)

2008

Figure 15. Kinbasket Reservoir elevations (metres above sea level; m ASL) for 2008.

Also shown are a low water year (2002), a high water year (1978) and the 31 year average (1977 – 2008). The operations minimum is 707.41 m ASL and the maximum is 754.38 m ASL. Data for 2008 were available for 1 January through 31 October only.

Reservoir elevations gradually increased between May and September, reaching a maximum of 751.98 on 25 September 2008 (Figure 15). For the period May through September, the area within the drawdown zone that was available to amphibians and reptiles decreased in an approximately linear manner (Figure 15) and the inundation of suitable habitat situated above 741 m ASL would have started around the 7th of July 2008 (Figure 15). The amount of time that each of the predefined elevation bands (Table 4) in the drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir was available to amphibians and reptiles in 2008 varied from < 70% of the year for the lowest elevation bands (i.e., < 741 m ASL) to ~75% of the year for the highest elevation bands (i.e., > 750 m ASL; Table 9). The period 1997 through 2008 is shown to provide an indication of how reservoir management compared to previous years.


Page 56

For the period 1 May through 30 September 2008, the number of days that a given elevation band was accessible varied from a minimum of 64 days for the 741 – 742 m elevation band to a maximum of 153 days for the 753 – 754 m elevation band. During this period, the elevation of Kinbasket Reservoir increased by 33.32 m. Table 9. Proportion of time (year) that Kinbasket Reservoir elevations (metres above

sea level; m ASL) exceeded a particular elevation band (m ASL) for the period 1997 – 2008. Blank cells indicate that the reservoir did not exceed a given elevation band in that year.

m ASL 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Avg Days† 741-742 0.43 0.54 0.47 0.41 0.16 0.40 0.38 0.45 0.47 0.55 0.54 0.32 0.43 64.00742-743 0.42 0.50 0.47 0.37 0.10 0.38 0.36 0.41 0.44 0.55 0.52 0.32 0.40 66.00743-744 0.42 0.47 0.45 0.33 0.01 0.36 0.33 0.34 0.41 0.53 0.49 0.31 0.37 69.00744-745 0.42 0.41 0.40 0.30 0.34 0.20 0.28 0.38 0.50 0.46 0.30 0.33 72.00745-746 0.40 0.37 0.37 0.25 0.32 0.08 0.26 0.35 0.48 0.44 0.28 0.30 76.00746-747 0.38 0.33 0.33 0.23 0.30 0.21 0.30 0.45 0.41 0.26 0.27 81.00747-748 0.35 0.30 0.28 0.19 0.28 0.16 0.24 0.43 0.39 0.24 0.24 86.00748-749 0.32 0.27 0.25 0.15 0.25 0.08 0.21 0.41 0.36 0.23 0.21 90.00749-750 0.30 0.24 0.23 0.09 0.22 0.01 0.18 0.38 0.33 0.22 0.18 94.00750-751 0.28 0.20 0.20 0.02 0.18 0.14 0.33 0.29 0.18 0.15 103.00751-752 0.25 0.15 0.17 0.12 0.08 0.29 0.24 0.15 0.12 111.00752-753 0.22 0.07 0.14 0.03 0.23 0.19 0.12 0.08 120.00753-754 0.19 0.11 0.15 0.04 153.00

†Number days calculated for the period 1 May through 30 September only.

6.1.4 Amphibian and Reptile Surveys We spent 14.4 days (108h 10mins) surveying various areas within the drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir between June and September 2008. During that time we documented more 3,350 metamorphs (estimated), juvenile or adult amphibians and reptiles of five species plus an additional ~40,000 tadpoles and larvae of three species (Table 10). The most abundant species were Columbia Spotted Frogs (Rana luteiventris), Western Toads (Bufo boreas), and Common Garter Snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis). With the exception of the Long-toed Salamander larvae, all captures were made via time constrained visual encounter surveys at each of the sites visited in 2008. Long-toed salamander larvae were documented via dipnetting.

Thirty-one amphibians (eight Western Toads and 23 Columbia Spotted Frogs) were tested for Chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis). The samples were provided to the Ministry of Environment in support of their project “Assessing the Prevalence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in British Columbia”. The results of the chytrid testing are not yet known.

i) Seasonal and Geographic Distribution The majority of sightings occurred in June and July with Western Toads, Columbia Spotted Frogs, Common and Western Terrestrial Garter Snakes observed in each month. From a geographic perspective, the Valemount Peatland was the most productive with respect to both the number of species and the number of individuals. Ptarmigan Creek and Bush Arm were also productive for certain species, namely Columbia Spotted Frogs, Western Toads, and Common Garter Snakes (Table 10).

Most captures were made between the hours of 0900-1600 on sunny days averaging 15-25oC through time-constrained visual searches of the habitats in the drawdown


Page 57

zones. Nocturnal road surveys along the east side of Canoe Reach proved to be a productive method for capturing adult Western Toads (N = 8); cooler nights (average temperature of 12-15oC) after a day a rain were the ideal conditions for amphibian captures. Call surveys were unsuccessful in locating any breeding amphibians in Kinbasket Reservoir (e.g., Pacific Treefrogs, Columbia Spotted Frogs, or Wood Frogs); however, this may be related to the timing of our earliest visit, which was in June. Maps of all Kinbasket captures can be found in Appendix 2. Table 10. Total survey time (hours) and captures by survey location, month, and

species for survey sites located in the drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir. Blanks indicate life stage or species not detected.

AMMA BUBO RALU THEL THSI Location Month Hours T/L M J A T/L M J A T/L M J A J/A J/A Totals Beavermouth June 6.0 2 2 Bush Arm Causeway ponds June 4.0 2000 1 2001 July 1.5 2000 1 1 2002 Bush Arm FSR June 0.0 1 1 Bush Arm km79 June 16.0 10000 24 2 10026 July 5.2 8000 18 6 8024 August 4.0 500 300 12 1 813 September 8.8 3 200 14 1 1 219

Bush Arm km88 June 2.0 1 1 2 Canoe East FSR June 3.1 8 8 Canoe River June 1.0 Hugh Allan Bay August 1.2 4 4 Ptarmigan Creek June 4.5 1 3000 3 3004 July 11.2 2000 7 1 500 2 3 2513 August 2.4 50 4 100 1 155 September 2.9 3 4 7 Seccour Creek June 1.5 Valemount Peatland June 12.5 5000 1 5000 3 10004 July 11.0 100 2000 2 2000 8 1 4111 August 7.2 1 10 100 8 119 September 2.3 10 2 12

Monthly Totals June 50.6 7000 11 18000 28 3 6 25048 July 28.9 100 4000 2000 7 4 10500 29 10 16650 August 14.7 1 50 4 10 700 300 21 4 1 1091 September 14.0 3 7 210 16 1 1 238

108.2 101 11050 2003 7 26 28510 910 300 94 8 18 43027 1AMMA = Ambystoma macrodactylum; BUBO = Bufo boreas; RALU = Rana luteiventris; THEL = Thamnophis elegans; THIS = Thamnophis sirtalis. 2 T/L = Tadpole / Larvae. With the exception of AMMA, the number of tadpoles of each species was estimated; M = Metamorph; J = Juvenile; A = Adults 3Totals for all life stages BDocumented breeding locations

Our first field visit to Kinbasket Reservoir was in June and we missed the breeding and egg laying period for amphibians. However, we captured adult Columbia Spotted Frogs and Western Toads, as well as tadpoles of both species in ponds within the drawdown zone, indicating that breeding did take place earlier in the year in those areas. The non-detection of Pacific Treefrogs (Hyla regilla) is curious, as this species is typically abundant and easily detected because of its conspicuous call. Because of the timing of


Page 58

the first visit, we may have missed the breeding window; however, we did not document tadpoles or metamorphs of this species from the drawdown zone. This suggests this species may not occur in the area and Kinbasket reservoir may be just outside of the known distribution of this species in BC. This species was not documented in 2007 during work associated with CLBMON-10 (Hawkes et al. 2007) but it was documented in the Cummins River Valley in 1997 (D. Adama pers. comm.). Wood frogs were reported from Bush Arm in 1995 (Ohanjanian and Teske 1996), but we did not detect them in 2008. Wood Frogs could potentially occur in the mid to northern reaches of Kinbasket Reservoir.

Both species of garter snakes (T. sirtalis and T. elegans) were observed in 2008, but not in sympatry with one another. Western Terrestrial Garter Snakes were found only in upland habitats (e.g., roads, grassy slopes, aspen groves), whereas Common Garter Snakes were observed only in wetland areas within the drawdown zone.

As the summer progressed, we continued to see the same species assemblages across the three main study areas; however, the number of observations declined (Table 10). We made two observations of Long-toed Salamander larvae (Ambystoma macrodactylum) from a small excavated pond, located within the drawdown zone in the Valemount Peatland. This particular pond was notably productive, as it also included tadpoles and adults of two other species of amphibian (Columbia Spotted Frogs and Western Toads). Tadpoles of both species had exhibited growth since June, and were at similar stages of development despite their size differences. There were also numerous newly emerged Western Toad metamorphs observed at both Ptarmigan Creek and in the Valemount Peatland.

In August, reservoir levels at the sites were nearing the predicted maximum height for 2008 and much of the previously available habitat was inundated. This greatly reduced the amount of area that could be searched, and as to be expected, we located fewer animals than on previous trips to Kinbasket Reservoir. We observed only a few Western Toad and Columbia Spotted Frog metamorphs along the edge of the Ptarmigan Creek pond and in the Valemount Peatland. Bush Arm was the most productive area for amphibians and reptiles, still containing metamorph and adult Columbia Spotted Frogs, as well as neonate Common Garter Snakes. We did not observe any Western Toad tadpoles or metamorphs in the Valemount Peatland or in Bush Arm where we had previously observed tadpoles, likely indicating metamorphosis and movement of individuals away from the marsh areas in the drawdown zone. In September, amphibian and reptile activity was greatly reduced; the elevation of Kinbasket was at its maximum level for the year (Figure 15) and most of the available habitat was inundated. The pond at Ptarmigan Creek was completely inundated, and we observed only a few metamorph Western Toads in the upper elevation bands (i.e., > 751 m ASL) of the drawdown zone. In the Valemount Peatland, we captured a single Columbia Spotted Frog metamorph in a pond near the edge of the drawdown area. At the Bush Arm marsh we observed metamorph and adult Columbia Spotted Frogs, adult Western Toads, and Common Garter Snakes. We also observed a post-partum female Western Terrestrial Garter Snake on the Bush Arm FSR in upland forest habitat, indicating that successful reproduction had occurred in the area.

Western Toads We captured a total of 20 Western Toads of various age and size classes in 2008 (0 = 55.1 ± 41.7 SD mm SUL; range = 39-125 mm. Due to the timing of our surveys, we did not document any egg masses, but many areas had dense aggregations of tadpoles in


Page 59

June and July (Table 10; Figure 16). Tadpoles of various sizes and stages (Gosner stage 26-30 and 35-40) were captured in the same areas at the same time (Figure 16). In July, we took a sample of recently metamorphosized toadlets that that ranged in size from 11.5–26.6 mm (0 = 16.2 ± 4.2 SD mm).

Figure 16. Example of Western Toad tadpoles documented in the drawdown zone of

Kinbasket Reservoir, 2008. Photos © Virgil C. Hawkes (left) and Krysia Tuttle (right).

Most toads were captured in either in marsh areas in the drawdown zone (e.g., Peatland bog or ponds) or on Canoe East FSR some distance from the reservoir. Most adult toads were found in dense vegetation or at the side of ponds. Metamorph toadlets were found along the edges of the water, in duckweed/algae or among woody debris. For the toads captured on the road, they were either moving across or sitting up on the road, and it was difficult to determine whether they were traveling to or away from the reservoir. In September, one large adult female toad was found under a log in the forest possibly near a hibernation site (>50m from the water). Several large squirrel middens are located in the upland habitat immediately adjacent to Ptarmigan Creek, and may be an area used for hibernation by both toads and garter snakes.

Columbia Spotted Frogs This species was observed in nearly all sites sampled in 2008 and breeding was documented from four locations (Table 10). Populations occur in Bush Arm and are suspected to occur at Ptarmigan Creek and in the Valemount Peatland, based on the number of tadpoles observed in those areas. Numerous tadpole aggregations, metamorphs, juvenile/subadults, and adults were documented from almost all locations. Metamorphs ranged in size from 19.5–37.7 mm SUL ( = 25.8 ± 4.4 SD mm), and all other frogs ranged in size from 28.2–69.4 mm SUL ( = 52.3 ± 10.8 SD mm SUL). All spotted frogs were captured in marshes in the drawdown zone, with the highest density at Bush Arm km79. Typical habitat included in and around shallow ponds with abundant submergent vegetation and sedge/horsetail vegetation around the periphery.

Long-toed Salamanders

Observations of this species were only made at one location in a small excavated pond in the Valemount Peatland (Table 10). Eleven larvae (gills still present, Harrison stage = 46) were observed, ( = 46 mm total length) but the visibility of the water likely prevented us from seeing or capturing more. When the pond was revisited in September, no larvae were present. No adults were located in the Valemount Peatland or adjacent upland


Page 60

forest (within ~50 m of the peatland), although extensive upland surveys were not completed in 2008.

Common Garter Snakes We observed a total of 18 snakes, none of which were recaptures (13 adults, 3 juveniles, 2 neonates). The smallest snake was 165 mm SVL and the largest snake captured was 590 mm SVL (average = 424.7 ± 117.6 SD mm SVL). No snakes were captured with food in their stomachs, and only two females were gravid (litter size = 3 for both). Common Garter Snakes were observed in marsh areas with abundant grass or vegetative cover (e.g. horsetail, willows), with captures in Bush Arm (at the east end by the causeway and at KM 79), in the Valemount Peatland, and at Ptarmigan Creek (Table 10).

Western Terrestrial Garter Snakes

Western Terrestrial Garter Snakes were captured on 8 occasions (Table 10), all in upland habitat, outside of the drawdown zone. Western Terrestrial Garter Snakes averaged 483.5 ± 106.5 SD mm in SVL (range = 294-600 mm SVL). One snake had food in her stomach, but we did not palpate the food item out, due to an injury in her side. Two females were gravid (6 and 8 eggs), and one captured in August was postpartum.

ii) Elevational Distribution The distribution of amphibians and reptiles (of all life stages) by elevation is shown in (Figure 17). Long-toed Salamanders (AMMA) were only located at one pond that was situated at 753 m ASL. Western Toads (BUBO) were distributed across an elevational range of 748 – 757m ASL, and there does not appear to be a correlation between Western Toad numbers and elevation (although this has not been tested statistically). The elevational distribution of Columbia Spotted Frogs ranged from 745 – 757m ASL with larger aggregations between 751 – 753 m ASL, which represents the wetland at km 79 of Bush FSR. Common Garter Snakes (THSI) occurred between 747 – 754 m ASL, and like Western Toads, there does not appear to be a correlation between Western Toad numbers and elevation (although this has not been tested statistically). Finally, Western Terrestrial Garter Snakes (THEL) occurred at 757 m ASL only, and did not occur within the drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir.

iii) Habitat Associations We used the habitat types (i.e., the 15 unique vegetation communities) described by Hawkes et al. (2007) to describe the habitat associations of amphibians and reptiles documented in the drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir. Long-toed Salamanders occurred in the Valemount Peatland only, and were recorded in a pond situated in the Willow-Sedge habitat type (Figure 18). Western Toads were documented from seven of the 15 described vegetation communities plus in a non-classified habitat type and occurred in drier (e.g., Clover – Oxeye Daisy, Kellogg’s Sedge) and wetter habitat types (e.g., Swamp Horsetail and Wool-grass–Pennsylvania Buttercup), which speaks to their variable habitat use and terrestrial nature. Columbia Spotted Frogs were closely associated with the wetland-type habitats described for the drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir, including Wool-grass–Pennsylvania Buttercup, Swamp Horsetail and Willow–Sedge with the greatest number of observations associated with the Wool-grass–Pennsylvania Buttercup habitat type (Figure 18). These areas were typified by numerous ponds and super-saturated soils.


Page 61

745

746

747

748

749

750

751

752

753

754

755

756

757

758

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Number of Individuals

Res

ervo

ir El

evat

ion

(m A

SL)

AMMA BUBO RALU THEL THSI

Figure 17. Elevational distribution of reptiles and amphibians documented in and

adjacent to the drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir in 2008. AMMA = Ambystoma macrodactylum; BUBO = Bufo boreas; RALU = Rana luteiventris; THEL = Thamnophis elegans; THIS = Thamnophis sirtalis.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

CO CT DR FO KS MA SH WB WS NC

Vegetation Community Code

Num

ber

of In

divi

dual

s

AMMA BUBO RALU THEL THSI

Figure 18. Habitat associations of amphibians and reptiles documented in the

drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir in 2008. CO = Clover–Oxeye Daisy; CT = Cottonwood–Clover; DR= Driftwood; FO= Forest; KS= Kellogg’s Sedge; MA= Marsh Cudweed–Annual Hairgrass; SH= Swamp Horsetail; WB= Wool-grass–Pennsylvania Buttercup; WS= Willow–Sedge; NC = not classified. See Appendix 4 for descriptions of each habitat type.


Page 62

The Common Garter Snake was documented from five of the 15 vegetation communities described for drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir and occurred in both drier (e.g. Clover – Oxeye Daisy and Cottonwood – Clover) and wetter habitat types (e.g., Swamp Horsetail and Wool-grass–Pennsylvania Buttercup). This species was frequently encountered close to ponds or wetlands within the drawdown zone, presumably because they could forage on amphibian tadpoles. The structural complexity of these sites provided ample escape habitat. Western Terrestrial Garter Snakes were only documented outside of the drawdown zone and as such did not occur in a habitat type described in Hawkes et al. (20076). All Western Terrestrial Garter Snakes were located in upland habitats and found on roads or in the brush adjacent to roads.

6.2 Arrow Lakes Reservoir

6.2.1 Field Sampling Field sampling occurred from mid-May through mid-late September to coincide with the period of activity of amphibians and reptiles. Due to the large spatial extent of the Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs and the differences in climatic regimes, sample sites were surveyed over six time periods (see Appendix 1 for a detailed description of areas visited during each field session):

• Field Session 1: 12 – 17 May 2008 • Field Session 2: 12 – 19 June 2008 • Field Session 3: 23 – June – 2 July 2008 • Field Session 4: 16 – 23 July 2008 • Field Session 5: 22 – 31 August 2008 • Field Session 6: 15 - 24 September 2008

Distributing field visits across the 5 month period also provided an indication of season abundance and habitat use for each species.

6.2.2 Environmental Conditions Meteorological data were obtained from three stations around Arrow Lakes Reservoir: Revelstoke, Nakusp, and Castlegar. Maximum, minimum, and mean daily temperatures did not vary markedly between the three stations (Table 11) and the average daily maximum, minimum, and mean for all three stations is shown in Figure 19. Precipitation data were not available for Revelstoke, and only partial data exist for Nakusp. Data from Castlegar were the most complete and are shown in Figure 20. Conditions around Arrow Lakes Reservoir were generally good, although conditions in early May were marginal, with cool temperatures and strong winds, particularly at night, hampering survey conditions.


Page 63

Table 11. Summary of environmental conditions as recorded at Revelstoke, Nakusp, and Castlegar during each field visit to the Arrow Lakes Reservoir during 2008. Max Min and Mean refer to daily temperature, Precip (mm) is total rainfall for the period.

Revelstoke Nakusp Castlegar Field

Session Dates (2008) Max Min Mean Precip (mm) Max Min Mean

Precip (mm) Max Min Mean

Precip (mm)

1 12 - 17 May 27.70 4.70 13.65 N/A 26.00 6.30 13.83 0.40 27.00 5.50 14.40 5.80 2 12-19 June 24.70 6.70 14.95 N/A 28.30 5.00 12.60 0.60 28.50 5.50 17.23 2.10 3 23 June - 2 July 32.80 9.30 19.54 N/A 34.80 8.80 16.10 3.20 37.00 11.00 22.14 0.80 4 16 - 23 July 33.00 8.40 19.21 N/A 35.20 7.70 18.20 9.40 35.70 14.50 22.93 11.10 5 22 - 31 August 22.80 5.20 14.17 N/A 25.70 6.10 12.10 21.00 30.00 9.50 17.21 18.50 6 15 - 24 September 22.20 2.90 12.64 N/A 22.60 4.20 9.70 3.00 22.00 5.50 14.07 10.90

Arrow Lakes Reservoir

-2.00.02.04.06.08.0

10.012.014.016.018.020.022.024.026.028.030.032.034.036.038.0

1-M

ay

8-M

ay

15-M

ay

22-M

ay

29-M

ay

5-Ju

n

12-J

un

19-J

un

26-J

un

3-Ju

l

10-J

ul

17-J

ul

24-J

ul

31-J

ul

7-Au

g

14-A

ug

21-A

ug

28-A

ug

4-Se

p

11-S

ep

18-S

ep

25-S

ep

Date

Tem

pera

ture

(C)

Max Min Mean 20 Year Avg Temp

Figure 19. Average maximum, minimum, and mean daily temperatures recorded at

Revelstoke, Nakusp, and Castlegar, BC for the period 1 May through 30 September 2008. The 20 year average (1987 – 2007) is also shown.


Page 64

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

1-M

ay

8-M

ay

15-M

ay

22-M

ay

29-M

ay

5-Ju

n

12-J

un

19-J

un

26-J

un

3-Ju

l

10-J

ul

17-J

ul

24-J

ul

31-J

ul

7-A

ug

14-A

ug

21-A

ug

28-A

ug

4-S

ep

11-S

ep

18-S

ep

25-S

ep

Date

Prec

ipita

tion

(mm

)

Castlegar Nakusp 20 year average Rain

Figure 20. Daily precipitation as recorded at Nakusp and Castlegar, BC for the period

1 May through 30 September 2008. The 20 year average 1987 – 2007) is also shown.

6.2.3 Reservoir Conditions Amphibian and reptile sampling occurred when the reservoir was at ~432 m ASL (Field Session 1) to ~440 m ASL (Field Session 4) and most elevation bands above and below the operational minimum (~ 418 m ASL) and maximum (~ 440 m ASL) were sampled during 2008. The reservoir elevation during each field session is shown in Table 12. In 2008, Arrow Lakes Reservoir was managed at elevations (m ASL) that were consistently higher than the average for the previous 20 years and the hydrograph for 2008 is substantially different than the 20-yr average, especially in the spring when the reservoir did not attain the average recorded in previous years (Figure 21). The management of the reservoir was notably different in 2008 compared to the average for the period 15 January – 1 May. In 2008, Arrow Lakes Reservoir reached full pool on 6 July. Table 12. Arrow Lakes Reservoir elevations (minimum, maximum, and mean) for

each of the six 2008 field sessions. Field Session Dates (2008) Min Max Mean

1 12 - 17 May 432.19 432.32 432.24 2 12-19 June 436.88 437.64 437.25 3 23 June - 2 July 438.02 439.47 438.74 4 16 - 23 July 439.59 439.90 439.75 5 22 - 31 August 439.06 439.20 439.13 6 15 - 24 September 437.94 438.23 438.11


Page 65

418.00419.00420.00421.00422.00423.00424.00425.00426.00427.00428.00429.00430.00431.00432.00433.00434.00435.00436.00437.00438.00439.00440.00441.00442.00443.00444.00445.00446.00

1-Ja

n

15-J

an

29-J

an

12-F

eb

26-F

eb

12-M

ar

26-M

ar

9-A

pr

23-A

pr

7-M

ay

21-M

ay

4-Ju

n

18-J

un

2-Ju

l

16-J

ul

30-J

ul

13-A

ug

27-A

ug

10-S

ep

24-S

ep

8-O

ct

22-O

ct

5-N

ov

19-N

ov

3-D

ec

17-D

ec

31-D

ec

Date

Res

ervo

ir El

evat

ion

(m A

SL)

Average (1987 - 2007)

Min Year (2001)

High Year (2007)

2008

Figure 21. Arrow Lakes Reservoir elevations (metres above sea level; m ASL) for 2008

(in pink). Also shown are a low water year (2001), a previous high water year (2007) and the 20 year average (1987 – 2007). The operational minimum is 418.64 m ASL and the maximum is 440.1 m ASL.

In general, reservoir elevations during the first two field sessions made it possible to sample large areas in the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir. As reservoir elevation increased beyond ~433m ASL, most of the flatter areas in the drawdown zone, such as areas in Revelstoke Reach and Burton Creek, became substantially inundated such that the extensive flats and pond habitats that existed were no longer available for sampling. The reservoir remained high through the remainder of the summer and fall.

6.2.4 Amphibian and Reptile Surveys We spent 16.3 days (122h 24mins) surveying various areas within the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir between May and September 2008. During that time we documented more 20,000, metamorphs (estimated) and juvenile or adult amphibians and reptiles of eight species plus an additional ~41,000 tadpoles (estimated) and larvae of three species (Table 10). The most abundant species were Western Toads and Common Garter Snakes. All captures were made via time constrained visual encounter surveys.

Thirty-four amphibians were tested for Chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis). We swabbed 29 Western Toads, three Pacific Treefrogs, and two Columbia Spotted Frogs. The samples were provided to the Ministry of Environment in support of their project “Assessing the Prevalence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in British Columbia”. The results of the chytrid testing are not yet known.


Page 66

i) Seasonal and Geographic Distribution The vast majority of sightings occurred in June and July. With substantial numbers of amphibians and reptiles observed in May and August (Table 13). Western Toad and Columbia Spotted Frog tadpoles and metamorphs comprised the bulk of the observations. Painted Turtles were only observed in May, when reservoir levels were at their lowest for the period sampled. Western Toads, Columbia Spotted Frogs, Common and Western Terrestrial Garter Snakes were observed in each month (i.e., May through September) with only a small number of animals observed in September. From a geographic perspective, Revelstoke Reach (3 mile, 6 mile, 9 mile and 12 mile locations) and Burton Creek were the most productive areas, with Western Toads (Bufo boreas), Columbia Spotted Frogs (Rana luteiventris) and garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis and T. elegans) the most common species observed. Western Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta), Northern Alligator Lizard (Elgaria coerulea) and Pacific Treefrogs (Hyla regilla) were less frequently observed (Table 13).

Most captures occurred between 0900 and 1600 on sunny days averaging 15-25oC through time-constrained visual searches of the habitats in the drawdown zones. Nocturnal surveys were not particuallry productive, but we did document a small number of calling Pacific Treefrogs using this method. Numerous Western Toads were captured at night on roads and within the drawdown zone, especially in Revelstoke Reach. Maps of all Arrow Lakes captures can be found in Appendix 2.

Reservoir elevations were the lowest during May (Figure 21), and as such, substantial areas within the drawdwon zone were available to amphibians and reptiles. Water levels increased substantially from May to June and most of the previously available habitat was inundated. However, adult Western Toads and both species of garter snakes continued to be documented in substantial numbers from habitats around the perimeter of the reservoir. Reservoir levels began to decline (marginally) by August, and very few amphibians were observed in the drawdown zone, possibly indicating their movement into adjacent upland habitats. By September most reptile and amphibian activity had slowed, and only a few snakes and toads were captured in the drawdown zone (Table 13).

Western Toads We documented thousands of tadpoles and metamorphs from ~24 dense aggregations, all of which were in Revelstoke Reach. Seventy one live toads were captured or observed as were an additional 10 road-killed toads. Western Toads averaged 80 ± 23.7 SD mm SUL (range = 11-114 mm SUL) and weighed 66 ± 34.7 SD g. Adult females (average = 103.3 mm SUL, range = 55-153 mm SUL) and were larger than males (average = 58.8 mm, range = 36-106 mm SUL) in both body length and weight.

Our spring survey period included the prime breeding time for Western Toads, and we observed breeding individuals (amplexus pairs 10, plus 13 single males), egg laying (e.g., strings of eggs), and hatching of eggs during mid-May. Breeding areas can be characterized as shallow muddy bottomed ponds with very little submergent vegetation, in reed canary grass landscapes within the drawdown zone. Several of the breeding ponds at Burton Creek appeared to be human-made.


Page 67

Table 13. Total survey time (hours) and captures by geographic area, month, and species for survey sites located in the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir. Blanks indicate life stage or species not detected.

CHPI1 ELCO1 THEL1 THSI1

LOCATION Month Hours EM2 T/L2 M2 J2 A2 EM T/L M J A A A EM T/L M J A EM T/L M J A J/A J/A TotalBurton CreekB May 1.5 25 17 1 2 45

June 4.0 1 1 100 1 3 1 107July 7.0 1 1 2August 6.8 11 2 13September 4.9 1 4 5 1 11

Revelstoke ReachB June 7.9 23 4 1 28Revelstoke Reach 3 mileB May 0.1 2 2Revelstoke Reach 6 mileB May 9.0 10000 11 5 10 10 1 10037

June 3.0 10000 1 10001July 3.0 10000 1 3000 13001August 2.0 3000 500 3500September 1.0 1 1 1 1 4

Revelstoke Reach 9 mileB May 20.0 48 6 10 3 8 75June 15.5 15000 6 1 26 15033July 4.0 10000 1 2 10003August 9.8 12 3 6 1 2 12 36September 5.2 1 3 1 1 1 7

Revelstoke Reach 12 mileB June 2.0 1 1July 3.0August 1.5 1 1 2September 2.8 1 1 2

Shelter Bay June 0.1 1 1August 8.2 1 1

Syringha Prov. Park June 2.3 1 1May 30.6 25 10000 76 5 16 23 3 11 10159June 34.7 25000 31 1 5 100 1 5 29 25172July 17.0 20000 1 3000 1 2 2 23006August 28.3 12 4 6 3000 500 1 14 15 3552September 13.9 1 4 3 5 6 1 3 24Totals 124.4 12 25 35000 20001 116 5 23 31 6100 505 12 22 60 61913

RALU1HYRE1AMMA1 BUBO1

1AMMA = Ambystoma macrodactylum; BUBO = Bufo boreas; CHPI = Chrysemys picta; ELCO = Elgaria coerulea; HYRE = Hyla regilla; RALU = Rana luteiventris; THEL = Thamnophis elegans; THIS = Thamnophis sirtalis. 2 T/L = Tadpole / Larvae. With the exception of AMMA, the number of tadpoles of each species was estimated; M = Metamorph; J = Juvenile; A = Adults 3Totals for all life stages; BDocumented breeding locations


Page 68

Inundation of breeding ponds occurred in June, and toad tadpoles (Gosner stage 26-30) were observed along the sheltered edges of the reservoir, hidden in the vegetation. In mid-July, toad tadpoles (Gosner stage 36-40) were observed at the same time as thousands of newly emerged metamorphs (Gosner stage 44-46), indicating asynchrony of either breeding, hatching, development/growth or metamorphosis.

Toads were typically observed in or near shallow, muddy ponds; in dense shoreline vegetation; under logs and other forms of woody debris on land near the reservoir edge; and on dirt or paved roads around the reservoir. Metamorphs by the thousands were found near the edges of the reservoir, either in the water amongst the vegetation or immediately adjacent to the water on shore in grass duff layer or sedge vegetation. No hibernation sites were located in 2008.

Columbia Spotted Frogs

Spotted frogs were not captured as frequently in Arrow Lakes as in Kinbasket Reservoir. Observations of this species were only made on 11 occasions: 2 tadpole aggregations at Burton Creek; 2 metamorphs; 5 juvenile/subadults; and 2 adults. Columbia Spotted Frogs ranged in size from 34.1-54.3 mm SUL (average 38.4 ± 7.8 SD mm SUL). All spotted frogs were captured in marshes in the drawdown zone at either Burton Creek or within Revelstoke Reach. Typical habitat included shallow ponds with abundant submergent vegetation and sedge vegetation around the periphery.

Pacific Treefrogs We rarely observed Pacific Treefrogs in the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir. In May, we identified 18 areas occupied by calling males, and in each location, the number of calling individual could be easily counted (i.e., <10 males per location). All calling areas documented were in Revelstoke Reach. Most of the calling males were in ponds in the drawdown zone of Revelstoke Reach, but we documented calling males at Burton Creek as well. During daytime visual encounter surveys, we captured 7 adults ranging in size from 19.8-39.7 mm SUL (average = 30.6 ± 10.5 SD mm SUL). Pacific Treefrogs were found in reed canary grass habitats that contained various willow species. One individual was found in the riprap (rocky slope) adjacent to the reservoir at Burton Creek. We captured one metamorph in September along the edge of the reservoir (19.8 mm SUL). An adult treefrog was detected on Machete Island on September 17, 2008 at the bird banding station used for CLBMON-39 (D. Adama pers. comm).

Long-toed Salamanders Observations of this species were made late in the season (August 28, 2008) in only one small pool of water, outside of the drawdown zone, adjacent to the highway in Revelstoke Reach (near 9 mile location). Twelve larvae (gills still present, Harrison stage = 46) were observed, averaging 30 mm total length in size (Figure 22). No adults were located in the area.


Page 69

Figure 22. Long-toed salamander larvae documented near the drawdown zone of

Arrow Lakes Reservoir in Revelstoke Reach, August 2008. Photo © Virgil C. Hawkes.

Painted Turtles We observed five Painted Turtles basking on logs in the drawdown zone of Revelstoke Reach during one survey in May 2008. It was clear and sunny day with no wind, with the average temperature 20oC. No captures were made, as turtles escaped to the water upon approach. At least one female appeared to be amongst the group, due to her significantly larger size relative to the other four. Painted Turtles are known to lay eggs in a nearby site (Red Devil Hill) and hibernate at Williamson Lake (across the road from the reservoir, but > 5km north of the observation made in the drawdown zone of the reservoir). Based on the distance from Red Devil Hill and Williamson Lake, we believe that the turtles documented in the drawdown zone use different egg laying and hibernation sites than the turtles that occur north of the airport.

Common Garter Snakes We observed a total of 57 snakes and obtained measurements from 52 of them (27 female, 25 male). Of these, 37 were adults, 16 were juveniles and 3 were neonates. The smallest snake was 299 mm SVL and the largest snake captured was 808 mm SVL (average = 448 ± 135.7 SD). Females were larger than males; most males were in the 400-500 mm SVL range and most females ranged from 450-800 mm SVL.

Because snakes were marked by clipping sub-caudal scutes, we were able to identify five snakes as recaptures within the same year. Several females were captured gravid, with litter size ranging from 2–6 embryos. Several snakes were captured with food in their stomachs (N = 5); most notably two large females were captured with large Western Toads in their guts. Several snakes were also observed actively foraging in shallow pools for recently hatched Western Toad tadpoles. Several road kill snakes were observed, and a Common Raven was seen flying with a snake in it’s talons in Burton Creek in May.


Page 70

Snakes were typically encountered above ground, when ambient temperatures were 18 to 30oC, engaged in a variety of pre-capture activities, including basking in the open, concealed beneath cover, moving, and swimming. Both Common and Western Terrestrial Garter Snakes were observed in the same habitats, sometimes within metres of one another. Typical habitats included marsh areas with abundant grass or vegetative cover (e.g. reed canary grass), among rocky areas at the sides of the reservoirs and under driftwood log piles.

Western Terrestrial Garter Snakes We captured 21 individuals of this species (males = 6, females = 13, unclassified = 2), both in the drawdown zone and in upland areas adjacent to the reservoir. Captured snakes ranged in size from 165-590 mm SVL (average = 428 ± 115.3 SD). We captured four adults with food in the stomachs, three gravid females (litter size = 7–8) and two post-partum females. Western Terrestrial Garter Snakes were found in similar habitats to Common Garter Snakes, with the exception of one female that was captured outside of the drawdown zone on a mossy slope.

Northern Alligator Lizards We visually observed 16 lizards (captured 3) in the rocky slope areas immediate adjacent to the drawdown zone in Revelstoke Reach. Alligator lizards are extremely fast, escaping to cover beneath the rocks when approached. Of the three captured (size range = 56-83 mm SVL), two were gravid females.

ii) Elevational Distribution Amphibians The distribution of amphibians (of all life stages) by elevation is shown in (Figure 23). Long-toed Salamanders (AMMA) were only located at one pond that was situated at 443 m ASL, just outside of the drawdown zone. Western Toads (BUBO) were distributed across an elevational range of 431–450m ASL and most Western Toad observations occurred between 431–440m ASL. The elevational distribution of Pacific Treefrog (HYRE) was constrained to a 10m band between 433–443 m ASL and Columbia Spotted Frogs (RALU) had the narrowest elevational range (6 m), occurring between 434–440m ASL.

Reptiles The distribution of reptiles (of all life stages) by elevation is shown in (Figure 24). In general, reptiles occurred across an elevational gradient of 433–450 m ASL. Within that range, Common Garter Snakes occurred across the entire gradient with substantial numbers occurring at 438–439 m ASL (Figure 24). Northern Alligator Lizards were documented between 433–446m ASL and all observations were associated with the rip-rap and rocky margins of the reservoir. Western Terrestrial Garter Snakes occurred over a narrow elevational range of 438–441 m ASL and several snakes assigned to Thamnophis spp occurred in the 439–440 m ASL range. Painted Turtles were documented at 435 m ASL only (Figure 24).


Page 71

431432433434435436437438439440441442443444445446447448449450451

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14


Res

ervo

ir El

evat

ion

(m A

SL)

AMMA BUBO HYRE RALU

Figure 23. Elevational distribution of amphibians documented in and adjacent to the

drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir in 2008. AMMA = Ambystoma macrodactylum; BUBO = Bufo boreas; HYRE = Hyla regilla; RALU = Rana luteiventris. Maximum reservoir elevation ~ 440m ASL.

431432433434435436437438439440441442443444445446447448449450451

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24


Res

ervo

ir El

evat

ion

(m A

SL)

CHPI ELCO THAM SP. THEL THSI

Figure 24. Elevational distribution of reptiles documented in and adjacent to the

drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir in 2008. CHPI = Chrysemys picta; THAM sp. = Thamnophis species; THEL = Thamnophis elegans; THIS = Thamnophis sirtalis. Maximum reservoir elevation ~ 440m ASL.


Page 72

iii) Habitat Associations We used the habitat types described by Enns et al. (2007) to describe the habitat associations of amphibians and reptiles documented in the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir (Figure 25; Figure 26). A substantial number of observations, including the single Long-toed Salamander observation, occurred in the NC, or non-classified type because of the fact that the observations were outside of the drawdown zone (i.e., were ~440m ASL).

In general, Western Toads and Common Garter Snakes were distributed across all habitat types sampled, as is to be expected for these species which make use of various habitat types to fulfill their life requisites. Both species were most abundant in the Reed Canarygrass-Lenticular Sedge Mesic habitat type, which provided excellent cover and foraging opportunities for both species. Later in the summer, as the reservoir levels increased, the reed canary grass functioned as submergent vegetation, providing hiding and foraging opportunities for Western Toad tadpoles, which were abundant in Revelstoke Reach. The mats of reed canarygrass floating on or at the surface the reservoir also likely ameliorated the effects of wave action through the dissipation of wave energy, thereby improving the suitability of the reservoir as amphibian habitat, particularly for the tadpole life stage. These same habitats were used by garter snakes as escape and foraging habitat. Columbia Spotted Frogs were typically associated with moist sites, occurring primarily in Revelstoke Reach in the same locations as Western Toads. Pacific Treefrogs were not abundant, but did occur at most sites sampled and were documented from most habitat types mapped in the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir.

Northern Alligator Lizard habitat typically included rip-rap and rocky areas at the margin of the reservoir, which was classified by Enns et al. (2007) as Reed Canarygrass-Lenticular Sedge Mesic and Redtop–Hare’s-foot Clover upland. These two habitat types were extensive in the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir, particularly in Revelstoke Reach. Painted Turtles were observed at one location in Revelstoke Reach and were associated with the pond habitat in the undulating, reed canarygrass habitat (PC) described by Enns et al. (2007). Basking sites, which are an important habitat feature for Painted Turtles, occurred in only a few ponds in Revelstoke Reach, including the one the turtles were located in. Lastly, Long-toed Salamander larvae were located in one pond adjacent to road and farmer’s field, outside of the drawdown zone (see Appendix 4).

6.3 Habitat Suitability Mapping The area mapped for Kinbasket Reservoir captured 37 ponds, 35 of which were in the drawdown zone (i.e., between 741 m and 754 m ASL). The total area mapped for Long-toed Salamander habitat suitability in the Valemount Peatland was approximately 909 ha, of which approximately 644 ha was rated as high (~155 ha), moderate (~255 ha), and low (~229 ha) suitability (Figure 27). The remaining ~266 ha were rated as having no habitat suitability for Long-toed Salamanders. Not all of this area occurred between the 741 m and 754 m ASL elevation bands. The total area contained within the high, moderate, low, and nil suitability areas and that occurs between 741 m and 754 m ASL is shown in Table 14.


Page 73

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

BE CR IN PA PC PE PO RH RS SS NC


Num

ber o

f Ind

ivid

uals

AMMA BUBO HYRE RALU

Figure 25. Habitat associations of amphibians documented in the drawdown zone of

Arrow Lakes Reservoir in 2008. BE = non- to sparsely-vegetated sands or gravels; CR = Cottonwood-riparian; IN= Industrial / Recreational / Residential; PA= Reed Canarygrass-Redtop upland; PC = Reed Canarygrass-Lenticular Sedge Mesic; PE= Reed Canarygrass-horsetail middle to lower slope; PO= Waterlily-Potamogeton open water; RH = Redtop–Hare’s-foot Clover upland; RS= Willow–Red-osier Dogwood stream entry; SS = Non-vegetated sand and/or gravels, steep; NC = not classified. See Appendix 4 for descriptions of each habitat type.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

BE CR IN PA PC PE PO RH RS SS NC


Num

ber o

f Ind

ivid

uals

CHPI ELCO THAM SP. THEL THSI

Figure 26. Habitat associations of reptiles documented in the drawdown zone of

Arrow Lakes Reservoir in 2008. BE = non- to sparsely-vegetated sands or gravels; CR = Cottonwood-riparian; IN= Industrial / Recreational / Residential; PA= Reed Canarygrass-Redtop upland; PC= Reed Canarygrass-Lenticular Sedge Mesic; PE= Reed Canarygrass-horsetail middle to lower slope; PO= Waterlily-Potamogeton open water; RH= Redtop – Hare’s-foot Clover upland; RS= Willow – Red-osier Dogwood stream entry; SS = Non-vegetated sand and/or gravels, steep; NC = not classified. See Appendix 4 for descriptions of each habitat type.


Page 74

The HSI model mapped the best Long-toed Salamander habitat in the upper elevation bands of the reservoir. In general, this makes inherent sense, as the upper elevation bands are also closest to the forest. Therefore, the distance between forested habitat and pond-breeding habitat is minimized.

An example of the output of the Long-toed Salamander HSI model is shown in Figure 28.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

High Moderate Low Nil

Suitability Rating

Are

a (h

ecta

res)

Figure 27. Total area mapped as high, moderate, low, and nil habitat suitability for

Long-toed Salamanders in the Valemount Peatlands, Kinbasket Reservoir.

Table 14. Total area mapped as having high, moderate, low, and nil breeding potential for Long-toed Salamanders in the Valemount Peatland. Area calculations constrained to the elevational gradient of 741 m to 754 m ASL and include terrestrial and aquatic habitats.

Area of Breeding Potential (ha) Elevation (m ASL) High Moderate Low Nil

741 -- -- -- 2.49 742 -- -- 3.11 35.37 743 -- -- 13.46 26.98 744 -- 0.33 19.46 8.08 745 -- 4.43 20.68 9.20 746 -- 14.06 22.16 10.56 747 -- 26.30 15.49 7.13 748 0.01 31.47 4.85 4.11 749 5.23 34.53 4.05 3.87 750 27.52 9.45 0.76 0.61 751 33.47 2.76 0.52 0.43 752 30.99 2.23 0.39 0.42 753 20.66 4.80 0.32 0.34 754 5.51 3.68 0.12 0.14

Total ha 123.39 88.92 11.01 9.92

Kinbasket & Arrow Amphibian and Reptile Life History and Habitat Use Discussion

Page 75

Figure 28. Output of the Long-toed Salamander HSI for the Valemount Peatland at the

north end of Canoe Reach, Kinbasket Reservoir. The area mapped for potential breeding habitat suitability corresponds to the area covered by the 2008 aerial photos.


Page 76

7 Discussion

7.1 2008 Reconnaissance Surveys The 2008 reconnaissance surveys of the drawdown zones of Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs revealed the presence of five amphibian and reptile species in Kinbasket Reservoir (Western Toads, Columbia Spotted Frogs, Long-toed Salamanders, Western Terrestrial Garter Snakes, and Common Garter snakes) and eight species in Arrow Lakes Reservoir (Western Toads, Columbia Spotted Frogs, Pacific Treefrog, Long-toed Salamanders, Western Terrestrial Garter Snakes, Common Garter snakes, Painted Turtles, and Northern Alligator Lizards). With the exception of Western Terrestrial Garter Snakes in Kinbasket Reservoir and Long-toed Salamanders in Arrow Lakes Reservoir, which were observed outside of the drawdown zone, each of these species was using habitats in or immediately adjacent to the drawdown zone. In some places (e.g., Revelstoke reach in Arrow Lakes Reservoir and Bush Arm km 79 in Kinbasket Reservoir), there was extensive use of the drawdown zone by amphibians and reptiles. Western Toads were the most commonly encountered amphibian in Arrow Lakes Reservoir while Common Garter Snakes were the most commonly encountered reptile. In Kinbasket reservoir, Columbia Spotted Frogs were by far the most commonly encountered amphibian and again, Common Garter Snakes were the most commonly encountered reptile.

Completing reconnaissance-level surveys prior to implementing a long-term monitoring program enables the development of field schedules that will overlap with the peak periods of activity for the species being monitored. In the case of Arrow Lakes and Kinbasket Reservoirs, it will be important to monitor populations of amphibians and reptiles during the months of May, June, and July. To capture early breeders, such as Long-toed Salamanders, and possibly Pacific Treefrogs, it will be necessary to visit each reservoir, particularly those sites near known Long-toed Salamander breeding sites, as early in the year as access permits. Ideally, a field visit in April to establish and monitor pitfall traps will enable an assessment of the size of the Long-toed Salamander populations in those areas.

The utility of habitat suitability index modeling to predict the distribution of suitable Long-toed Salamander breeding habitat will be tested in 2009 and will be based on the mapping completed in 2008. Depending on the results obtained in 2009, we may decide to expand the HSI mapping to Arrow Lakes Reservoir, although there are substantial differences between the two reservoirs that may warrant the development of a new model for Arrow Lakes Reservoir. For example, the use of reed canary grass flats by Long-toed Salamanders is unknown and we need to determine the likelihood that Long-toed Salamanders will use open grassy habitats with little cover to access breeding ponds.

One of the more significant findings of 2008 was the documentation of an isolated population of Painted Turtles in the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir, a considerable distance south of the known breeding population at Red Devil Hill near Revelstoke. Because of the spatial relationship to the population at Red Devil Hill, we believe that these turtles will be breeding and overwintering in different areas than those animals farther north.

During 2008, large exposed areas of the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir were accessible in May only. After that, the level of the reservoir precluded further searches of


Page 77

the pond habitats that form in the drawdown zone when the reservoir elevation is < ~432 m ASL. This limited our ability to evaluate the productivity associated with particular areas within the drawdown zone. Rather, we simply documented the presence of amphibians and reptiles in general areas within the drawdown zone. If we are to use the results from a long-term monitoring program to inform other activities, such as proposed physical works, including the building of berms to various elevations within the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir, it would be beneficial to be able to monitor pond habitats within the drawdown zone for the period that corresponds to amphibian mating, egg deposition, hatching, and metamorphosis. This requires the identification of specific areas within the drawdown zone that are highly productive, as opposed to general areas where amphibians and reptiles occur. Recognizing that this is not likely to happen because of the general trend in reservoir elevations, with much of the drawdown zone inundated by late June to early July, we will continue to visit the drawdown zone when reservoir elevations are low to map the extent of pond habitat in the drawdown zone and use the density and size of ponds as a proxy for amphibian breeding potential.

7.2 Development of the Monitoring Program The 2008 reconnaissance surveys provided valuable data for the development of a long-term monitoring program. Not only were we able to determine which species were using the drawdown zone, but we were able to determine (in general) the seasonality of that use relative to reservoir elevations. Data collected in 2008 also enabled us to identify areas that support substantial or unique populations of amphibians and reptiles. All of this information was used to develop the monitoring program.

The objective of the monitoring program is to monitor trends in amphibian and reptile populations (i.e., relative abundance or detection rates) and habitat use and associations for species that use habitats within the drawdown zones of Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs. Based on the data collected in 2008, we propose to use several methods to accomplish this and these methods are introduced below, with an explanation of why the proposed methods are appropriate given the data collected and observations made in 2008.

7.2.1 Amphibian and Reptile Monitoring Locations Reconnaissance-level surveys enabled us to identify various regions within the drawdown zone of each reservoir that can be included in the long-term monitoring program, either because of their accessibility, or more importantly, because of the size of the amphibian and/or reptile communities that occur (Table 10; Table 13). In some cases (e.g., Revelstoke Reach) many different species use similar habitats in the drawdown zone, making it relatively easy to monitor several species at once. For 2009, we have identified a minimum of six geographic areas to monitor in Kinbasket Reservoir, extending from the north end of the reservoir near Valemount, south to Bush Arm (and east to the east end of the reservoir). The southern end of Kinbasket (Beavermouth) contains very little suitable amphibian and reptile habitat. The areas within each reservoir proposed for long-term monitoring are shown in Table 15.


Page 78

Table 15. Location and description of primary study sites included in amphibian and reptile monitoring program for 2009. See Table 1 for expanded species codes.

Reservoir Site Location Species Documented Inundation Site Description

Kinbasket Bush Arm km61 A-RALU A-BUBO June-July

Several ponds/marshes located adjacent to B-Road causeway and Bush River. East end of Bush Arm.

Kinbasket Bush Arm km79 A-RALU A-BUBO R-THSI

July-August Tiered marsh/pond system along edge of reservoir. Near mouth of Bush Arm.

Kinbasket Ptarmigan Creek A-RALU A-BUBO R-THSI

Late July One large pond perched above reservoir. Smaller ditch pond on opposite side of road. Not in DDZ.

Kinbasket Valemount Peatland A-RALU A-BUBO R-THSI

August Series of ponds and marsh-like areas in peatland. Most extensive area in Kinbasket (> 500 ha).

Arrow Lakes Revelstoke Reach

A-RALU, A-BUBO A-HYRE, R-CHPI R-THSI, R-THEL, R-ELCO

Early June

Four sampling locations along the edge of reservoir (locally known as 3, 6, 9, 12 mile locations). Most extensive area in Arrow Lakes Reservoir.

Arrow Lakes Burton Creek A-RALU, A-BUBO A-HYRE R-THSI, R-THEL

Early June Several gravel ponds in spring, marsh areas in summer.

In addition to the primary areas identified in Table 15, we will also investigate the following areas for inclusion into the long-term monitoring program for amphibians and reptiles:

Kinbasket Reservoir: At present, the sites selected for monitoring include areas in Bush Arm and Canoe Reach only. Habitat suitability for amphibians in the southern reaches of Kinbasket Reservoir (i.e., Beavermouth) is low, with few to no ponds in the drawdown zone. Reptiles (e.g., garter snakes) do occur in the area and Beavermouth will be visited in 2009 to better assess the utility of the area as long-term monitoring site. At present, the level of effort to gain access to the site and the relatively low numbers of animals encountered and expected there does not make Beavermouth a good candidate for long-term monitoring.

Three other areas in Kinbasket Reservoir will be considered in 2009:

• Hugh Allan Bay • Encampment Creek • Mouth of Bush Arm

These areas were surveyed by Hawkes et al. (2007) and had high (mouth of Bush Arm) to moderate (Hugh Allan Bay and Encampment Creek) potential for amphibians and reptiles. These areas were not sampled in 2008, primarily because of access issues (neither area is accessible by truck). The east end of Hugh Allan Bay was accessed in 2008, but the drawdown zone at the mouth of the bay was not sampled.

Arrow Lakes Reservoir: Many areas were not accessible in 2008 due to high water. Many of the areas sampled did not contain suitable amphibian and reptile habitat. For example, Beaton Arm contained virtually no pond habitat in the drawdown zone and most of the area was denuded of vegetation. At present, the selected monitoring sites (Table 15) are approximately 5 km south of Revelstoke and south of Nakusp at Burton Creek. We will access other areas in 2009 to assess their suitability for inclusion in the monitoring program.


Page 79

These areas will include areas south of Burton Creek:

• Dixon Creek • Adshead / Mole Road • Rock Island Road / Arrow Provincial Park Ferry

Near Revelstoke:

• Machete Island • Downie Marsh • Ponds and wetlands at the airport

Areas in the southern reaches of the reservoir (i.e., Renata, Deer Park, Syringa Provincial Park) contained very little suitable amphibian and reptile habitat. The proposed extent of the amphibian and reptile monitoring program in Arrow Lakes includes the general area of Revelstoke to just south of Burton Creek.

7.2.2 Amphibian and Reptile Monitoring Methods Various methods will be used to determine the presence, relative abundance, diversity, productivity, distribution, and patterns of habitat use of amphibian and reptile populations using the drawdown zone of Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoir. Long-term population monitoring and habitat use will involve several methods and various analytical techniques, the specifics of which can be found in Hawkes and Tuttle (2009). Specifically, VES, NCS, EMS, LVS, and pitfall trapping (in specific areas only) will be used. In some cases, night time road surveys will be used to document the presence of Western Toads in areas adjacent to the reservoirs.

The following sections describe the type of data that will be obtained for all, most, or some of the amphibian and reptile populations that use habitats in the drawdown zones of Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs.

Monitoring will occur in the spring, summer, and early fall of each monitoring year to develop a sense of seasonal relative abundance, distribution, and habitat use. Based on our experience from 2008, we have determined that certain methods (e.g., artificial cover objects, extensive pitfall trapping, turtle trapping, and radio-telemetry) may not be suitable or are outside the scope of this project. The following sections describe the types of data we will collect in each year of the monitoring program as well as one suggestion for the possible inclusion of radio-telemetry data.

i) Presence–absence Presence–absence data often provide little more than geographic or habitat distribution in a given area, but these data can provide information on species correlations that may be of use in explaining the observed distributions. Presence–absence data can be used to derive estimates of species richness and for this project will be used to validate aspects of the HSI model developed for Long-toed Salamanders. The presence and distribution of amphibians and reptiles relative to survey location will be documented each year the monitoring program occurs. We will collect and report presence–absence data for all survey locations, sampling periods, and species. This will involve the reporting of a species’ presence in a given survey location both seasonally and annually.


Page 80

ii) Relative Abundance & Population Estimates

Catch per Unit Effort The relative abundance of amphibian and reptile populations will be expressed as a catch per unit effort, with effort recorded as survey time, trap nights, or total area searched. At each survey location (Table 15), we will standardize the amount of time spent searching so that seasonal (i.e., within year) and annual (i.e., among years) comparisons of CPUE can be made.

Catch per unit effort is a proxy for relative abundance and will be calculated as:

1) the number of individuals encountered per unit time;

2) the number of egg masses per metre; and

3) the number of calling males per unit time when conducing NCS.

These three metrics will be derived for each species monitored in each reservoir. Because we will monitor populations at various locations, these metrics will be derived for each location and year so that site-specific comparisons can be made using (for example) a repeated-measures ANOVA. Within reservoir comparisons of catch per unit effort data will be made when the same species occurs at multiple sites within the same reservoir. For each area monitored, the total survey time, number of observations, and total animals encountered will be recorded. CPUE data will be obtained for all species, locations, and sampling periods.

Pitfall Trapping The distribution and habitat use of Long-toed Salamanders is predicted to be high in the Valemount Peatland (Figure 28), yet we documented them from only one pond in 2008. In 2009, we will establish pitfall traps in the Valemount Peatland and at the interface between the drawdown zone and the upland forest to determine a) the relative abundance of Long-toed Salamanders in the Valemount Peatland and b) the distribution of Long-toed Salamanders relative to the ponds mapped in 2008. This will provide an indication of which ponds might be used for breeding and direct egg mass and larval surveys to specific ponds in 2009. From the pitfall trap data, we can generate a catch per unit effort expressed as captures per 100 trap nights. Pitfall traps may also be deployed at Ptarmigan Creek in the Kinbasket Reservoir and at present, we do not see the utility of deploying pitfall traps anywhere in Arrow Lakes Reservoir. The data obtained from the pitfall trap arrays can also be used to refine the HSI model.

Mark-Recapture For certain locations and populations, we proposed to conduct mark-recapture studies. The data obtained in 2008 suggest that populations of Western Toads and Common Garter Snakes in Revelstoke Reach and Columbia Spotted Frogs in Bush Arm (km 79) are large enough to attempt this. In 2009, we will determine the feasibility of this method for the populations and determine if this method should be carried forward into future years. Mark-recapture methods may also be appropriate for the Painted Turtle population in Revelstoke Reach. Mark-recapture data can be used to derive population estimates for the populations studied.


Page 81

iii) Productivity Productivity is related to the fecundity of the population being sampled. To determine productivity of amphibian populations, we will report on the number of egg masses observed for each species, and the estimated number of tadpoles and metamorphs observed at each site. For snakes, we will palpate females to determine if gravid or not and to count eggs. The number of neonate snakes captured per survey location may be used to infer productivity.

iv) Distribution The distribution of amphibians and reptiles will be determined by collating data from all survey methods and mapping the occurrence of each species within each reservoir. As a visual indication of population size, we will indicate larger populations of each species with larger dots on a map. The relative size of each population (as determined by time constrained searches or pitfall trapping efforts) and the overall distribution of a species within each reservoir can therefore be viewed graphically across the period of study.

We will document the distribution of species within the drawdown zone, both seasonally and annually, by georeferencing each species’ locations. The elevational gradient across which each species occurs can then be plotted relative to the known reservoir elevation.

v) Site Occupancy We do not need to collect data specifically for site occupancy modelling because presence-absence data can be modelled to derive estimates of the proportion of area occupied by a given species. However, to ensure that the presence-absence data collected during this monitoring program can be used to model site occupancy, presence-absence data will be collected using the double-observer approach (Royle and Nichols 2003; Grant et al. 2005; Royle 2006; Mazerolle et al. 2007). Using this approach, each surveyor will independently survey a site immediately after another without discussing detection or non-detection of any species at each site. Using this method will improve the credibility of the detection or non-detection status assigned to a site and if the surveys are done close together (i.e., one right after the other), temporal variation between surveys can be reduced. These data will allow us to estimate population sizes and the percent of area occupied by these species over time and to relate these estimates to environmental and landscape variables.

vi) Habitat Use Habitat use of amphibians and reptiles will be described on several scales. The first and broadest scale of habitat use will indicate whether the observation of a given amphibian or reptile occurred in the drawdown zone of the reservoir or not. Second, the type of habitat (e.g., pond, roadside, rock, cover object) will be reported for all observations. Third, because all sightings will be georeferenced, we can relate each observation to existing habitat mapping produced under CLBMON-10 and CLBMON-33 (where such mapping exists). The habitat polygons generated for CLBMON-10 and 33 are based on detailed vegetation plots that provide information on species’ presence and percentage cover. Those data can be used when describing the habitat use of amphibians and reptiles.

Finally, for pond-breeding amphibians observed in a pond (no matter what life stage) we will obtain pond-specific physiochemical data. The physiochemical conditions of ponds in drawdown areas are likely to be greatly affected when inundation from a reservoir occurs


Page 82

(Kadlec and Bevis, 1996; Knutson et al., 2004). Thus, studies examining the effects of reservoir inundation on wildlife should assess (1) abiotic conditions (e.g., water temperature and physiochemistry) of the aquatic environment, (2) biotic conditions (e.g., vegetative cover, presence of predators), and (3) amphibian or reptile population trends (e.g., densities and survivorship) over a period of several years. Where possible, comparison of inundated ponds to natural ponds may help to factor in any annual or site variation (Pechmann et al., 1991).

vii) Other Potential Methods

Radio Telemetry Because telemetry studies are labour intensive, they are not appropriate for a long-term monitoring study and they will not be incorporated into the monitoring program for CLBMON-37. However, we continue to explore the possibility of graduate work related to CLBMON-37. There are natural history studies that could be carried out on Western Toads, Common Garter Snakes, Columbia Spotted Frogs, and Painted Turtles (as examples) that could include a radio telemetry component to determine seasonal habitat use. These data could be incorporated into the analyses and reports produced for CLBMON-37 and provide valuable habitat-use and seasonal distribution data for specific species in Arrow Lakes and Kinbasket Reservoir.

7.2.3 Statistical Analyses The analytical methods proposed are described in more detail in Hawkes and Tuttle (2009). Because of the variable nature of amphibian and reptile populations, the critical level of alpha will be set at 0.1 for all analyses and effect size will be 0.25. A power analysis was conducted to determine the sample size required to obtain enough power in future analyses (Hawkes and Tuttle, 2009). Furthermore, we hope to be in a position to derive population estimates for certain species after the 2009 field season (e.g., Columbia Spotted, Western Toads, Long-toed Salamanders, and Common Garter Snakes) using mark-recapture data.

Because the count data obtained in 2008 do not likely index relative population size, there is no reliable way to estimate the size of the populations detected at each survey location. In 2009, we will standardize our survey effort at each site and across time so that an index of relative abundance (e.g., catch per unit effort, detection rate) can be derived for each population surveyed.

i) Presence–Absence Presence–absence (or more accurately, detected–not detected) data will be used in species richness estimates, to validate the HSI model developed for Long-toed Salamanders, and in site occupancy modelling. Basic descriptive statistics will be generated for presence–absence data. The presence–absence data will also be used to generate maps of species occurrence on a seasonal and annual basis for both reservoirs.

ii) Indices of Relative Abundance At a very basic level, comparisons of an index of relative abundance will be made for each site within a year (to track seasonal changes) and across time (to track annual variation) relative to various biotic and abiotic levels, including reservoir levels and annual environmental conditions. If the mark-recapture component of the study is


Page 83

successful, we will be able to derive survivorship curves and population estimates, which can be compared across time relative to the abiotic and biotic factors.

iii) Species Richness The number of species found at each site during each season and each year will be used as a measure of species richness. To compare within and between year species richness, Morisita’s coefficient of similarity (C) will be used to derive estimates of community similarity within a survey location. Morisita’s index calculates the probability that specimens randomly drawn from two sites will be of the same species, relative to the probability that specimens randomly drawn from the same site will be of the same species. Morisita’s index is desirable because sample size has little influence on its calculation (Morisita 1959; Wolda 1981). Morisita’s index returns values of 0 (no similarity) to 1 (identical).

iv) Site Occupancy Site occupancy (i.e., the proportion of sites sampled and occupied by one or more species) will be determined using site occupancy modelling approaches (e.g., Royle and Nichols, 2003; Pellet and Schmidt, 2005; Schmidt 2005; Royle 2006). Most of the methods promoted for the determination of site occupancy are based largely on presence absence data, which are included in models to derive estimates of the proportion of sites occupied. These methods can be particularly useful and cost-effective in large-scale monitoring programs and will be used for CLBMON-37 to develop site occupancy estimates for both Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs.

Schmidt (2005) describes an estimation-based approach that is sensitive to changes in detection probabilities, which are typically both low and variable, particularly for amphibian populations (Bailey et al., 2004; Dodd and Dorazio, 2004; Schmidt, 2004) and that is sensitive to changes in field methodology throughout the duration of the monitoring program (see Bailey et al., 2004). To ensure that spatial autocorrelation is considered when analyzing long-term monitoring data, we will adopt methods used by Pellet and Schmidt (2005) and Schmidt (2005) when deriving detection probabilities (as a proxy for species persistence and occupancy) for the amphibian and reptile populations that occur within and adjacent to the drawdown zones of Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes reservoirs.

v) Habitat Use We will use logistic regressions to check for differences between occupied and unoccupied habitats to determine if there are specific habitat attributes that are missing from unoccupied habitats that could be created to enhance the suitability of habitats in the drawdwon zone for amphibians and reptiles. In addition to logistic regressions, we will visualize habitat data relative to species presence and/or relative abundance using various methods of ordinations including canonical correspondence analysis, redundancy analysis, and co-inertia analysis.

vi) Study Components and Hypothesis Testing Table 16 relates each of the 10 null hypotheses listed in Section 2.2 Monitoring Program Objectives & Hypotheses to various study components and includes suggested statistical methods that can be used to address each of the nine management questions. More detail is provided in the Monitoring Program document (Hawkes and Tuttle 2009).


Page 84

Table 16. Null hypotheses, study components and proposed statistical methods to address management questions of CLBMON-37. ‘x’: study component required to address the hypothesis.

Study Component1

Hypothesis SM RA HSI MR RT LH HU Methods Management Questions2

H01

Variations in water levels in the Arrow Lakes and the Kinbasket Reservoirs and reservoir operations do not impact reptile and amphibian populations.

x x x x x x x

• Ordination (CA, RDA) • Repeated Measures ANOVA;

• Richness and Diversity Indices

• Survivorship analyses, • Population estimates, • Detection Probabilities

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

H02 Reservoir operations do not result in a decreased abundance of amphibians or reptiles in the drawdown zone.

x x x x

• Repeated Measures ANOVA with contrasts

• Survivorship Analyses • Population Estimates

2, 3, 5

H03 Reservoir operations do not increase the mortality rates of amphibians or reptiles in the drawdown zone.

x x x x • Regression (multinomial) • Time Series Analyses 3, 5

H04 Reservoir operations do not result in decreased site occupancy of amphibians or reptiles in the drawdown zone.

x x x • Estimates of Detection Probabilities as a proxy for species persistence and occupancy

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

• Repeated Measures ANOVA with contrasts

H05 Reservoir operations do not result in decreased productivity of amphibians or reptiles in the drawdown zone.

x x x • Estimation of Detection Probabilities as a proxy for species persistence and occupancy

2, 3, 5

H06

Reservoir operations do not reduce the availability and quality of breeding, foraging and over-wintering habitats for amphibians or reptiles in the drawdown zone.

x x x x x x

• Estimation of Detection Probabilities as a proxy for species persistence and occupancy

• Correlation • Ordination

4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

H07

Physical works projects and revegetation efforts do not increase habitat use by amphibians or reptiles in the drawdown zone.

x x x x • Ordination with variance partitioning

• Logistic regression 7, 8, 9

H08

Revegetation and physical works do not increase species diversity or seasonal abundance of amphibians or reptiles in the drawdown zone.

x x x x • Regression • Richness comparisons • ANOVA

2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

• Ordination with variance partitioning and Monte Carlo simulations

• Regression • Richness comparisons • ANOVA H09

Revegetation and physical works do not increase amphibian or reptile productivity in the drawdown zone.

x x x • Mixed modelling with Monte Carlo simulations (comparing relationship of vegetation vs. elevation between different years)

2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

• Ordination with variance partitioning and Monte Carlo simulations

H10 Revegetation does not increase the amount or improve habitat for amphibians and reptiles in the drawdown zone.

x x x x • Mixed modelling with permutation testing (comparing relationship of vegetation vs. elevation between different years)

4, 5, 6, 8

1SM: Site monitoring; RA: Relative Abundance estimation; HSI: Habitat suitability index model; MR: Mark-recapture; RT: Radio telemetry; LH: Life history; HU: Habitat Use (occupied vs. unoccupied). 2: Management Questions listed in 2.2 Monitoring Program Objectives & Hypotheses

Kinbasket & Arrow Amphibian and Reptile Life History and Habitat Use Recommendations

Page 85

8 RECOMMENDATIONS The reconnaissance-level surveys completed in 2008 provided an opportunity to identify the species, populations, and sites in each reservoir that would be suitable for monitoring. We have the following recommendations for 2009 and the implementation of the long-term monitoring program:

1. Start surveys earlier in the year, particularly in the Valemount Peatland, to capture early pond-breeding amphibians such as Long-toed Salamanders and potentially Pacific Treefrogs. The actual timing of the early spring surveys will depend on the winter of 2008-09 and the amount of snow on the ground in early 2009. To the extent possible, surveys will occur at similar times each year.

2. Investigate the utility of trapping turtles in 2009. Trapping turtles and fixing them with transmitters will provide an opportunity to determine the location of nesting sites and over-wintering locations.

3. Investigate the potential of implanting radio transmitters into several individual Western Terrestrial and Common Garter Snakes to identify seasonal patterns of habitat use and possible the location of hibernacula in relation to the drawdown zone. These studies would need to be carried out by a graduate student.

4. Consider the relationship of potential physical works to amphibian and reptile communities, particularly those that occur in Arrow Lakes Reservoir and provide data and/or critique those proposed physical works.

5. Collaborate with the principal investigators of CLBMON-11A to expand the number of people gathering data on amphibians and reptiles when working the drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir.

6. Develop a community-based citizen survey (see Hawkes and Tuttle, 2008).

7. Continue monitoring amphibian and reptile populations at the locations identified in Table 15.

Kinbasket & Arrow Amphibian and Reptile Life History and Habitat Use Literature Cited

Page 86

9 LITERATURE CITED Adama, D. and I.A. Ohanjanian 2005. A survey of western toads, Bufo boreas, and other

amphibians in Glacier and Mt. Revelstoke Nations Parks. Unpubl. report for Parks Canada, Revelstoke, B.C.

Adams, S.B., D.A. Schmetterling, and M.K. Young. 2005. Instream movements by boreal toads (Bufo boreas boreas). Herpetological Review 36:27–33.

Alford, R.A. and S.J. Richards. 1999. Global amphibian declines: a problem in applied ecology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30:133–165.

Alford, R.A. K.S. Bradfield, and S.J. Richards. 2008. Global warming and amphibian losses. Nature 447:E3.

Allan, G.M., C.J. Prelypchan, and P. T. Gregory. 2006. Population profile of an introduced species, the common wall lizard (Podarcis muralis), on Vancouver Island, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 84:51-57.

Anderson, J.D. 1968. A comparison of the food habits of Ambystoma macrodactylum sigillatum, Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum, and Ambystoma tigrinum califoriense. Herpetologica 24:273-284.

Arnold, S.J. 2003. Too much natural history, or too little? Animal Behavior 65:1065-1068. Arnold, S.J. and R.J. Wassersug. 1978. Differential predation on metamorphic anurans

by garter snakes (Thamnophis): social behavior as a possible defense. Ecology 59:1014–1022.

Astley, C. 2005. Draft status report on Pacific Treefrog Pseudacris regilla. Prepared for Canadian Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Network. 19pp.

B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2008a. Species Summary: Bufo boreas. B.C. Minist. of Environment. Available: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Oct 27, 2008).

B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2008b . Conservation Status Report: Bufo boreas. B.C. Minist. of Environment. Available: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Oct 27, 2008 ).

B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2008c. Species Summary: Rana luteiventris. B.C. Minist. of Environment. Available: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Oct 28, 2008).

B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2008d. Species Summary: Pseudacris regilla. B.C. Minist. of Environment. Available: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Oct 27, 2008).

B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2008e. Species Summary: Ambystoma macrodactylum. B.C. Minist. of Environment. Available: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Oct 28, 2008).

B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2008f. Species Summary: Chrysemys picta. B.C. Minist. of Environment. Available: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Oct 28, 2008).

B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2008g. Species Summary: Thamnophis sirtalis. B.C. Minist. of Environment. Available: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Oct 28, 2008).

B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2008h. Species Summary: Thamnophis elegans. B.C. Minist. of Environment. Available: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Oct 28, 2008).

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/�









Page 87

B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2008i. Species Summary: Elgaria coerulea. B.C. Minist. of Environment. Available: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Oct 28, 2008).

B.C. Hydro. 2007. Columbia River project water use plan. BC Hydro Generation, Burnaby BC. 41 pp.

Babbitt, K.J., and G.W. Tanner. 2000. Use of temporary wetlands by anurans in a hydrologically modified landscape. Wetlands 20:313–322.

Bailey, L.L., T.R. Simons, and K.H. Pollock. 2004. Estimating site occupancy and species detection probability parameters for terrestrial salamanders. Ecological Applications 14:692–702.

Bailey, L.L., T.R. Simons, and K.H. Pollock. 2004. Estimating site occupancy and species detection probability parameters for terrestrial salamanders. Ecological Applications 14:692–702.

Ballie, J.E.M., C. Hilton-Taylor, and S.N. Stuart. 2004. IUCN red list of threatened species. A global species assessment. IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Barbault, R. 1988. Body size, ecological constraints, and the evolution of life-history strategies. Evolutionary Biology 22:261–286.

Barry, D.S., T.K. Pauley, and J.C. Maerz. 2008. Amphibian use of man-made pools on clear-cuts in the Allegheny Mountains of West Virginia, USA. Applied Herpetology 5: 121–128.

Bartelt, P.E., C.R. Peterson, and R.W. Klaver. 2004. Sexual differences in the post-breeding movements and habitats selected by Western Toads (Bufo boreas) in southeastern Idaho. Herpetologica 60:455-467.

Bateman, H.L., M.J. Harner, and A. Chung-MacCoubrey. 2008. Abundance and reproduction of toads (Bufo) along a regulated river in the southwestern United States: Importance of flooding in riparian ecosystems. Journal of Arid Environments 72: 1613–1619.

Beckingham, J.D., I.G.W. Corns and J.H. Archibald. 1996. Field guide to ecosites of west-central Alberta. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, Special Report 9, Edmonton, Alberta.

Beebee, T.J.C. and R.A. Griffiths. 2005. The amphibian decline crisis: a watershed for conservation biology? Biological Conservation, 125: 271–285.

Belden, L.K., E.L. Wildy and A.R. Blaustein. 2000a. Growth, survival and behavior of larval long-toed salamanders (Ambystoma macrodactylum) exposed to ambient levels of UV-B radiation. Journal of Zoology 251:473-479.

Belden, L.K., E.L. Wildy, A.C. Hatch, and A.R. Blaustein. 2000b. Juvenile western toads, Bufo boreas, avoid chemical cues of snakes fed juvenile, but not larval, conspecifics. Animal Behavior 59:871-875.

Beneski, J.T., E.J. Zalisko, and J.H. Larsen. 1986. Demography and migratory patterns of the eastern long-toed salamander, Ambystoma macrodactylum columbianum. Copeia 1986:398-408.

Berven, K.A, and B.G. Chandra.1988. The relationship amoung egg size, density, and food level on larval development in the wood frog (Rana sylvatica). Oecologia 75:67-72.

Berven, K.A. 1988. Factors affecting variation in reproductive traits within a population of wood frogs (Rana sylvatica). Copeia 12988:605-615.



Page 88

Berven, K.A., and T.A. Grudzien. 1991. Dispersal in the wood frog (Rana sylvatica): implications for genetic population structure. Evolution 44:2047-2056.

Bishop, C.A. and K.E. Pettit (eds.). 1992. Declines in Canadian amphibian populations: designing a national monitoring strategy. Canadian Wildlife Service, Occasional Paper 76. 120 pp.

Bishop, C.A., N.A. Mahony, J. Struger, P. Ng, and K.E. Pettit. 2000. Anuran development: density and diversity in relation to agricultural activity in the Holland River watershed, Ontario, Canada (1990-1992). Environmental Monitoring Assessment 59:2143.

Bishop, S.C. 1943. Handbook of salamanders: the salamanders of the United States, of Canada, and of Lower California. Comstock Publishing, Ithaca, New York.

Blanchard, F.N. and E.B. Finster. 1933. A method of marking snakes for future recognition, with a discussion of some problems and results. Ecology 14:334-347.

Blaustein, A. R., and J. M. Kiesecker. 2002. Complexity in conservation: lessons from the global decline of amphibian populations. Ecology Letters 5:597-608.

Blaustein, A.R. and D.B Wake. 1990. Declining amphibian populations: A global phenomenon? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 5:203–204.

Blaustein, A.R., D.B. Wake, and W.P. Sousa. 1994a. Amphibian declines: Judging stability, persistence, and susceptibility of populations to local and global extinctions. Conservation Biology 8:60–71.

Blaustein, A.R., D.G. Hokit, R.K. O’Hara and R.A. Holt. 1994b. Pathogenic fungus contributes to amphibian losses in the Pacific Northwest. Biological Conservation 67:251–254.

Blaustein, A.R., J.M. Romansic, J.M. Kiesecker, and A.C. Hatch. 2003. Ultraviolet radiation, toxic chemicals and amphibian population declines. Diversity and Distributions 9:123–140.

Blomquist, S.M., and J.C. Tull. 2002. Rana luteiventris: burrow use. Herpetological Review 33:131.

Blood, D.A. and M. Macartney. 1998. Painted Turtle. Wildlife in British Columbia at Risk Series. Victoria: British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Land and Parks.

Blouin-Demers, G., and P. J. Weatherhead. 2001. Habitat use by Black Rat Snakes (Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta) in fragmented forests. Ecology 82:2882-2896.

Boyer, R. and C.E. Grue. 1995. The need for water quality criteria for frogs. Environmental Health Perspectives 103:352–357.

Bradford, D.F. 1989. Allotropic distribution of native frogs and introduced fishes in high Sierra Nevada of California: Implication of the negative effect on fish introductions. Copeia 1989:775–778.

Brandao, R.A., and A.F.B. Araujo. 2008. Changes in Anuran Species Richness and Abundance Resulting from Hydroelectric Dam Flooding in Central Brazil. Biotropica 40:263-266.

Brenowitz, E.A. and G.J. Rose. 1999. Female choice and plasticity of male calling behaviour in the Pacific Treefrog. Animal Behaviour 57:1337-1342.

British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2002. Wood Frog. B.C. Minist. Water, Land and Air Prot., Biodiv. Branch. 2 pp.

British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2002a. Western Toad. B.C. Minist. Water, Land and Air Prot., Biodiv. Branch. 2pp.


Page 89

British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2002b. Columbia Spotted Frog. B.C. Minist. Water, Land and Air Prot., Biodiv. Branch. 2pp.

British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2004. Coeur d’Alene Salamander in Accounts and measures for managing identified wildlife. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. 52pp.

Bronikowski, A.M. and S.J. Arnold. 2001. Cytochrome b phylogeny does not match subspecific classification in the western terrestrial garter snake, Thamnophis elegans. Copeia 2001:508-513.

Brooks, S., B. Dawson, D. Black and K. Storey. 1999. Temperature regulation of glucose metabolism in red blood cells of the freeze-tolerant wood frog. Cryobiology 39:150-157

Bull, E.L. 2005. Ecology of the Columbia spotted frog in northeastern Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-640. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 46 pp.

Bull, E.L., and J.F. Shepherd. 2003. Water temperature at oviposition sites of Rana luteiventris in northeastern Oregon. Western North American Naturalist 63:108-113.

Bull, E.L., and M.P. Hayes. 2001. Post-breeding season movements of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) in northeastern Oregon. Western North American Naturalist 61:119-123.

Burnham, K.P. and D.R. Anderson. 2002. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. Second Edition. Springer Science.

Burt, D.W. and J.H. Munde. 1986. Case histories of regulated stream flow and its effects on salmonid populations. Canadian Technical Report for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1477:1-98.

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

Campbell, H.W. and S.P. Christman. 1982. Herpetological Communities. In Field Techniques for Herpetofaunal Community Analysis, N. J. Scott Jr. (ed.). Wildlife Research Report 13, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

Campbell, J.B. 1970. Life history of Bufo boreas boreas on the Colorado Front Range. PhD. Diss. Univ. of Colorado, Boulder, CO.

Canadian Council of Ministries of the Environment. 2006. Science and research on municipal wastewater effluent.

Carey, C. 1993. Hypothesis concerning the causes of the disappearance of boreal toads from the mountains of Colorado. Conservation Biology 7:355-362.

Carey, C. and C. Bryant. 1995. Possible interactions among environmental toxicants, amphibian development and decline of amphibian populations. Environmental Health Perspectives 103:13–17.

Carr, L.W., S.E. Poe, and L. Fahrig. 2002. Impacts of landscape transformation by roads. In: Gutzwiller, K.J. (ed.). Concepts and applications of landscape ecology in biological conservation. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Case, T.J., and D.T. Bolger. 1991. The role of introduced species in shaping the distribution and abundance of island reptiles. Evolutionary Ecology 5:272–290.


Page 90

Cassirer, E.F., C.R. Groves, and D.L. Genter. 1994. Coeur d’Alene Salamander conservation assessment. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv., Reg. 1. 54pp.

Charland, M.B. 1995. Thermal consequences of reptilian viviparity: thermoregulation in gravid and nongravid garter snakes (Thamnophis). Journal of Herpetology 29:383-390.

Charland, M.B. and P.T. Gregory. 1995. Movements and habitat use in gravid and nongravid female garter snakes (Colubridae: Thamnophis). Journal of Zoology of London 236:543-561.

Church, D.R. 2008. Role of current versus historical hydrology in amphibian species turnover within local pond communities. Copeia 2008(1): 115-125.

Churchill, T.A. and K.B. Storey. 1991. Natural freezing survival by painted turtles Chrysemys picta marginata and C. p. bellii. American Journal of Physiology 262: R530-537.

Clark, A. 1998. The North American Wood Frog, Rana sylvatica. Reptilian 5:51-53. Clarke, R. and A. Gruenig. 2001. Summary Report: Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta

belli) Nest Site Enhancement and Monitoring, Elizabeth Lake, Cranbrook, BC. Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, BC Hydro, B.C. Gov. 12pp.

Cody, M.L. and J.A. Smallwood (ed.). 1997. Long-term studies of vertebrate communities. San Diego: Academic Press. pp. 217-248.

Compton, B. W., J. M. Rhymer, and M. McCollough. 2002. Habitat selection by wood turtles (Clemmys insculpta): an application of paired logistic regression. Ecology 83:833-843.

Cooley, C.R, A.O. Floyd, A. Dolinger, and P.B. Tucker. 2003. Demography and diet of the painted turtle (Chrysemys picta) at high-elevation sites in southwestern Colorado. Southwestern Naturalist 48: 47-53.

Corn, P.S. 2000. Amphibian declines: review of some current hypotheses. In D.W.Sparling, G. Linder, C.A. Bishop, eds. Ecotoxicology of Amphibians and Reptiles. U.S. Geol. Sur., Midwest Sci. Cent. Columbia MO, 663-696.

Corn, P.S. and F.A. Vertucci. 1992. Descriptive risk assessment of the effects of acidic deposition on Rocky Mountain amphibians. Journal of Herpetology 26:361-369.

Corn, P.S. and R.B. Bury. 1990. Sampling Methods for Terrestrial Amphibians and Reptiles. General Technical Report, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, PNW-GTR-256, Portland, Oregon.

COSEWIC 2005b. Draft COSEWIC status report on Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. iv + 34pp.

COSEWIC. 2002a. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the western toad Bufo boreas in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 31 pp.

COSEWIC. 2002b. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the western skink Eumeces skiltonianus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 19 pp.

COSEWIC. 2003f. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the rubber boa Charina bottae in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 14 pp.


Page 91

COSEWIC. 2007c. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on Coeur d’Alene Salamander Plethodon idahoensis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 22 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm).

Crouch, W.B., III and P.W.C. Paton. 2002. Assessing the use of call surveys to monitor breeding anurans in Rhode Island. Journal of Herpetology 36:185–192.

Crump, M. L. and N. J. Scott Jr. 1994. Visual Encounter Surveys in W. R. Heyer, M. A. Donnelly, R. W. McDiarmid, L. C. Hayek and M. S. Foster (eds), Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Amphibians, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Cushman, S.A .2006. Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: a review and prospectus. Biological Conservation 128:231–240.

Daszak, P., L. Berger, A.A. Cunningham, A.D. Hyatt, D.E. Green, and R. Speare. 1999. Emerging infectious diseases and amphibian population declines. Emerging Infectious Diseases 5:735–748

Davis, T.M and K. Ovaska. 2001: Individual recognition of amphibians: effects of toe clipping and fluorescent tagging on the salamander Plethodon vehiculum. Journal of Herpetology, 35: 217–225.

Davis, T.M. 2000. Ecology of the western toad (Bufo boreas) in forested areas on Vancouver Island. Final Rep., For Renewal B.C., Minist. For., Victoria, BC.

Davis, T.M. 2002. Research Priorities for the Management of the Western Toad, Bufo boreas, in British Columbia. B.C. Minist. Water, Land and Air Prot., Biodiversity Branch, Victoria, BC. Wildl. Working Rep. WR-106. 35pp.

Denton, J.S. and T.J.C. Beebee. 1993: Reproductive strategies in a female-biased population of natterjack toads, Bufo calamita. Animal Behaviour, 46: 1169–1175.

D'Eon, R. and L. Larson. 2007a. Confidential folio for a Coeur d’Alene Salamander occurrence in the Fosthall Creek drainage. Prepared for Min. Environment, Kamloops, BC. 3pp.

D'Eon, R. and L. Larson. 2007b. Confidential folio for a Coeur d’Alene Salamander occurrence in the Duncan Lake, Howser Creek, and Glacier Creek area. Prepared for Min. Environment, Kamloops, BC. 3pp.

Devito, J., D. Chivers, J.M. Kiesecker, A. Marco, E.L. Wildy and A.R. Blaustein. 1998. The effects of snake predation on metamorphosis of Western Toads Bufo boreas (Amphibia, Bufonidae). Ethology 104:185-193.

Dingle, H. 1980. Ecology and evolution of migration. in S. A. J. Gauthreaux, editor. Animal Migration, Orientation and Navigation. Academic Press, New York.

Dodd, C.K. 1987. Status, conservation, and management. In: Seigel RA, Collins JT, Novak SS, editors. Snakes, ecology and evolutionary biology. New York: Macmillan. p 478–513.

Dodd, C.K. and R.M. Dorazio. 2004. Using counts to simultaneously estimate abundance and detection probabilities in a salamander community. Herpetologica 60:468–478.

Dodd, C.K. Jr. and L.L. Smith. 2003. Habitat destruction and alteration. Historical trends and future prospects for amphibians, in Amphibian Conservation, Semlitsch, R.D., Ed.,Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press. 94-112pp.

Donnelly, M.A., C. Guyer, J.E. Juterbock, and R.A. Alford 1994. Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity. Standard Methods for Amphibians. Smithsonian Institute Press.


Page 92

Dorcas, M.E., C.R. Peterson, and M. Flint. 1997. The thermal biology of digestion in Rubber Boas (Charina bottae): physiology, behaviour, and environmental constraints. Physiological Zoology 70:292-300.

Douglas, M.E. 1981. A comparative study of topographical orientation in Ambystoma (Amphibia: Caudata). Copeia 1981:460-463.

Drummond, H. 1983. Aquatic foraging in garter snakes: a comparison of specialists and generalists. Behavior 86:1-30.

Dulisse, J. 1999. Syringa Creek Provincial Park Rare and Endangered Species Evaluation. B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks. Nelson.

Dulisse, J. 2004. Columbia basin western skink inventory and assessment: 2004 survey results. Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Compensation Program, Nelson.

Dulisse, J. 2006. Columbia basin western skink inventory and assessment: 2005 results. Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Compensation Program, Nelson.

Dulisse, J. Personal communication. Dupuis, L. 2002. NatureServe ranking form for Eumeces skiltonianus. Prepared for B.C.

Minist. Sustainable Resour. Manage., Conservation Data Centre, Victoria, BC. Dupuis, L.A., and P. Ohanjanian. 1998. Status report on the Coeur d’Alene Salamander,

Plethodon idahoensis, in Canada. Unpubl. rep. submitted to the Comm. of the Status of Endangered Wildl. in Can., Ottawa ON.

Dykstra, J. 2004. A survey of the status of the Western Toad (Bufo boreas) and other amphibians in Mount Revelstoke and Glacier National Parks, British Columbia, Canada: Honors Thesis. Okanagan University College and Parks Canada. Kelowna, BC

Engelstoft, C. and K.E. Ovaska. 2000. Artificial cover-objects as a method for sampling snakes (Contia tenius and Thamnophis spp.) in British Columbia. Northwestern Naturalist 81:35-43.

Engle, J.C. 2001. Population biology and natural history of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) in the Owyhee Uplands of southwest Idaho: implications for monitoring and management. Unpublished M.Sc. Boise State University, Boise, ID.

Enns, K.A. 2007. Arrow Lakes Reservoir Inventory of Vegetation Resources (2007). Report prepared by Delphinium Holdings Inc. for BC Hydro. 14 pages.

Enns. K.A., R. Durand, P. Gibeau, and B. Enns. 2007. Arrow Lakes Reservoir inventory of vegetation resources (2007) – Addendum to 2007 final report. Report prepared by Delphinium Holdings In. for BC Hydro.

Farner, D.S. 1947. Notes on the food habits of the salamanders of Crater Lake National Park. Copeia 1947:259-261.

Farr, D.R. and P.T. Gregory. 1991. Sources of variation in estimating litter characteristics of the garter snake, Thamnophis elegans. Journal of Herpetology 25:261-268.

Fellers, G.M., D.E. Green and J.E. Longcore. 2001. Oral chytridiomycosis in the mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa). Copeia 2001:945–953.

Ferguson, D.S. 1961. The geographical variation of Ambystoma macrodactylum Baird, with the description of two new subspecies. American Midland Naturalist 65:311-338.

Filippi E. and L. Luiselli. 2000. Status of the Italian snake fauna and assessment of conservation threats. Biological Conservation 93:219–225.


Page 93

Fitch, H. 1987. Collection and Life History Techniques. Pages 143 to 165 in R. A. Seigel, J. T. Collins, and S. S. Novak, editors. Snakes: Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. The Blackburn Press, New Jersey.

Fitch, H.S. 1965. An ecological study of the garter snake, Thamnophis sirtalis. Univ. Kansas Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. 15 (10):493-564.

Forester, D.C. 1977. Comments on the female reproductive cycle and philopatry by Desmognathus ochrophaeus (Amphibia, Urodela, Plethodontidae). Journal of Herpetology 11:311–316.

Foufopoulos J. and A.R. Ives. 1999. Reptile extinctions on land-bridge islands, life-history attributes and vulnerability to extinction. American Naturalist 153:1–25.

Frost, D.R. 1985. Amphibian species of the world. A taxonomic and geographical reference. Allen Press, Inc., and The Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas. v + 732 pp.

Fukumoto, J.M. 1995. Long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum) ecology and management in Waterton Lakes National Park. Thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.

Funk, W.C. and W.W. Dunlap. 1999. Colonization of high-elevation lakes by long-toed salamanders (Ambystoma macrodactylum) after the extinction of introduced trout populations. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:1759-1767.

Funk, W.C., A.E. Greene, P. S. Corn, and F.W. Allendorf. 2005b. High dispersal in a frog species suggests that it is vulnerable to habitat fragmentation. Biology Letters 1:13–16.

Funk, W.C., M. S. Blouin, P. S. Corn, B. A. Maxell, D.S. Pilliod, S. Amish, and F.W. Allendorf. 2005a. Population structure of Columbia Spotted Frogs (Rana luteiventris) is strongly affected by the landscape. Molecular Ecology 14:483–496.

Gadd, B. 1995. Handbook of the Canadian Rockies. Corax Press, Jasper, Alberta. Gartshore, M.E., Oldham, M.J., van der Ham, R. and F.W. Schueler. 1992. Participant's

manual. Amphibian road call counts. Ontario Task Force on Declining Amphibian Populations. Ont. Field Herpetologists 29pp.

Gascon, C. 1991. Population-level and community level analyses of species occurrences of Central Amazonian rain-forest tadpoles. Ecology 72:1731– 1746.

Gibbons J.W., D.E. Scott, T.J. Ryan, K.A. Buhlmann, T.D. Tuberville, B. Metts, J.L. Greene, T.M. Mills, Y.A. Leiden, S.M. Poppy, and C.T. Wine. 2000. The global decline of reptiles, de´ja` vu amphibians. BioScience 50:653–666.

Gibbons, J.W., and R.D. Semlitsch. 1987. Activity patterns. Pages 396-421 in R. A. Seigel, J. T. Collins, and S. S. Novak, editors. Snakes: Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. The Blackburn Press, New Jersey.

Gibbons, J.W., V.J. Burke, J.E. Lovich, R.D. Semlitch, T.D. Tuberville, J.R. Bodie, J.L. Greene, P.H. Niewiarowski, H.H. Whiteman, D.E. Scott, J.H.K. Pechmann, C.R. Harrison, S.H. Bennett, J.D. Krenz, M.S. Mills, K.A. Buhlmann, J.R. Lee, R.A. Siegel, A.D. Tucker, T.M. Mills, T. Lamb, M.E. Dorcas, J.D. Congdon, M.H. Smith, D.H. Nelson, M.B. Dietsch, H.G. Hanlin, J.A. Ott, and D.D.J. Karapatakis. 1997. Perceptions of species abundance, distribution, and diversity: lessons from four decades of sampling on a government-managed reserve. Environmental Management 21:259– 268.

Gill, D.E. 1978: The metapopulation ecology of the red-spotted newt, Notophthalmus viridescens (Rafinesque). Ecological Monographs 48:145–166.


Page 94

Golay, N. and H. Durrer. 1994: Inflammation due to toe-clipping in natterjack toads (Bufo calamita). Amphibia–Reptilia, 15: 81–83.

Gooch, M.M., A.M. Heuplel, S.J. Price, and M.E. Dorcas. 2006. The effects of survey protocol on detection probabilities and site occupancy estimates of summer breeding anurans. Applied Herpetology 3:129–142.

Gosner, K.L. 1960. A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica 16:183-190.

Graham, K., W. Bessie, A. Hoover, R. Bonar, R. Quinlan, J. Beck, and B. Beck. 1999. Long-toed salamander year round habitat habitat suitability index model version 5. Foothills model Forest, Alberta, Canada.

Graham, K.L. 1997. Habitat use by long-toed salamanders (Ambystoma macrodactylum) at three different scales. M.S. Thesis. University of Guelph, Ottawa (Ontario), Canada. 71pp.

Graham, K.L. 1997. Habitat use of the long-toed salamander at three different scales. Thesis, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario.

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

Green, D.M. (ed.). 1997. Amphibians in decline: Canadian studies of a global problem. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Conservation No. 1.

Greene, H.W. 1986. Natural history and evolutionary biology. In M. E. Feder and G. V. Lauder (eds.), Predator-Prey Relationships. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Gregory, P. T. 1977. Life-history parameters of the Red-sided Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis) in an extreme environment, the Interlake region of Manitoba. Natural Museums of Canada Publications in Zoology 13:1-44.

Gregory, P. T. 1982. Reptilian hibernation. Pages 53-154 in C. Gans and F. H. Pough, editors. Biology of the Reptilia. Academic Press, London.

Gregory, P.T. 1984a. Habitat, diet, and composition of assemblages of garter snakes (Thamnophis) at eight sites on Vancouver Island. Canadian Journal of Zoology 62:2013-2022.

Gregory, P.T. 1984b. Correlations between body temperatures and environmental factors and their variations with activities in garter snakes (Thamnophis). Canadian Journal of Zoology 62:2244–2249.

Gregory, P.T. and K.J. Nelson. 1991. Predation on fish and intersite variation in the diet of Common Garter Snakes, Thamnophis sirtalis, on Vancouver Island. Canadian Journal of Zoology 69:988-994.

Gregory, P.T. and K.M. Skebo. 1998. Trade-offs between reproductive traits and the influence of food intake during pregnancy in the garter snake, Thamnophis elegans. The American Naturalist 151:477-486.

Gregory, P.T. and L.A. Gregory. 2006. Immobility and supination in garter snakes (Thamnophis elegans) following handling by human predators. Journal of Comparative Psychology 120:262-268.

Gregory, P.T., and K.W. Larsen. 1993. Geographic variation in reproductive characterstics among Canadian populations of the common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis). Copeia 1993:946-958.


Page 95

Gregory, P.T., and K.W. Stewart. 1975. Long-distance dispersal and feeding strategy of the red-sided garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis) in the Interlake of Manitoba. Canadian Journal of Zoology 53:238-245.

Gregory, P.T., J. Macartney, and K.W. Larsen. 1987. Spatial patterns and movements. Pages 366-395 in R. A. Seigel, J. T. Collins, and S. S. Novak, editors. Snakes: Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. The Blackburn Press, New Jersey.

Gregory, P.T., J.M. Macartney, and D.H. Rivard. 1980. Small mammal predation and prey handling behavior in the garter snake, Thamnophis elegans. Herpetologica 36:87-93.

Griffiths, R.A. and L. Pavajeau. Captive breeding, reintroduction, and the conservation of amphibians. Conservation Biology 22:852–861.

Guttman, D., J.E. Bramble, and O.J. Sexton. 1991. Observations on the breeding immigration of wood frogs Rana sylvatica reintroduced in east-central Missouri. Am. Midl. Nat. 125:269-274.’

Gyug, L. 1996. Part IV Amphibians. In Timber harvesting effects on riparian wildlife and vegetation in the Okanagan Highlands of British Columbia. B.C. Environ., Penticton, BC.

Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. The habitat concept and the plea for standard terminology. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173-182.

Hannon, S.J. and C. McCallum. 2002. Using the focal species approach for conserving biodiversity in landscapes managed for forestry. Sustainable Forest Management Network Synthesis Paper. Dept of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta. 59 pp.

Hawkes, V.C. 2005a. Distribution of Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora auora) breeding habitat in the Jordan River Watershed, Vancouver Island, British Columbia. LGL Project EA1667. Unpublished report by LGL Limited environmental research associates for BC Hydro Fish and Wildlife Bridge Coastal restoration Program, Burnaby BC. iv + 39 pp. + Appendices.

Hawkes, V.C. 2005b. Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa) pathology, marking, and release at NRS Aldergrove, October 2005. LGL project EA1820. Unpublished report by LGL Limited environmental research associates for Public Works and Government Services Canada. 12 pp. + Appendix

Hawkes, V.C. 2007. Riparian management and amphibians: does buffer width matter? Masters of Science theses, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC,118 pp.

Hawkes, V.C. 2008. Kinbasket woody debris removal: Impacts to monitoring program CLBMON-10 Kinbasket Reservoir inventory of vegetation resources. LGL Report EA1986.1. Unpublished report by LGL Limited environmental research associates, Sidney, BC, for BC Hydro Generations, Water License Requirements, Burnaby, BC. 21 pp.

Hawkes, V.C. and K. Tuttle. 2009. Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs: Amphibian and Reptile Monitoring Program. LGL Report EA3075. Unpublished report by LGL Limited environmental research associates, Sidney, BC, for BC Hydro Generations, Water License Requirements, Burnaby, BC. 63 pp.

Hawkes, V.C., C. Houwers, J.D. Fenneman and J.E. Muir. 2007. CLBMON-10 Kinbasket Reservoir Inventory of Vegetation Resources. Annual Report – 2007. Report EA1986. Prepared for BC Hydro by LGL Consultants Limited, Sidney. 82 pp.

Hayes, J.P. and R. J. Steidl. 1997. Statistical power analysis and amphibian population trends. Conservation Biology 11:273-275.


Page 96

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

Heatwole, H. 1961. Habitat selection and activity of the wood frog, Rana sylvatica Le Conte. Amer. Midl. Nat. 66:301-313.

Hecnar, S.J. and R.T. McCloskey. 1996. Amphibian species richness and distribution in relation to pond water chemistry in south-western Ontario, Canada. Freshwater Biology 36:7–15.

Hengeveld, P.E. 2000. Presence and distribution of amphibians in the Williston and Dinosaur Reservoir watersheds. Peace/Williston Fish and Wildl. Compensation Program Rep. No. 212.

Heyer, W. R., M. A. Donnelly, R. W. McDiarmid, L. C. Hayek, and M. S. Foster. 1994. Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for amphibians. Smithsonian Institute Press. Washington D.C. 364 pp.

Hoffman, R.L., G.L. Larson, and B.J. Brokes. 2003. Habitat segregation of Ambystoma gracile and Ambystoma macrodactylum in mountain ponds and lakes, Mount Ranier National Park, Washington, USA. Journal of Herpetology 37:24-34.

Hopey, M.E., and J.W. Petranka. 1994. Restriction of wood frogs to fish-free habitats: how important is adult choice? Copeia 1994:1023-1025.

Hopkins, W.A. 2007. Amphibians as models for studying environmental change. ILAR Journal 48(3): 270–277.

Houlahan, J.E., C.S Findlay, B.R. Schmidt, A.H. Meyer and S. L. Kuzmin. 2000. Quantitative evidence for global amphibian population declines. Nature 404:752–755.

Howard, J.H. and R.L. Wallace. 1985. Life history characteristics of populations of the long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum) from different altitudes. American Midland Naturalist 113:361-373.

Hoyer, R. F., and G. R. Stewart. 2000. Biology of the rubber boa (Charina bottae), with emphasis on C. b. umbratica. Part I: capture, size, sexual dimorphism, and reproduction. Journal of Herpetology 34:348-354.

Hoyer, R. F., and G. R. Stewart. 2000. Biology of the rubber boa (Charina bottae), with emphasis on C. b. umbratica. Part II: diet, antagonists, and predators. Journal of Herpetology 34:354-360.

Huey R.B. 1991. Physiological consequences of habitat selection. American Naturalist 137:91–115.

Huey, R. B. 1982. Temperature, physiology, and the ecology of reptiles. Pages 25-91 in C. Gans and F. H. Pough, editors. Biology of the Reptilia. Academic Press, New York.

Icochea, J., E. Quispitupac, A. Protilla, and E. Ponce. 2002. Framework for assessment and monitoring of amphibians and reptiles in the lower Urubamba region, Peru. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 76:55–67.

IUCN, C. International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. Available from ww.globalamphibians.org. Accessed on June 12.

Iverson, J.B. 1991. Patterns of survivorship in turtles (order Testudines). Canadian Journal of Zoology 69:385-391.


Page 97

Iverson, J.B. and G.R. Smith. 1993. Reproductive ecology of the painted turtle (Chrysemys picta) in the Nebraska Sandhills and across its range. Copeia 1993:1-21.

James, J.D. 1998. Status of the Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) in Alberta. Wildlife Status Report No. 17. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Environmental Protection, Fisheries & Wildlife Management Division, and Alberta Conservation Association.

Jennings, W.B., D.F. Bradford, and D.F. Johnson. 1992. Dependence of the garter snake Thamnophis elegans on amphibians in the Sierra Nevada of California. Journal of Herpetology 26:503-505.

Johnson, D.H. 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61:65-71.

Johnson, J., E. Dean, and D.M. Darda. 2006. Chytridiomycosis: A silent spring for Pacific Northwest Amphibians? Northwestern Naturalist 87:174.

Kadlec, R.H. and F.B. Bevis. 1990. Wetlands and wastewater. Wetlands 10:77–92. Kaiser, K. 2008. Evaluation of a Long-Term Amphibian Monitoring Protocol in Central

America. Journal of Herpetology 42:104-110. Kezer, J., and D. S. Farner. 1955. Life history patterns of the salamander Ambystoma

macrodactylum in the high Cascade mountains of southern Oregon. Copeia 1955:127-131.

Kiesecker, J.M., A.R. Blaustein, and L.K. Belden. 2001. Complex causes of amphibian population declines. Nature 410: 681-684.

Kjoss V.A. and J.A. Litvaitis. 2001. Community structure of snakes in a human-dominated landscape. Biological Conservation 98:285–292.

Knudsen, J.W. 1960. The courtship and egg mass of Ambystoma gracile and Ambystoma macrodactylum. Copeia 1960:44-46.

Knutson, M.G., W.B. Richardson, D.M. Reineke, B.R. Gray, J.R. Parmelee, and S.E. Weick. 2004. Agricultural ponds support amphibian populations. Ecological Applications 14: 669–684.

Koper, N. and R.J. Brooks. 2000. Environmental constraints on growth of painted turtles (Chrysemys picta) in northern climates. Herpetologica 56:421-432.

Krawchuk, M.A. and R.J. Brooks. 1998. Basking behavior as a measure of reproductive cost and energy allocation in the painted turtle, Chrysemys picta. Herpetologica 54: 112-121.

Kupferberg, S.J. 1996. Hydrologic and geomorphic factors affecting conservation of a river breeding frog (Rana boylii).Ecological Applications

Kupferberg, S.J. 1996. The ecology of native tadpoles (Rana boylii and Hyla regilla) and the impacts of invading bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) in a northern California river. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, California.

Larsen, K. 1986. Ecology of the Common Garter Snake, Thamnophis sirtalis, at the northern limit of its range. MSc Thesis. University of Victoria, Victoria.

Larsen, K.W., P.T. Gregory and R. Antoniak. 1993. Reproductive ecology of the common garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis at the northern limit of its range. American Midland Naturalist 129:336-345.

Lehtinen, R. M., S.M. Galatowitsch, and J.R. Tester. 1999. Consequences of habitat loss and fragmentation for wetland amphibian assemblages. Wetlands 19:1-12.

Ligon, F.K, W.E. Dietrich and W.J. Trush. 1995 Downstream ecological effects of dams. Bioscience 45:183-192.


Page 98

Lind, A. J., H. H. J. Welsh, and R. A. Wilson. 1996. The effects of a dam on breeding habitat and egg survival of the foothills yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) in northwestern California. Herpetological Review 27:62-67.

Lind, A.J. 2005. Reintroduction of a declining amphibian: determining an ecologically feasible approach for the Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii) through analysis of decline factors, genetic structure, and habitat associations. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Davis. (March) 169 pp.

Lindeman, P.V. 1991. Survivorship of overwintering hatchling painted turtles, Chrysemys picta, in northern Idaho. Canadian Field-Naturalist 105:263-266.

Lindeman, P.V. 1996. Comparative life history of painted turtles (Chrysemys picta) in two habitats in the inland Pacific Northwest. Copeia 1996:114-130.

Lindenmayer, D.B., A.D. Manning, P.L. Smith, H.P. Possingham, J. Fischer, I. Oliver, and M.A. McCarthy. 2002. The focal species approach and landscape restoration: a critique. Conservation Biology 16: 338–345.

Lips, K.R., F. Brem, R. Brenes, J.D. Reeve, R.A. Alford, J. Voyles, C. Carey, L. Livo, A. P. Pessier, and J.P. Collins. 2006. Emerging infectious disease and the loss of biodiversity in a Neotropical amphibian community. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103:3165–3170.

Livo, L.J. 1999. Predator communities and boreal toad breeding sites. In M.S. Jones, ed. Colorado Div. Wildl. Boreal Toad Res. Prog. Rep. 1998. Fort Collins, CO.

Loeffler, C. (ed). 2001. Conservation plan and agreement for the management and recovery of the southern Rocky Mountain Population of the boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas). Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Loreau, M., S. Naeem, P. Inchausti, J. Bengtsson, J. P. Grime, A. Hector,, D.U. Hooper, M.A. Huston, D. Raffaelli, B. Schmid, D. Tilman, D. A. Wardle. 2001. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Current Knowledge and Future Challenges. Science 26 October 2001 294. no. 5543: 804–808.

Luiselli L, and D. Capizzi. 1997. Influences of area, isolation and habitat features on distribution of snakes in Mediterranean fragmented woodlands. Biodiversity and Conservation 6:1339–1351.

Lynch, J.E. Jr. 1984. Reproductive ecology of Plethodon idahoensis. M.Sc. Thesis, Univ. of Idaho, Moscow. 59pp.

Macartney, J.M., K.W. Larsen and P.T. Gregory. 1989. Body temperatures and movements of hibernating snakes (Crotalus and Thamnophis) and thermal gradients of natural hibernacula. Canadian Journal of Zoology 67:108-114.

MacKenzie, D.I., and W.L. Kendall. 2002. How should detection probability be incorporated into estimates of relative abundance? Ecology 83:2387–2393.

MacKenzie, D.I., J.D. Nichols, G.B. Lachman, S. Droege, J.A. Royle, and C.A. Langtimm. 2002. Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83:2248–2255.

MacKenzie, D.I., J.D. Nichols, J.E. Hines, M.G. Knutson, and A.B. Franklin. 2003. Estimating site occupancy, colonization and local extinction probabilities when a species is detected imperfectly. Ecology 84:2200–2207.

MacKenzie, W., and J. Shaw. 2000. Wetland classification and habitats at risk in British Columbia. In: Proceedings of a conference on the biology and management of species and habitats at risk. Volume II, editor L. M. Darling, 537-47. Victoria, B.C.: B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks.


Page 99

MacKenzie, W.H and Moran, J.R. 2004. Wetlands of British Columbia: a Guide to Identification. Research Branch, B.C. Ministry of Forests, Victoria, B.C. Land Management Handbook No. 52.

Maltby, F.L. 2000a. Painted Turtle Nest Site Enhancement and Monitoring, Red Devil Hill Nest Site at Revelstoke, BC. Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, BC Hydro, B.C. Minist. Environ, Lands and Parks, B.C. Fish. in partnership with Arrow Heights Elementary School, City of Revelstoke. 18pp.

Maltby, F.L. 2000b. Summary Report: Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta) Nest Site Enhancement and Monitoring, Red Devil Hill Nest Site at Revelstoke, BC. Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, BC Hydro, B.C. Gov. 18pp.

Matsuda, B.M., D.M. Green, and P.T. Gregory. 2006. Amphibians and Reptiles of British Columbia. Royal BC Museum Handbook, Victoria, Canada. 266pp.

Matthews, K.R., R.A. Knapp, and K.L. Pope. 2002. Garter snake distributions in high-elevation aquatic ecosystems: is there a link with declining amphibian populations and nonnative trout introductions? Journal of Herpetology 36:16-22.

Maxell, B. A., K. J. Nelson, and S. Browder. 2002. Record clutch size and observations on breeding and development of the Western Toad (Bufo boreas) in Montana. Northwestern Naturalist 83:27-30.

Mazerolle, M.J. 2001. Amphibian activity, movement patterns, and body size in fragmented peat bogs. Journal of Herpetology 35:13-20.

Mazerolle, M.J., L.L. Bailey, W.L. Kendall, A. Royle, S.J. Converse, and J.D. Nichols. 2007. Making great leaps forward: accounting for detectability in herpetological field studies. Journal of Herpetology 41:672–689.

McGarigal, K. and S.A. Cushman. 2002. Comparative evaluation of experimental approaches to the study of habitat fragmentation effects. Ecological Applications 12:335–345.

Mennell, L. 1997. Amphibians in southwestern Yukon and northwestern British Columbia. Pages 107-109 in D. M. Green, editor. Amphibians in decline: Canadian studies of a global problem. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Conservation 1.

Meyer, A.H., B.R. Schmidt, and K. Grossenbacher. 1998. Analysis of three amphibian populations with quarter-century long time-series. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 265:523-528.

Mitchell, J. C. 1988. Population ecology and life histories of the freshwater turtles Chrysemys picta and Sternotherus odoratus in an urban lake. Herpetological Monographs 2:40-61.

Moody, A. and W. Carr. 2003. Mica-Revelstoke-Kennleyside Water Use Plan: potential areas for vegetation establishment in Kinbasket Reservoir. BC Hydro Contract Report.

Moody, A.I. 2002b. Long-term monitoring of vegetation expansion and trials in the dust control treatment areas of Revelstoke Reach – Upper Arrow Reservoir. Prepared for BC Hydro.

Moody, A.I. 2005. Mica - Revelstoke - Keenleyside Water Use Plan: Potential Areas for Vegetation Establishment in the Arrow Lakes Reservoir. BC Hydro Contract Report.

Morey, S.R. 1990. Microhabitat selection and predation in the Pacific treefrog, Pseudacris regilla. Journal of Herpetology 24:292–296.

http://apps.isiknowledge.com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/DaisyOneClickSearch.do?product=WOS&search_mode=DaisyOneClickSearch&doc=2&db_id=&SID=4Dl83d48I6i587@hGIp&name=Schmidt%20BR&ut=000072731600012&pos=2�

http://apps.isiknowledge.com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/DaisyOneClickSearch.do?product=WOS&search_mode=DaisyOneClickSearch&doc=2&db_id=&SID=4Dl83d48I6i587@hGIp&name=Grossenbacher%20K&ut=000072731600012&pos=3�


Page 100

Morris, D.W. 2003. Towards an ecological synthesis: a case for habitat selection. Oecologia 136:1-13.

Munger, J.C., M. Gerber, K. Madrid, M.A. Carroll, W. Petersen, and L. Heberger. 1998. U.S. National Wetland Inventory classifications as predictors of the occurrence of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) and Pacific treefrogs (Hyla regilla). Conservation Biology 12:320-330.

Muths, E. 2003. Home range and movements of boreal toads in undisturbed habitat. Copeia 2003:160-165.

Muths, E., P.S. Corn, A.P. Pessier, and D.E. Green. 2003. Evidence for disease-related amphibian decline in Colorado. Biological Conservation 110: 357-365.

Nelson, G.L. and B.M. Graves. 2004. Anuran population monitoring: Comparison of the North American Amphibian Monitoring Program's calling index with mark-recapture estimates for Rana clamitans. Journal of Herpetology 38:355-359.

Nelson, K. J., and P. T. Gregory. 2000. Activity patterns of garter snakes, Thamnophis sirtalis, in relation to weather conditions at a fish hatchery on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Journal of Herpetology 34:32-40.

Nussbaum, R. A., and R. F. Hoyer. 1974. Geographic variation and the validity of subspecies in the rubber boa, Charina bottae (Blainville). Northwest Sci. 48:219-229.

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

Ohanjanian, I. A., D. Adama, and A. Davidson. 2006. An amphibian inventory of the East Kootenays with an emphasis on Bufo boreas and Rana pipiens, 2005. Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program. Nelson, BC 28 pp.

Ohanjanian, I.A. 1997. The Coeur d’Alene Salamander in southeastern British Columbia. Unpubl. rep. submitted to B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks. Nelson. 57pp.

Ohanjanian, I.A. 1998. Coeur d’Alene Salamander Inventory. Report to Wynndel Box and Lumber Co. Ltd., BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection and Forest Renewal B.C. 35 pp.

Ohanjanian, I.A. 1999. The Coeur d’Alene Salamander in the Operating Area of Wynndel Box and Lumber Co. Ltd.: Additional Inventory Information. Rep. to Forest Renewal B.C. and Wynndel Box and Lumber. 19pp.

Ohanjanian, I.A. 2000. The Coeur d’Alene Salamander (P. idahoensis) in the Kootenay Lake and Arrow Forest Districts. Rep. to B.C. Mininst. Environ., Lands and Parks and The Habitat Conservation Trust Fund. 43pp.

Ohanjanian, I.A. 2001. The Coeur d’Alene Salamander in southeastern British Columbia: results of field surveys. Rep. to Habitat Conservation Trust Fund and B.C. Minist. Water, Land and Air Prot., Nelson, BC.

Ohanjanian, I.A. 2001b. The Coeur d’Alene Salamander (P. idahoensis) at the Kuskonook mine - population parameters and salamander characteristics. Rep. to B.C. Minist. Water, Land and Air Prot. and Habitat Conservation Trust Fund.

Ohanjanian, I.A., and I. Teske. 1996. The Coeur d’Alene Salamander in southeastern British Columbia. Rep. to the B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks. 43pp.

Ohanjanian, P. and I. Teske. 1996. A herpetological survey of 87 wetlands in the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Area. Unpubl. report for the Columbian Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program.


Page 101

Olson, D. 1989. Predation on breeding western toads (Bufo boreas). Copeia 1989:391-397.

Olson, D.H. 1992. Ecological susceptibility of amphibians to population declines. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Biodiversity of Northwestern California, October 28-30, Santa Rosa, CA.

Olson, D.H., W.P. Leonard, R.B. Bury (eds.). 1997. Sampling amphibians in lentic habitats. Northwest Fauna Number 4. Olympia, WA: Society for Northwestern Vertebrate Biology.

Ortega, Y.K., and D.E. Pearson. 2001. Occurrences of the Western Skink (Eumeces skiltonianus) in grasslands of western Montana. Northwestern Naturalist 82:125-126.

Ovaska, K, S. Lennart, C Engelstoft, L. Matthias, E. Wind and J. MacGarvie. 2004. Best Management Practices for Amphibians and Reptiles in Urban and Rural Environments in British Columbia. Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection, Ecosystems Standards and Planning, Biodiversity Branch

Ovaska, K, S. Lennart, C Engelstoft, L. Matthias, E. Wind and J. MacGarvie. 2004. Best Management Practices for Amphibians and Reptiles in Urban and Rural Environments in British Columbia. Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection, Ecosystems Standards and Planning, Biodiversity Branch

Ovaska, K.E. and C. Engelstoft. 2002. COSEWIC status report on the western skink Eumeces skiltonianus in Canada, in COSEWIC assessment and status report on the western skink Eumeces skiltonianus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 1-19 pp.

Packard, G.C. and M.J. Packard. 1995. A review of the adaptive strategy used by hatchling painted turtles to survive in the cold. Herpetological Review 26:8-12.

Parker, W.S., and M.V. Plummer. 1987. Population ecology. Pages 253-301 in R.A. Seigel and J.T. Collins, editors. Snakes: Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. Macmillan, New York.

Passek, K.M., and J.C. Gillingham. 1997. Thermal influences on the behavior of the Eastern Garter Snake, Thamnophis sirtalis. Animal Behavior 54:629-633.

Patrick, D.A. M.A. Hunter, Jr. and A.J.K. Calhoun. 2006. Effects of experimental forestry treatments on a Maine amphibian community. Forest Ecology and Management 234:323–332.

Pearl, C.A. and M.P. Hayes. 2002. Predation by Oregon Spotted Frogs (Rana pretiosa) on Western Toads (Bufo boreas) in Oregon. American Midland Naturalist 147:145-152.

Pearl, C.A., E.L. Bull, D. Green, J. Bowerman, M.J. Adams, A. Hyatt, and W.H. Wente. 2007. Occurrence of the Amphibian Pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Herpetology 41:145-149.

Pearman, P.B., A.M. Velasco, and A. López. 1995. Tropical Amphibian Monitoring: A Comparison of Methods for Detecting Inter-Site Variation in Species' Composition. Herpetologica 51:325-337.

Pechmann, J., D.E. Scott, J.W. Gibbons, and R.D Semlitsch. 1989. Influence on wetland hydroperiod on diversity and abundance of metamorphosing juvenile amphibians. Wetlands, Ecology and Management 1:3–11.

Pechmann, J.H.K. and H.M. Wilbur. 1994. Putting declining amphibian populations in perspective: Natural fluctuations and human impacts. Herpetologica 50:65–84.


Page 102

Pechmann, J.H.K., D.E. Scott, R.D. Semlitsch, J.P. Caldwell, L.J. Vitt, and J.W. Gibbons. 1991. Declining amphibian populations—the problem of separating human impacts from natural fluctuations. Science 253:892–895.

Pellet, J. and B.R. Schmidt. 2004. Monitoring distributions using call surveys: estimating site occupancy, detection probabilities and inferring absence. Biological Conservation 123:27–35.

Pellet, J. and B.R. Schmidt. 2004. Monitoring distributions using call surveys: estimating site occupancy, detection probabilities and inferring absence. Biological Conservation 123: 27 – 35.

Perrill, S.A. and R.E. Daniel. 1983. Multiple egg clutches in Hyla regilla, H. cinerea, and H. gratiosa. Copeia 1983:513–516.

Peterson, C.C. 1987. Thermal relations of hibernating Painted Turtles, Chrysemys picta. Journal of Herpetology 21: 16-20.

Peterson, C.R. 1987. Daily variation in the body temperatures of free-ranging garter snakes. Ecology 68:160–169.

Peterson, C.R. and M.E. Dorcas. 1992. The use of automated data-acquisition techniques in monitoring amphibian and reptile populations. In D.R. McCullough and R.H. Barrett (eds.), Wildlife 2000: Populations, pp. 369–378. Elsevier Science, Essex, UK.

Peterson, C.R., E.D. Koch and P.S. Corn. 1992. Monitoring amphibian populations in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. Unpubl. Report to Univ. Wyo. Natl. Park Serv. Res. Center. 37 pp.

Peterson, C.R., J.W. Gibbons, and M.E. Dorcas. 1993. Snake thermal ecology: the causes and consequences of body-temperature variation. Pages 241-314 in R.A. Seigel and J.T. Collins, editors. Snakes: Ecology and Behavior. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York.

Petranka, J. W., M. E. Hopey, B. T. Jennings, S. D. Baird, and S. J. Boone. 1994. Breeding habitat segregation of wood frogs and American toads: the role of interspecific tadpole predation and adult choice. Copeia 1994(3):691-697.

Petranka, J.W., and C.A. Kennedy. 1999. Pond tadpoles with generalized morphology: is it time to reconsider their functional roles in aquatic communties? Oecologia 120:621-631.

Pierce, B.A. and K.J. Gutzwiller. 2004. Auditory sampling of frogs: detection efficiency in relation to survey duration. Journal of Herpetology 38:495–500.

Pilliod, D.S., C.R. Peterson, and P.I. Ritson. 2002. Seasonal migration of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) among complementary resources in a high mountain basin. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80:1849-1862.

Pollock, K.H., J.D. Nichols, T.R. Simons, G.L. Farnsworth, L.L. Bailey, and J.R. Sauer. 2002. Large scale wildlife monitoring studies: statistical methods for design and analysis. Environmetrics 13: 105-119.

Pough, F.H., R.M. Andrews, J.E. Cadle, M.L. Crump, A.H. Savitzky and K.D. Wells. 1998. Herpetology. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

Pounds, J.A. 2001. Climate and amphibian declines. Nature 410:639–640. Pounds, J.A., M.R. Bustamante, L.A. Coloma, J.A. Consuegra, M.P.L. Fogden, P.N.

Foster, E. La Marca, K.L. Masters, A. Merino-Viteri, R. Puschendorf, S.R. Ron, G.A. Santiago-Azofeifa, C.J. Still, and D.B.E. Young. 2006. Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global warming. Nature 439:161– 167.


Page 103

Powell, G.L., A.P. Russell, J.D. James, S.J. Nelson and S.M. Watson. 1997. Population biology of the long-toed salamander, Ambystoma macrodactylum in the front range of Alberta. Pp. 37–44. In Green, D.M. (Ed.), Amphibians in Decline: Canadian Studies of a Global Problem. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Conservation, Number 1, St. Louis, Missouri.

Powell, G.L., A.P. Russell, S.J. Nelson, I.M. Hamilton and K.L. Graham. 1997. The status of the long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum) in Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Fish and Wildlife Service, Edmonton, Alberta.

Powell, G.L., S.J. Nelson, and A.P. Russell. 1993. The Bow Valley long-toed salamander population study: a preliminary report on the 1992 field season. Alberta Environmental Protection, Fish and Wildlife Service, Edmonton, Alberta.

Pringle, R. M., J. K. Webb, and R. Shine. 2003. Canopy structure, microclimate, and habitat selection by a nocturnal snake, Hoplocephalus bungaroides. Ecology 84:2668-2679.

Reaser, J.K. 2000. Demographic analysis of the Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris): case study in spatiotemporal variation. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:1158-1167.

Regosin, J. V., B. S. Windmiller, and J. M. Reed. 2003. Terrestrial habitat use and winter densities of the wood frog (Rana sylvatica). Journal of Herpetology 37:390-394.

Reimchen, T.E. 1991. Introduction and dispersal of the Pacific treefrog, Hyla regilla, on the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia. Canadian Field-Naturalist 105:288–290.

Reinert H.K. 1993. Habitat selection in snakes. In: Seigel RA, Collins JT, editors. Snakes: ecology and behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill. p 201–240.

Reinert, H. K., and W. R. Kodrich. 1982. Movements and habitat utilization by the Massasauga, Sistrurus catenatus catenatus. Journal of Herpetology 16:162-171.

Relyea, R.A. 2005. The impact of insecticides and herbicides on the biodiversity and productivity of aquatic communities. Ecological Applications 15:618–627.

Resource Information Standards Committee 1998. Inventory methods for pond-breeding amphibians and painted turtle. Standards for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity No. 37 . Integrated Land Management Bureau, British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs/tebiodiv/pond/index.htm

Reynolds, R., T. Fritts, S. Gotte, J. Icochea, and G. Tello. 1997. Amphibians and Reptiles I, in F. Dallmeier and A. Alonso, (eds), Biodiversity Assessment and Long-term Monitoring of the Lower Urubamba Region, Peru: San Martin-3 and Cashiriari-2 Well Sites, SI/MAB Series #1. Smithsonian Institution/MAB Biodiversity Program, Washington, DC.

RISC. 1998a. Inventory methods for pond-breeding amphibians and painted turtles. Standards for components of British Columbia’s Biodiversity No. 37. Version 2.0. Province of British Columbia, Resources Inventory Standards Committee.

RISC. 1998b. Inventory methods for snakes. Standards for components of British Columbia’s Biodiversity No. 38. Version 2.0. Province of British Columbia, Resources Inventory Standards Committee.

RISC. 1999. British Columbia Wildlife Habitat Rating Standards Version 2. B.C. Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks Inventory Branch, Victoria.

Roff, D.A. 1992. The Evolution of Life Histories: Theory and Practice. Chapman and Hall, New York.

http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs/tebiodiv/pond/index.htm�


Page 104

Rossman, D.A., N.B. Ford, and R.A. Seigel. 1996. The garter snakes: evolution and ecology. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 332 pp.

Row, J. R., and G. Blouin-Demers. 2006. Thermal quality influences habitat selection at multiple spatial scales in Milksnakes. Ecoscience 13:443-450.

Royle, J.A. 2006. Site occupancy models with heterogeneous detection probabilities. Biometrics, 62:97–102.

Royle, J.A. and J.D. Nichols. 2003. Estimating abundance from repeated presence-absence data or point counts. Ecology 84: 777–790.

Russell, A. P., and A. M. Bauer. 1993. The amphibians and reptiles of Alberta. University of Calgary Press, Calgary, Alberta, and University of Alberta Press, Edmonton, Alberta. 264 pp.

Russell, A.P., G.L. Powell, and D.R. Hall. 1996. Growth and age of Alberta long-toed salamanders (Ambystoma macrodactylum krausei): a comparison of two methods of estimation. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:397-412.

Rutherford, P.L. 2000. COSEWIC Status Report on Northwestern Alligator Lizard Elgaria coerulea principis. Prepared for the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), Ottawa, Ontario.

Rutherford, P.L. 2004. Proximate mechanisms that contribute to female-biased sexual size dimorphism in an anguid lizard. Canadian Journal of Zoology 82:817-822.

Rutherford, P.L. and P.T. Gregory. 2003. Habitat use and movement patterns of Northern Alligator Lizards (Elgaria coerulea) and Western Skinks (Eumeces skiltonianus skiltonianus) in southeastern British Columbia. Journal of Herpetology 37:98-106.

Rutherford, P.L., and P.T. Gregory. 2001. Habitat Use and Movement Patterns of Northern Alligator Lizards and Western Skinks in Southeastern British Columbia. Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, BC Hydro, B.C. Minist. Environ, Lands and Parks, B.C. Fish. in partnership with Creston Valley Wildl. Manage. Area, Columbia Basin Trust and Univ. Victoria. 52pp.

Rutherford, P.L., and P.T. Gregory. 2001. Habitat Use and Movement Patterns of Northern Alligator Lizards and Western Skinks in Southeastern British Columbia. Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, BC Hydro, B.C. Minist. Environ, Lands and Parks, B.C. Fish. in partnership with Creston Valley Wildl. Manage. Area, Columbia Basin Trust and Univ. Victoria. 52pp.

Salt, J.R. 1979. Some elements of amphibian distribution and biology in the Alberta Rockies. Alberta Naturalist 9: 125-136.

Samallow, P.B. 1980. Selective mortality and reproduction in a natural population of Bufo boreas. Evolution 34:18-39.

Santos, X., Llorente, G. A., Montori, A., Carretero, M. A., Franch, M., Garriga, N. & Richter–Boix, A., 2007. Evaluating factors affecting amphibian mortality on roads: the case of the Common Toad Bufo bufo, near a breeding place. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 30:97–104.

Sauer, J.R., and N.A. Slade. 1987. Size-based demography of vertebrates. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 18:71–90.

Schaefer, W.H. 1934. Diagnosis of sex in snakes. Copeia 1934:181. Schaub, D.L. and J.H. Larsen. 1978. The reproductive ecology of the Pacific Treefrog

(Hyla regilla). Herpetologica 34:409-416.


Page 105

Schmetterling, D.A. and M.K. Young. 2008. Summer Movements of Boreal Toads (Bufo boreas boreas) in Two Western Montana Basins. Journal of Herpetology 42:111-143.

Schmidt, B.R. 2004. Declining amphibian populations: the pitfalls of count data in the study of diversity, distributions, dynamics, and demography. Herpetological Journal 14:167–174.

Schmidt, B.R. 2005. Monitoring the distribution of pond-breeding amphibians. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 15: 681–692.

Schmidt, B.R. 2005. Monitoring the distribution of pond-breeding amphibians. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 15: 681–692.

Scott, D.E. 1994. The effects of larval density on adult demographic traits in Ambystoma opacum. Ecology 75:1383-1396.

Sheppard, R.F. 1977. The ecology and home range movements of Ambystoma macrodactylum krausei (Amphibia: Urodela). Thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.

Shine, R. 1993. Sexual dimorphism in snakes. In R. A. Seigel and J. T. Collins, editors. Snakes: Ecology and Behavior. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York.

Shine, R. 2003. Reproductive strategies in snakes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Biological Sciences 270:995-1004.

Shine, R., M.J. Elphick, P.S. Harlow, I.T. Moore, M.P. LeMaster, and R.T. Mason. 2001. Movements, mating, and dispersal of Red-sided Garter Snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis) from a communal den in Manitoba. Copeia 2001:82-91.

Shirose, L.J., C.A. Bishop, D.M. Green, C.J. MacDonald, R.J. Brooks, and N.J. Helferty. 1997. Validation techniques of an amphibian call count survey technique in Ontario, Canada. Herpetologica 53:312–320.

Slough, B.G. 2004. Western Toad inventory in the Chilkoot Trail National Historic Site, July-August 2004. Parks Can. Species at Risk Inventory Fund Proj. SARINV04-30. Rep. to Parks Can. Yukon Field Unit, Haines Junction, YT. 54pp.

Smith, D.C. 1987. Adult recruitment in chorus frogs – effects of size and date of metamorphosis. Ecology 68:344-350.

Sorci, G., J. Clobert, and S. Belichon. 1996. Phenotypic plasticity of growth and survival in the common lizard Lacerta vivipara. Journal of Animal Ecology 65:781-790.

Squire, T., and R. A. Newman. 2002. Fine-scale population structure in the wood frog (Rana sylvatica) in a northern woodland. Herpetologica 58:119-130.

St. Clair, R.C. and P.T. Gregory. 1990. Factors affecting the northern range limit of Painted Turtles (Chrysemys picta): winter acidosis or freezing? Copeia 1990:1083-1089.

St. Clair, R.C., and A. Dibb. 2004. Rubber Boas in Radium Hot Springs: Habitat, Inventory, and Management Strategies. In T.D. Hooper, ed. Proc. of the Species at Risk 2004 Pathways to Recovery Conf. March 2-6, 2004, Victoria, B.C. Species at Risk 2004 Pathways to Recovery Conference Organizing Committee, Victoria, BC. 5pp.

St. Clair, R.C., P.T. Gregory, and M. Macartney. 1994. How do sexual differences in growth and maturation interact to determine size in northern and southern Painted Turtles? Canadian Journal of Zoology 72:1436-43.

Stearns, S.C. 1989. Trade-offs in life-history evolution. Functional Ecology 3:259-268. Stearns, S.C. 1992. Evolution of life-histories. Oxford University Press, Oxford.


Page 106

Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 533 pp.

Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 533 pp.

Stebbins, R.C. 1966. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Peterson Field Guide Series # 16. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

Stebbins, R.C. and N.W. Cohen. 1995. A Natural History of Amphibians, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Stevens, C.E., A.W. Diamond, and T.S. Gabor. 2002. Anuran call surveys on small wetlands in Prince Edward Island, Canada restored by dredging of sediments. Wetlands, 22(1): 90–99.

Stewart, G.R. 1977. Charina bottae. Cat. Am. Amph. Rep. 205.1-205.2. Stewart, J.R. 1985. Growth and survivorship in a California population of Gerrhonotus

coeruleus, with comments on intraspecific variation in adult female size. American Midland Naturalist 113:30-44.

Stuart, S.N., J.S. Chanson, N.A. Cox, B.E. Young, A.S.L. Rodrigues, D.L. Fischman, and R.W. Waller. 2004. Status and trends of amphibian declines worldwide. Science 306:1783–1786.

Tanner, W. W. 1988. Eumeces skiltonianus. Cat. Am. Amph. Rep. 447:1-4. Taylor, M., and C.M. Smith. 2003. Northern leopard frog and western toad inventory in

Waterton Lakes National Park, Alberta, in 2003. Unpubl. Tech. Rep. Parks Can., Waterton Park, AB. 81pp.

Taylor, S.K., E.S. Williams, E.T. Thorne, K.W. Mills, D.I. Withers and A.C. Pier. 1999. Causes of mortality of the Wyoming toad. Journal of Wildlife Disease 35:49–57.

The Reptiles of British Columbia: Western Skink, Eumeces skiltonianus. 2004. Univ. coll. of the Cariboo, and B.C. Minist. Water, Land and Air Prot. Online. Available:http://www.bcreptiles.ca/lizards/westskink.htm

Tilley, S.G. 1980. Life histories and comparative demography of two salamander populations. Copeia 1980:806–821.

Tuttle, K.N. 2007. Natural History of the Plains Garter Snake (Thamnophis radix) at the Northern Limit of Its Range in Alberta, Canada. Master’s Thesis. University of Victoria, Victoria, BC. 109 pp.

Tuttle, K.N. and P.T. Gregory. 2009. Food habits of the Plains Garter Snake (Thamnophis radix) at the northern limit of its range in Alberta, Canada. Journal of Herpetology (in press).

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.

Vasconcelos, D., and A.J.K. Calhoun. 2004. Movement patterns of adult and juvenile Rana sylvatica (LeConte) and Ambystoma maculatum (Shaw) in three restored seasonal pool in Maine. Journal of Herpetology 38:551-561.

Verrell, P., N. Strand, and E. Hanson. 2001. Sexual dimorphism of mate location in the long-toed salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum columbianum. Ethology 107:677-683.

Verrell, P.A. 2004. The male reproductive cycle of the North American salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum columbianum. Amphibia-Reptilia 25: 349-356.

Kinbasket & Arrow Amphibian and Reptile Life History and Habitat Use Appendices

Page 107

Verrell, P.A. 2006. The female reproductive cycle of the North American salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum columbianum. Amphibia-Reptilia 27: 274-277.

Vindum, J.V. and E.N. Arnold. 1997. The northern alligator lizard (Elgaria coerulea) from Nevada. Herpetological Review 28:100.

Vitt, L.J., J.P. Caldwell, H.M. Wilbur, and D.C. Smith. 1990. Amphibians as harbingers of decay. BioScience 40:418.

Wake, D.B. 1991. Declining amphibian populations. Science 253:860. Walsh, R. 1998. An extension of the known range of the long-toed salamander,

Ambystoma macrodactylum, in Alberta. Canadian Field Naturalist 112:331-333. Waye, H. 1999. Size and age structure of a population of Western Terrestrial Garter

Snakes (Thamnophis elegans). Copeia 1999:819-823. Weatherhead, P. J., and M. B. Charland. 1985. Habitat selection in an Ontario

population of the snake Elaphe obsoleta. Journal of Herpetology 19:12-19. Webb J.K., B.W. Brook, R. Shine. 2002. What makes a species vulnerable to extinction?

Comparative life-history traits of two sympatric snakes. Ecological Research 17:59–67.

Welch, N.E. and J.A. MacMahon. 2005. Identifying Habitat Variables Important to the Rare Columbia Spotted Frog in Utah (U.S.A.): an Information-Theoretic Approach. Conservation Biology 19:473-481.

Wente, W.H., M.J. Adams, and C.A. Pearl. 2005. Evidence of decline for Bufo boreas and Rana luteiventris in and around the northern Great Basin, western USA. Alytes 22:95–108.

Whitfield, S.M., K. E. Bell, T.Philippi, M. Sasa, F. Bolanos, G. Chaves, J. M. Savage, and M.A. Donnelly. 2007. Amphibian and reptile declines over 35 years at La Selva, Costa Rica. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America Doi:10.1073/pnas.0611256104.

Wiggins, G.B., R.J. McKay, and I.A. Smith. 1980. Evolutionary and ecological strategies of animals in annual temporary pools. Archives of Hydrobiology Suppl. 58:97–206.

Wildlife Management Division. 1996. The status of Alberta wildlife. Alberta Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Service, Wildlife Management Division.

Wilson, A. G., E. Wilson, and J. H. Larsen, Jr. 1989. Range extension for the Coeur d’Alene salamander, Plethodon vandykei idahoensis, to the Canada-United States border. Canadian Field-Nat. 103:93-94.

Wilson, A. G., E. Wilson, C. Grove and R. Wallace. 1997. U.S. distribution of the Coeur d’Alene Salamander, Plethodon vandykei idahoensis. Great Basin Naturalist 57:359-362.

Wilson, A.G., and J.H. Larsen. 1998. Biogeographis analysis of the Coeur d’Alene Salamander (Plethodon idahoensis). Northwest Science 72:111-115.

Wilson, E.O. 1999. The diversity of life. Longitude, New York, USA. Wind, E. and L. Dupuis. 2002. Status of the Western toad Bufo boreas in Canada.

Report for the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), Canada Wildlife Service, Environ. Canada, Ottawa.

Kinbasket & Arrow Amphibian and Reptile Life History and Habitat Use Appendices

Page 108

10 APPENDICES

Kinbasket & Arrow Amphibian and Reptile Life History and Habitat Use Assessment Appendices

Page 109

Appendix 1. Work Schedule 2008.

LGL’s work schedule was developed around the milestones presented in the Terms of Reference for Q7-7971. The overall schedule for 2008 was:

• 8 May 2008: Kick-off meeting. • May – June 2008: Literature review, data mining. • June – July 2008: Habitat Modelling and Mapping. • 12 – 17 May 2008: Field Session 1. • 12 – 19 June 2008: Field Session 2. • 23 – June – 2 July: Field Session 3. • 16 – 23 July 2008: Field Session 4. • 22 – 31 August 2008: Field Session 5 • 15 - 24 September 2008: Field Session 6. • October 2008: Development of Draft Year 1 Technical Report. • October 2008: Development of Draft Monitoring Protocol. • 17 November 2008: Submission of Draft Year 1 Technical Report. • 17 November 2008: Submission of Draft Monitoring Protocol. • 12 January 2009: Submission of Final Year 1 Technical Report. • 12 January 2009: Submission of Final Monitoring Protocol. • 12 January 2009: Submission of 300 Word Abstract. • 12 January 2009: Submission of Digital Appendix (survey sites, amphibian and

reptile observations, vegetation and habitat data, digital images).

Progress reports were submitted monthly beginning in May 2008. Details of each field session are provided below.

Field Session 1: 12 – 17 May 2008 Virgil Hawkes, Krysia Tuttle 12 May 2008: Travel from Victoria to Revelstoke. 13 May 2008: Blanket Creek Provincial Park, Shelter Bay, Galena Bay, Beaton

Arm, McDonald Provincial Park, Burton Creek 14 May 2008: Edgewood; Burton Park: Detailed assessment 15 May 2008 Revelstoke Reach 16 May 2008 Revelstoke Reach 17 May 2008 Canoe Reach and elsewhere

Field Session 2: 12 – 19 June 2008 Virgil Hawkes, Krysia Tuttle 12 June 2008: Travel from Victoria (KT) to Castlegar. 13 June 2008: Deer Park / South Arrow: KT: Reconnaissance of South Arrow. Travel: KT drive to Invermere and overnight 14 June 2008: VCH and KT meet in Valemount. 15 June 2008 Canoe Reach. 16 June 2008 Yellow Jacket, Ptarmigan, Mount Blackman 17 June 2008 Canoe Reach and elsewhere 18 June 2008 Travel Day: Drive to Golden 19 June 2008 Beaver Mouth / Bush Arm: Connect with EA1986 Crew. Spend

day with them.

Field Session 3: 23 June – 2 July 2008 Virgil Hawkes, Krysia Tuttle 23 June 2008 KT and VCH Travel to Revelstoke 24 June 2008 Revelstoke Reach Sites 1, 2, and 3


Page 110

25 June 2008 Revelstoke Reach Sites 1, 2, and 3. 26 June 2008 Beaton Arm / Galena Bay 27 June 2008 Burton Creek travel to Golden 28 June 2008 Beaver mouth/ Bush Arm 29 June 2008 Beaver mouth/ Bush Arm 30 June 2008 Travel to Valemount 01 July 2008 Canoe Reach, Ptarmigan, Mount Blackman 02 July 2008 Canoe Reach, Ptarmigan, Mount Blackman. Travel Home

Field Session 4: 16 July – 23 July 2008 Krysia Tuttle, Lisa Lasmanis, Virgil Hawkes 16 July 2008 KT and LL Travel to Valemount 17 July 2008 Canoe Reach 18 July 2008 Canoe Reach / Yellow Jacket / Ptarmigan 19 July 2008 Pickup VCH in Kamloops. Travel to Revelstoke 20 July 2008 Revelstoke Reach Sites 1, 2, and 3 21 July 2008 Beaton Arm / Galena Bay / Burton Creek travel to Golden 22 July 2008 Beaver mouth/ Bush Arm 23 July 2008 Travel To Trail

Field Session 5: 22 August – 31 August 2008 Krysia Tuttle, Leigh Anne Isaac, Virgil Hawkes 22 August 2008 KT and VCH travel to Valemount 23 August 2008 Revelstoke Reach Sites 1, 2, and 3 24 August 2008 Revelstoke Reach Sites 1, 2, and 3. 25 August 2008 Beaton Arm / Galena Bay 26 August 2008 Burton Creek travel to Golden 27 August 2008 Beaver mouth/ Bush Arm 28 August 2008 Beaver mouth/ Bush Arm 29 August 2008 Travel to Valemount 30 August 2008 Canoe Reach, Ptarmigan, Mount Blackman 31 August 2008 Canoe Reach, Ptarmigan, Mount Blackman. Travel Home

Field Session 6: 15 – 21 September Krysia Tuttle, Leigh Anne Isaac, Lisa Lasmanis 15 September 2008 KT drive to Kamloops pick up LAI. Travel to Valemount. 16 September 2008 Canoe Reach, Ptarmigan, Mount Blackman 17 September 2008 Travel to Golden. Meet LL. 18 September 2008 Beaver mouth/ Bush Arm 19 September 2008 Travel to Revelstoke. Revelstoke Reach Sites 1, 2, and 3. 20 September 2008 Burton Creek 21 September 2008 All travel home - KT to Victoria, LAI & LL to Kimberley.


Page 111

Appendix 2. Survey locations and amphibian and reptile captures made during the 2008 reconaissance-level surves to Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs.

The following maps identify the survey locations visited in each reservoir and the species documented at each location.


Page 112

Map 1. Species documented in the Valemount Peatland, Kinbasket Reservoir.


Page 113

Map 2. Species documented along East Canoe FSR (north), Kinbasket Reservoir.


Page 114

Map 3. Species documented along East Canoe FSR (central), Kinbasket Reservoir.


Page 115

Map 4. Species documented along East Canoe FSR (south), Kinbasket Reservoir.


Page 116

Map 5. Species documented at Ptarmigan Creek, Kinbasket Reservoir.


Page 117

Map 6. Species documented at Hugh Alan Bay, Kinbasket Reservoir.


Page 118

Map 7. Species documented at Bush Arm (km 79), Kinbasket Reservoir.


Page 119

Map 8. Species documented at Bush Arm (causway), Kinbasket Reservoir.


Page 120

Map 9. Species documented at Beavermouth, Kinbasket Reservoir


Page 121

Map 10. Species documented along Airport Way, Arrow Lakes Reservoir.


Page 122

Map 11. Species documented at “6 mile”, Arrow Lakes Reservoir.


Page 123



Page 124



Page 125

Map 14. Species documented at Shelter Bay, Arrow Lakes Reservoir.


Page 126

Map 15. Species documented at Halfway River, Arrow Lakes Reservoir.


Page 127

Map 16. Species documented at Burton Creek, Arrow Lakes Reservoir.


Page 128

Map 17. Species documented at Syringa Provincial Park, Arrow Lakes Reservoir.


Page 129

Appendix 3. Long-toed Salamander HSI Model.

Long-toed Salamander HSI Model To assess the utility of the HSI modelling approach for amphibians and reptiles in the drawdown zones of Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs, we used an existing model for the Long-toed Salamander (Graham et al., 1999) and adapted it to the unique ecology of the drawdown zone. Long-toed Salamander was selected as the focal species because of the overlap in breeding habitat use by other amphibians such as Columbia Spotted Frog, Western Toad, and Pacific Treefrog, and more iporanttly, because an exisitng model was available. Furthermore, various life stages of all four of these amphibian species are consumed by both species of garter snakes. Therefore, although the model identifies the distribution and suitability of Long-toed Salamander breeding habitat in the drawdown zones, it is also mapping, by proxy, the distribution of suitable breeding habitat for Columbia Spotted Frog, Western Toad, and Pacific Treefrog and suitable foraging habitat for Western Terrestrial and Common Red-sided Garter Snakes.

INTRODUCTION

Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) models predict the suitability of habitat for a species based on an assessment of habitat attributes such as habitat structure, habitat type and spatial arrangements between habitat features. This HSI model for the long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum) applies to habitats in Kinbasket reservoir near Valemount, BC. The intended use is to predict the distribution of breeding habitat within the drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir at landscape scales and over long time periods. The model will be used to determine potential changes in the suitability and/or distribution of long-toed salamander breeding habitat area relative to normal reservoir operations.

Model development occurs in six steps:

1. Selection of Evaluation Species Of the species listed in Table 1 it is likely that habitat suitability maps could be developed for Columbia Spotted Frog, Wood Frog, Pacific Treefrog, Western Toad, Long-toed Salamander, Western Terrestrial and Common Garter snakes, and possibly for Painted Turtles. This assertion is based on the likelihood of collecting enough data to develop a meaningful HSI model.

To determine the utility of the HEP approach to mapping the distribution of suitable amphibian and reptile habitat in the drawdown zone of Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs, two species were considered: Long-toed Salamander and Painted Turtle. These two species were selected because of their ubiquitous distribution (Long-toed Salamander) or because of their specific habitat needs (Painted Turtle). Long-toed Salamanders also use similar breeding habitats as Columbia Spotted Frogs, Western Toads, and Pacific Treefrogs; therefore, the HSI model developed for Long-toed Salamander is assumed to capture the habitat needs of these other pond-breeding species.

2. Delineation of Habitat Types Habitat evaluation analysis requires the recognition of discrete habitat types within the study area. Habitat types are presumed to be homogeneous units with relatively uniform biophysical conditions. This assumption is required to extrapolate the evaluation of habitat suitability from areas actually sampled on the ground to un-sampled areas that


Page 130

occur within the area of interest (i.e., the drawdown zone of Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoir).

We used site-specific data collected during our 2008 reconnaissance surveys and the vegetation community mapping generated by Hawkes et al. (2007) and Enns et al. (2007) to delineate habitat types to be included in the HSI models. The data sets generated for the production of these maps contain vegetation species and cover data, as well as data on soil type, soil drainage, root restriction, slope, aspect, elevation (metres above sea level), and biogeoclimatic zone. Some of these data were used in the development of the HSI Models.

The distribution of pond-breeding habitat was assessed via two methods: 1) a GPS track was obtained for most ponds surveyed during the 2008 reconnaissance surveys and these tracks were later mapped in a GIS, and 2) aerial photos obtained in 2008 for Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs were used to identify the extent of pond habitat in the drawdown zones of both reservoirs and all ponds visible on the aerial photos were digitized in a GIS. The ponds formed the fundamental unit of habitat delineation followed by vegetation community.

3. Model Development A fundamental step in the HEP approach is the development of a systematic means of assigning suitability ratings to a given area (i.e., habitat polygon) for an evaluation species. This is done by developing a model that links Suitability Indices (SI’s) for the various components of a species’ habitat. SI values were developed for each habitat variable considered to influence habitat suitability and carrying capacity for the species under consideration. SI’s were calculated from linear relationships developed between specific variable measurements and carrying capacity. These relationships permitted suitability indices to be directly calculated from the ratio of habitat conditions (based on in-field variable measurements or through the use of a GIS) to optimal habitat conditions. Optimum habitat conditions were largely defined from existing literature. Where possible, existing HSI models were used and/or modified.

4 - 5. Habitat Variable Measurements The habitat and GIS data avialabe are atypical of habiat sutiability prpojects, which typically occur at a map scale of 1:20,000 or greater. In this case, digitially recitifed orthophotos, captured at 1:5,000, are available. We also have access to a Digitial Elvation Model (25 cm increments), and habitat mapping created from the 1:5,000 orthophotos.

Habitat Attributes. Habitat attribute data were collected in the field and extracted from existing data sets. Species-location data were collected in the field, as were the location of suitable breeding ponds. Additional data (e.g., water temperature, dissolved oxygen, water chemistry, substrate, and aquatic vegetation) will be collected in Year 2 and if necessary, incorporated into the model algorithm to refine the accuracy of the model output.

GIS Analysis. A GIS was used to digitize pond polygons in the drawdown zone of Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs.

6. Model Implementation Once the HSI models were constructed, the field data, compiled for model input and the GIS data prepared, the SI values for each habitat variable were determined from the model. HSI’s for individual life requisites and for the overall habitats were computed by


Page 131

using the algorithm developed as part of the model. This procedure was repeated for each habitat polygon, for each species and for each season for which a model was developed (initially, we restricted model development to the spring period). SI values were adjusted to match the desired provincial scales and we used a 4-class rating system of high, moderate, low, and nil habitat suitability for both Long-toed Salamanders and Painted Turtles. Initially, the model output will provide an unverified depicition of expected species occurrence, which re quires ground-truthin during Year 2 of the program. Only then can we refine the model and determine the accuracy of the model relative to the species under consideration.

SPECIES DESCRIPTION AND DISTRIBUTION

The adult long-toed salamander is approximately 10-20 cm long, slender, with brown or dark green glossy skin, usually with a yellow dorsal stripe (Russell and Bauer, 1993). The larvae (up to 7.5 cm long) are typically found in fishless permanent ponds (Graham, 1997) and are light olive-grey to brownish grey, with a large head and large external gills (Russell and Bauer, 1993).

The species is distributed throughout British Columbia (Bishop, 1943; Ferguson, 1961) and in clusters along the Rocky Mountains and Foothills in Alberta (Powell et al,. 1997; Walsh, 1998), south into the Pacific Northwest States, and California (Ferguson, 1961; Nussbaum et al., 1983). Long-toed salamanders are found in ponds, marshes, and land along the major river valleys (Stebbins, 1966; Gadd, 1995). Long-toed salamanders were documented from one location in the drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir (the Valemount Peatland at the north end of the reservoir near the town of Valemount, BC).

FOOD

Long-toed salamander larvae feed on all aquatic animals small enough to be ingested (Sheppard, 1977). Adults eat a variety of invertebrates including snails and worms (Farner, 1947; Ferguson, 1961; Fukumoto, 1995). Adults roam around clearings and forested areas in search of food, often at night or when it is raining (Fukumoto, 1995; Powell et al., 1997).

COVER Adults spend the majority of the summer underground in small mammal burrows or under rocks, bark, or logs (Anderson, 1967; Sheppard, 1977; Douglas, 1981). They crawl around on the ground at night in search of food, but during the day they stay well hidden. Winter hibernation aggregations are located under ground below the frost line (Sheppard, 1977). Hibernation sites are often associated with root systems or other crevasses (W. A. Hunt, Life history of the northern long-toed salamander, unpublished report, Edson Fish and Wildlife Library, 1987). Although some salamanders travel up to 900 m (Powell et al., 1993), most remain within several hundred metres of the nearest pond (Graham, 1997).

In the Valemount Peatland, Long-toed salamanders were associated with one, human-created pond that was approximately 15m X 10m in size and the pond was situated < 200m from forested upland habitat.

REPRODUCTION

Migration from overwintering sites to breeding ponds occurs in early spring. Males usually arrive before the females (Nussbaum et al., 1983). Eggs are deposited singly or in clumps (Graham, 1997) in the shallow areas of ponds (Sheppard, 1977; Salt; 1979; Graham, 1997), on vegetation, logs or sticks (Graham, 1997), often before all the ice has melted (Kezer and Farner, 1955; Knudsen, 1960; Anderson, 1967; Beneski et al., 1986).


Page 132

Working on the Foothills Model Forest (FMF) in Alberta, Graham (1997) found the average number of eggs laid by a female to be 221 (range = 213-231, N = 4). Metamorphosis typically occured in August in the FMF (Graham, 1997) but in a high elevation pond (1930 m) in Waterton Lakes National Park, larvae overwintered and metamorphosed the second summer (Fukumoto 1995). We found free-swimming larvae in June, July, and August in the Valemount Peatland and by September, no larvae remained in the pond suggesting metamorphosis between the end of August and the middle of September. The elevation of the pond was 751 m ASL.

Larval development varies over the geographical range due to the wide variance in timing and length of breeding season (Kezer and Farner, 1955; Nussbaum et al., 1983). Fish are detrimental to salamander larvae and generally only fishless ponds or ponds with shallow areas and hiding places for larvae will successfully maintain salamander populations (Powell et al., 1997).

HABITAT AREA Home ranges of long-toed salamanders in the Bow Corridor in Alberta were 115.6 m2, 167.5 m2

and 281.6 m2

for females, males and juveniles respectively. Breeding

population estimates from ponds in the FMF based on egg abundance ranged from 1 breeding female in a 0.1 ha pond to 838 breeding females in a 5 ha pond. No density estimate was made for terrestrial salamanders, however based on pitfall captures in the FMF, an estimate of 25 salamanders in an optimal hectare of habitat is assumed (K. Graham, personal observation). Similar data are not yet available for Kinbasket Reservoir.

HSI MODEL

MODEL APPLICABILITY

Species: Long-Toed Salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum).

Habitat Evaluated: Breeding habitat.

Geographic area: The output of this model was applied to the Valmeount Peatland at the north end Of Kinbasket Reservoir near Valemount, BC.

Seasonal Applicability: This model produces values for year round habitat.

Cover types: This model applies to all non-forested habitat of the Valemount Peatland. This model is only applicable to areas in which there are known to be populations of this species. The model should also be broadly applicable to other habitat areas dominated by vegetation similar to that found in the Valemount Peatland.

Minimum Habitat Area: There is no minimum habitat area required by long-toed salamanders.

Model Output: The model will produce predicted habitat suitability ratings for breedihng ponds within a specified distance from a known breeding pond.

Verification Level: Application: This HSI model is designed to assess habitat suitability for specific areas within the drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir to idneify the potential area used by breeding Long-toed Salamanders that can be impacted thorugh reservoir operations (i.e., seasonal inundation). Its purpose is to predict relative changes in the availability of Long-toed Salamander breeding at the site level relative to seasonal changes in reservoir elevations to determine the potential impacts of reservoir elevations on this species. Any attempt to use the model in a different geographic area or for other than


Page 133

the intended purpose should be accompanied by model testing procedures, verification analysis, and other modifications to meet specific objectives.

MODEL DESCRIPTION

The HSI model for the long-toed salamander is for year round habitat. The model is based on distances to lentic ecosystems (still open water) that are known to have salamander populations and ground cover. The salamander does not live in lotic (flowing water) ecosystems.

Habitat Variables and HSI Components The limited dispersal of Long-toed Salamanders restricts this species to areas where other Long-toed Salamander populations occur. The first variable (S1) is defined as the distance of a pond from a known Long-toed Salamander breeding pond (Table 17). For this model, ponds that occurred within a 10 km radius of a known Long-toed Salamander breeding pond and that were within or immediately adjacent to the drawdown zone of the reservoir were considered suitable.

The second variable (S2) is the distance from the nearest non-flowing waterbody that does not contain fish (Table 17). This is used to define the terrestrial area around a waterbody that is available to Long-toed Salamanders.

The third component (S3) determines the terrestrial microsite suitability in which salamanders spend most of their life when they are not breeding (Table 17). Graham (1997) found that most salamander observations were associated with microsites that had a thick litter layer, therefore, any vegetation or habitat attribute (e.g., woody debris) that contributes to the litter layer or increases the number and/or density of available cover objects enhances terrestrial habitat for Long-toed Salamanders.

The fourth component (S4) considers the proportion of time that a given pond is available to Long-toed Salamanders during the breeding season (March through April) (Table 17). The area modeled for Kinbasket and Arrow lakes Reservoir was constrained to the lower and upper elevation bands identified in Table 17. Therefore, the availability of a given pond was directly correlated with its elevation. Ponds located at higher elevations (and therefore higher in the drawdown zone) would be available longer than those located at lower elevations, or lower in the drawdown zone. Table 17. Relationship between habitat variables and life requisites for the long-toed

salamander model.

HSI Component Life Requisite Habitat Variable Habitat Variable Definition

S1 Habitat Area Distance to Active Pond (km)

Linear distance to nearest pond with recorded long-toed salamander population.

S2 Habitat Area Distance to Nearest Pond (m)

Linear distance to nearest permanent fishless water body (still, open water).

S3 Foraging and Daytime Cover Habitat Cover (%)

Total vegetative and / or woody debris cover as determined from available habitat mapping (Hawkes et al., 2007 or Enns et al., 2007)

S4 Breeding Habitat Pond Availability Proportion of days available during the

months March through August.

Graphical HSI Component Relationships S1 When a pond occurs within 10 km of a known Long-toed Salamander breeding

pond, S1 has a value of 1. For ponds > 10 km, the value of S1 is 0 (Figure 29A).


Page 134

S2 The HSI value assigned to the terrestrial area around a fishless pond that occurs within a 10 km radius of a known Long-toed Salamander pond, will vary depending on the distance from the edge of the pond. Long-toed Salamander abundance is related to the distance from the edge of the potential breeding pond such that, as distance from the pond increases, the abundance of salamanders decreases until a distance of 750 m is reached, at which point abundance is assumed to be 0. Therefore, S2 has a value of 1 at the pond edge to 250 m, and this then declines linearly to a value of 0 at 750 m (Figure 29B).

S3 Microsites with vegetation cover resulting in a thick litter layer or higher percent cover increases habitat suitability. Suitability increases from 0-1 over the range 0-100% cover (Figure 29C). It is possible that cover will be > 100%, however any habitat community or attribute with > 100% gets a rating of 1.

S4 The amount of time that a pond is available to Long-toed Salamanders in the breeding season is a function of the elevation of the pond and the elevation of the reservoir. The higher the pond is situated in the drawdown zone, the longer the pond will be available to Long-toed Salamanders for breeding. Therefore, the value of S4 increases in an approximately linear fashion across the elevation range of 741–754 m ASL (for Kinbasket Reservoir; Figure 29D). The relationship is not exactly linear because the HSI values are the result of averaging the proportion of time a pond is available across a 6 month period (i.e., March through April).

MODEL ASSUMPTIONS

1. Pond chemistry does not affect terrestrial habitat associations.

2. Salamanders are limited in dispersal.

3. Pesticides, herbicides or fungicides are not being used in the area.

4. Areas with dense vegetation cover will have a thick litter layer.


Page 135

Figure 29. Graphical relationships between habitat variables and HSI components used in the Long-Toed Salamander model.

EQUATIONS

The component S1 determines whether the area is in the range of long-toed salamanders within the Valemount Peatland. It is multiplied directly to S2, which ensures only areas in the vicinity of ponds are counted and S3 rates the habitat around individual ponds.S4 considers the amount of time that the pond is available (i.e., not inundated). All four variables are considered equally important.

HSI = S1 x S2 x S3 x S4

SOURCES OF OTHER MODELS We adapted the Long-toed Salamander model developed by the Foothills Model Forest (Graham et al., 1999). MODEL HISTORY

This is the first iteration of this model as applied to the Valemount Peatland in Kinbasket Reservoir. Future revisions will be documented.

A

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Distance (km) from Known Breeding Pond

S1 H

SI V

alue

C

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent

S3 H

SI V

alue

D

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

740 742 744 746 748 750 752 754

Kinbasket Reservoir Elevation (m ASL)

S4 H

SI V

alue

B

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Distance (m) from Pond Edge

S2 H

SI V

alue


Page 136

The output of the HSI model algorithm produces a value of 0, which represents unsuitable habitat and a value of 1, which represents optimal habitat. Final HSI values (between 0 and 1) were classified into 3 equally distributed habitat classes for HSI values between 0.1 and 1 and a nil habitat classes for HSI values less than 0.1. Four habitat classes were scaled from the HSI to align with the British Columbia Wildlife Habitat Ratings System (RISC, 1999):

• Habitat Class 1 – 0.76- 1.0 High Value

• Habitat Class 2 – 0.26-0.75 Moderate Value

• Habitat Class 3 – 0.10-0.25 Low Value

• Habitat Class 4 – 0.0 -0.09 Nil Value


Page 137

Appendix 4. Description of Study Sites The study site descriptions below are based primarily on the information contained in Hawkes et al. (2007), which describes the vegetation communities of Kinbasket Reservoir for CLBMON-10, Inventory of Vegetation Resources of Kinbasket Reservoir and Enns et al. (2007), which describes the vegetation communities of Arrow Lakes Reservoir for CLBMON-33, Inventory of Vegetation Resources of Arrow Lakes Reservoir.. The level of redundancy among the various sections serves to impart the similarities and exaggerate the differences between study areas.

KINBASKET RESERVOIR

Beavermouth

Vegetation communities in the Beavermouth area are essentially restricted to sandy or gravely flats along the bends of the Columbia River at the very southernmost end of the Kinbasket Reservoir. The soils here are generally poor, with sandy and gravely soils dominating in many areas, and extensive areas of driftwood accumulation typify most sites. These accumulations of driftwood are more or less devoid of vegetation and prevent the establishment of any plant communities (Figure 30). The highest-elevation portions of the Beavermouth area, which receive infrequent and short-duration annual inundation, are dominated by the CO (Clover-Oxeye Daisy) community, while wetter and more poorly-drained areas, usually with a silty substrate, host the KS (Kellogg’s Sedge) community. The CH (Common Horsetail) dominates the lowest-nutrient and most well-drained (sandy and gravely) soils in this area.

The CO community is composed largely of introduced, weedy grasses and forbs that are typical of disturbed and early-seral conditions. Species that characterize the CO community include clover (Yellow Clover [Trifolium aureum], Alsike Clover [T. hybridum], Red Clover [T. pratense], and White Clover [T. repens]) and Oxeye Daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare). Other species that are common in this community include Self-heal (Prunella vulgaris), Common Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), Meadow Hawkweed (Hieracium caespitosum), King Devil (H. praealtum), Norwegian Cinquefoil (Potentilla norvegica), and Common Horsetail (Equisetum arvense). Relatively few native species are found in this community, and those that do occur are typically rather weedy. These species are intolerant of prolonged inundation and are able to persist only because these areas are inundated only during the periods of highest water levels (not necessarily occurring every year).

Species richness of the KS community is moderately low, and species composition and abundance changes with soil moisture content. Wetter sites are imperfectly drained, resulting in communities dominated by Kellogg’s Sedge (Carex lenticularis var.lipocarpa) in association with species such as Wool-grass (Scirpus atrocinctus) and Toad Rush (Juncus bufonius). Drier sites tend to be dominated by Kellogg’s Sedge with co-dominants of clover species and Narrow-leaved Collomia (Collomia linearis). This plant community can tolerate longer periods of complete inundation, and includes species typical of marshes and fens as well as annual species that can only persist in areas with sufficient annual exposure to the air.

The CH community is among the least diverse of the plant communities occurring within the drawdown zone of the Kinbasket Reservoir. Common Horsetail is a hardy, resilient annual species that is able to establish and survive in harsh and poor site conditions characterized by low nutrient availability. It tends to establish in locations where other communities are unable to, particularly on coarse, well-drained, sandy soils with high


Page 138

coarse fragment (gravels, cobbles and stones) content. In most instances, the Common Horsetail community is characterized by low species richness and sparse vegetation cover. Vegetation within this community type is primarily composed of Common Horsetail in association with a minor percentage cover of other species. The lower elevation range of this community is comprised almost exclusively of young plants that are widely spaced; with increasing elevation, plants are larger, more robust and associated with other species such as Kellogg’s Sedge, Norwegian Cinquefoil, Lady’s-thumb (Polygonum persicaria), clover species, Lamb’s-quarters (Chenopodium album), and, rarely, Small-flowered Forget-me-not (Myosotis laxa). Grass species such as Bluejoint Reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis), Canada Bluegrass (Poa compressa), Fowl Bluegrass (Poa palustris) and Redtop (Agrostis gigantea) are present but contribute little to the overall vegetative cover.

Figure 30. Examples of habitat types occurring in the Beavermouth region of

Kinbasket Reservoir. Photos © Virgil C. Hawkes.

Yellow Jacket Creek

Yellow Jacket Creek is situated on the east side of Kinbasket Reservoir in Canoe Reach. The creek flows out of the Rocky Mountains and is a high energy system, frequently over-topping its banks during the spring freshet. The substrates of the drawdown zone within the vicinity of Yellow Jacket Creek were modified in 2008 via woody debris removal activities (Hawkes, 2008). The vegetation communities described below were mapped prior to this disturbance. Once the vegetation communities have been defined for 2008, this section will likely be modified.

The vegetation communities at Yellow jacket Creek were dominated by the Lady’s-thumb – Lamb’s-quarters (LL) community, which is the one of the most common vegetation communities in Kinbasket Reservoir. The LL community is characterized by low species richness and low species percent cover. The dominant species characterizing this community are Lady’s-thumb (Polygonum persicaria) and Lamb’s-quarters (Chenopodium album). In addition to Lady’s-thumb and Lamb’s-quarters, species typical of this community include Purslane Speedwell (Veronica peregrina), Common Knotweed (Polygonum aviculare), Norwegian Cinquefoil (Potentilla norvegica), Marsh Yellow Cress (Rorippa palustris), Red Sand-spurry (Spergularia rubra), Common Horsetail (Equisetum arvense), Kellogg’s Sedge (Carex lenticularis ssp lipocarpa), and Toad Rush (Juncus bufonius).


Page 139

Figure 31. Yellow Jacket Creek before (15 June 2008) inundation from Kinbasket

Reservoir. Photos © Krysia Tuttle.

Ptarmigan Creek

The dominant feature of the Ptarmigan Creek study site is the presence of a large, relatively deep, permanent water body within the drawdown zone that is fully exposed when the level of the reservoir drops below ~742 m ASL. The vegetation around this water body corresponds with the KS (Kellogg’s Sedge) community, with additional species that are more typical of wetlands (Water-parsnip [Sium suave], Northern Mannagrass [Glyceria borealis], etc.) growing around the immediate edges of the wetland or, in some cases, being emergent within the wetland.

The KS community typically has relatively low plant species diversity, with species composition and abundance changing with soil moisture content. Wetter sites are imperfectly drained, resulting in communities dominated by Kellogg’s Sedge in association with Wool-grass and Toad Rush. Drier sites tend to be dominated by Kellogg’s Sedge with co-dominants of clover species and Narrow-leaved Collomia. This plant community can tolerate longer periods of complete inundation, and includes species typical of marshes and fens as well as annual terrestrial species that can only persist in areas with sufficient annual exposure to the air.

At elevations below the KS community, three communities that are dominated by annual (and often weedy) plant species occur: the CH (Common Horsetail), TP (Toad Rush-Water starwort), and LL (Lady’s-thumb – Lamb’s-quarters) communities. The TP community occurs on the finest, richest, and wettest soils at these low elevation bands, while the CH community occurs on the coarsest, best-drained, and most nutrient-poor soils; the LL community is somewhat intermediate in its substrate requirements and occupies the very lowest of the vegetated elevation bands within the reservoir.

The TP community contains relatively few plant species, and those that are present are able to withstand prolonged periods of inundation. Annual species, which are able to germinate each year following the exposure of these soils to the air, comprise almost all of the vegetation in this community. Perennial plant species are virtually absent from this zone, and the few that occur are typically found as immature plants in their first growing season. The dominant plant species in this community are Toad Rush, Water-starwort (Callitriche spp.), and Lady’s-thumb, with smaller amounts of Kellogg’s Sedge and a variety of weedy annuals.


Page 140

Similarly, the LL community is also composed primarily of annuals and is characterized by low species richness and low species percent cover. The dominant species characterizing this community are Lady’s-thumb and Lamb’s-quarters, with lesser amounts of Purslane Speedwell (Veronica peregrina), Common Knotweed (Polygonum aviculare), Norwegian Cinquefoil, Marsh Yellow Cress (Rorippa palustris), Red Sand-spurry (Spergularia rubra), Common Horsetail, Kellogg’s Sedge, and Toad Rush. Norwegian Cinquefoil and Common Knotweed are often co-dominants and are relatively frequent within this community.

The CH community has particularly low plant species diversity, with the vegetation primarily composed of Common Horsetail in association with a minor percentage cover of other species. The lower elevation range of this community is comprised almost exclusively of young plants that are widely spaced. With increasing elevation, plants are larger, more robust and associated with other species such as Kellogg’s Sedge, Norwegian Cinquefoil, Lady’s-thumb, clover species, Lamb’s-quarters and, rarely, Small-flowered Forget-me-not. Grasses are present but contribute little to the overall vegetative cover.

Figure 32. Ptarmigan Creek before (June 2008) and after (September 2008) inundation

from Kinbasket Reservoir. Photos © Krysia Tuttle.

Mt. Blackman

The Mt. Blackman area was visited once in 2008 to reassess amphibian and reptile suitability. The area is comprised of four vegetation communities, with the CH (Common Horsetail), community the most prevalent followed by the LL (Lady’s-thumb – Lamb’s-quarters) community.

The CH community is among the least diverse of the plant communities occurring within the drawdown zone of the Kinbasket Reservoir. Common Horsetail is a hardy, resilient annual species that is able to establish and survive in harsh and poor site conditions characterized by low nutrient availability. It tends to establish in locations where other communities are unable to, particularly on coarse, well-drained, sandy soils with high coarse fragment (gravels, cobbles and stones) content. In most instances, the Common Horsetail community is characterized by low species richness and sparse vegetation cover. Vegetation within this community type is primarily composed of Common Horsetail in association with a minor percentage cover of other species. The lower elevation range of this community is comprised almost exclusively of young plants that are widely spaced; with increasing elevation, plants are larger, more robust and associated with other species such as Kellogg’s Sedge, Norwegian Cinquefoil, Lady’s-


Page 141

thumb (Polygonum persicaria), clover species, Lamb’s-quarters (Chenopodium album), and, rarely, Small-flowered Forget-me-not (Myosotis laxa). Grass species such as Bluejoint Reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis), Canada Bluegrass (Poa compressa), Fowl Bluegrass (Poa palustris) and Redtop (Agrostis gigantea) are present but contribute little to the overall vegetative cover.

Figure 33. Examples of the habitat types occurring at Mt. Blackman in 2008 (left panel)

and 2007 (right panel). Photos © Krysia Tuttle (left) and Virgil C. Hawkes (right).

Hugh Allan Bay

In 2008, sampling of Hugh Allan Bay occurred primarily in the upland and unmapped (for vegetation communities) regions accessible by the Canoe East FSR. As such, the areas sampled were well outside of the drawdown zone in upland shrub – mixed forest habitats dominated by young seral deciduous and coniferous forests. Several south-facing (warm aspect slopes) covered with Saskatoon and various grasses were sampled for snakes, and the area was visited to determine road access to the drawdown zone mapped in 2007 by Hawkes et al. (2007).

Valemount Peatland

The Valemount Peatland is an extensive area of ponds, wet meadows, fens, marshes, and flats that contain a rich diversity of plant species (Figure 34). The vegetation communities present at this site closely correspond to the elevational bands of the reservoir. Narrow bands of accumulated driftwood dominate the uppermost elevational bands, which occur directly adjacent to upland plant communities. In areas that are devoid of driftwood, CT (Cottonwood-Clover) and, to a lesser extent, CO (Clover-Oxeye Daisy) vegetation communities occur. These communities are intolerant of prolonged inundation and contain many weedy or otherwise early-seral plant species.

The diversity of plant species in the CO community is relatively high, but is highly variable in terms of species composition. Species that characterize the CO community include clover species and Oxeye Daisy, with a wide variety of less common species such as Self-heal, Common Dandelion, hawkweeds (Hieracium spp.), Norwegian Cinquefoil and Common Horsetail. The CT community has a herb composition similar to that of the CO community and is distinguished primarily by the high deciduous shrub cover. The most common species in this community is Black Cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa) with minor components of willows (especially Sitka Willow [Salix sitchensis]). Other common species include clover species, Bluejoint Reedgrass,


Page 142

Red Fescue (Festuca rubra), Common Horsetail, and Kentucky Bluegrass (Poa pratensis).

The vegetation at elevations below those occupied by the CO and CT vegetation communities corresponds with the WS (Willow-Sedge) community, although in drier portions of this zone there are some examples of the BR (Bluejoint Reedgrass) and KS (Kellogg’s Sedge) communities. These communities can tolerate minor amounts of annual inundation and have a high diversity of plant species, especially the WS community. In contrast to the CO and CT communities, however, which also boast high species diversities, the WS community has a much higher proportion of native plants (many of the species in the CT and CO communities are exotics).

Various willow species (e.g., Salix commutata, S.bebbiana, S.brachycarpa, S.discolor, S.drummondiana, S.lucida ssp.lasiandra, S.pedicellaris, S. stichensis, S. pseudomyrsinites,) occur in the WS community in association with other shrubs such as Red-osier Dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), Mountain Alder (Alnus incana), and Prickly Rose (Rosa acicularis). Sedge species include, among others, Slender Sedge (Carex lasiocarpa), Kellogg’s Sedge, Sawbeak Sedge (Carex stipata), and Crawford’s Sedge (C. crawfordii). Other herb species present include Marsh Horsetail (Equisetum palustre), Swamp Horsetail (Equisetum fluviatile), Blue Wildrye (Elymus glaucus), Bluejoint Reedgrass, Douglas’ Water-hemlock (Cicuta douglasii), Yellow Monkey-flower (Mimulus guttatus), Small Bedstraw (Galium trifidum), Purple-leaved Willowherb (Epilobium ciliatum), and Buckbean (Menyanthes trifoliata). The vegetation of this community is strongly influenced by the presence of permanent and semi-permanent water and includes many species that are typically of wetland habitats.

Species richness of the KS community is moderately low, and species composition and abundance changes with soil moisture content. Wetter sites are imperfectly drained, resulting in communities dominated by Kellogg’s Sedge in association with Wool-grass, Yellow Sedge, and Toad Rush. Drier sites tend to be dominated by Kellogg’s Sedge with co-dominants of clover species and Narrow-leaved Collomia. Species richness in the BS community is similarly low. Bluejoint Reedgrass comprises the greatest percent cover of all plants in this community and tends to form a thick, continuous ground cover. Other, minor species associated with the BR community are Kellogg’s Sedge, Common Horsetail, and clover species.

Below the WS, BR, and KS communities is an extensive region of the SH (Swamp Horsetail) community. This portion of the drawdown zone experiences prolonged annual inundation that prevents many terrestrial plant species from becoming established. As a result, the plant species diversity of this zone is relatively low and is composed of hardy wetland plants that are able to grow in the permanently saturated soils. The dominant vegetation typically includes one or both of Swamp Horsetail and/or Marsh Horsetail. Other species such as Kellogg’s Sedge, Water Sedge (Carex aquatilis), Beaked Sedge (Carex utriculata), and Yellow Sedge may occur, but tend to contribute only to a small proportion of the overall cover.

The lowermost vegetation community of the Valemount Peatland, and the one the experiences the longest periods of inundation, is the TP (Toad Rush-Water Starwort) community. Only the most hardy species of plants can survive in these low elevation bands, and virtually all species present are annuals that grow from seed every year once the reservoir level has dropped low enough to expose these seeds to the air. Perennial plant species are virtually absent from this zone. The few perennial plants that occur are typically found as immature plants in their first growing season. The dominant species in this community are Toad Rush, Water-starwort, and Lady’s-thumb, with smaller amounts


Page 143

of Kellogg’s Sedge. A notable characteristic of this community is the mineral-containing water (e.g. puddles and water rivulets) that passes through the vegetation community. The orange discoloration of the surface water indicates the presence of iron; however, tannin and lignin from decomposing woody debris may also be contributing to this discoloration.

Figure 34. Various types of ponds observed in the Valemount Peatland. Top left =

equisetum marsh; top right = shallow, mud bottom pond; bottom left = large perched pond; bottom right = peatland after inundation. Photos © Krysia Tuttle.

Succour Creek

Succour Creek was sampled once in 2008 for amphibians and reptiles. The area has not been mapped for vegetation communities (i.e., the area was not mapped under CLBMON-10). The habitat types that occur there are similar to those found in Bush Arm, particularly near km 78 on the Bush FSR. In general, the communities that occur there are most similar to the KS (Kellogg’s Sedge) and SH (Swamp Horsetail) communities, with the SH community occurring in the wettest conditions, which in the Succour creek area occur immediately adjacent to the creek. Both communities have relatively low plant diversity, especially the SH community, and are composed of species that can tolerate somewhat prolonged annual inundation by the reservoir. The KS community is dominated by Kellogg’s Sedge, with smaller components of other species. Wetter sites are imperfectly drained, resulting in communities of Kellogg’s Sedge in association with Wool-grass, Yellow Sedge, and Toad Rush. Drier sites tend to be dominated by


Page 144

Kellogg’s Sedge with co-dominants of clover species and Narrow-leaved Collomia. In comparison, vegetation of the SH community is composed primarily of hardy wetland plants such as Swamp Horsetail and/or Marsh Horsetail, Kellogg’s Sedge, Water Sedge, Beaked Sedge and Yellow Sedge. These various sedge species tend to contribute only to a small proportion of the overall cover.

Most of the area is covered by short, non-native grasses. In the upper elevation bands, a substantial amount of woody debris has clogged the creek and litters the ground, into the shrub-line. Some examples of typical habitat types are shown in Figure 35.

Figure 35. Examples of habitat types occurring in Succour Creek, Kinbasket

Reservoir. Photos © Virgil C. Hawkes.

Bush Arm Causeway

The vegetation communities along the causeway at the eastern end of Bush Arm are extremely rich and diverse, and contain a number of rare or unusual plant species. The silty, calcareous soils resulting from the accumulation of sediment from the limestone peaks of the Rocky Mountains farther up the watershed are largely responsible for this remarkable diversity of plant species. Several infrequent species (Carex crawei, Eleocharis elliptica) are indicative of this calcareous influence. The communities in this area experience relatively minor amounts of annual inundation by the reservoir, and many of the established plant communities contain terrestrial species that are able to tolerate these brief periods of inundation.

The areas immediately adjacent to the river experience a highly dynamic system due to the frequent changes in course of the river as well as longer and more frequent periods of inundation. As a result, only the LL (Lady’s-thumb – Lamb’s-quarters) plant community has become established in these areas. Above the LL community, low-nutrient and well-drained soils that experience lower levels of inundation host examples of the CH (Common Horsetail) plant community, while on wetter and siltier soils the KS community has become established. The driest portions of the uppermost elevation bands are dominated by the CO (Clover-Oxeye Daisy), WS (Willow-Sedge), and CT (Cottonwood-Clover) communities, while permanently wet portions of these upper elevation bands host the SH (Swamp Horsetail) community.

The LL plant community, which dominates vast portions of the lowest-elevation bands within the drawdown zone of the Kinbasket Reservoir, is characterized by low species richness and low species percent cover. Most of the vegetation is composed of annuals or seedlings of perennial species that are able to germinate following the reduction in the level of the reservoir; many of these plants (and almost all of the perennials) do not have


Page 145

sufficient time to reproduce and many of the plants remain in an immature state. The dominant species characterizing this community are Lady’s-thumb and Lamb’s-quarters. In addition to these two species, plants that are typical of this community include Purslane Speedwell, Common Knotweed, Norwegian Cinquefoil, Marsh Yellow Cress, Red Sand-spurry, Common Horsetail, Kellogg’s Sedge, and Toad Rush, with Norwegian Cinquefoil and Common Knotweed often being co-dominant.

The KS and CH communities are also widespread within the drawdown zone of the reservoir, and occur on sites that experience fairly prolonged inundation (but not as long as that occupied by the LL community). The KS community, which occurs primarily in wetter areas or on richer or siltier soils, is dominated by Kellogg’s Sedge, with smaller components of other species. Wetter sites are imperfectly drained, resulting in communities dominated by Kellogg’s Sedge in association with Wool-grass, Yellow Sedge, and Toad Rush. Drier sites tend to be dominated by Kellogg’s Sedge with co-dominants of clover species and Narrow-leaved Collomia.

The CH community, which dominates coarser, better-drained, and often poorer soils, has particularly low plant species diversity. Vegetation within this community type is largely composed of Common Horsetail in association with a minor percentage cover of other species. The lower elevation range of this community is comprised almost exclusively of young plants that are widely spaced. With increasing elevation, plants are larger, more robust and associated with other species such as Kellogg’s Sedge, Norwegian Cinquefoil, Lady’s-thumb, clover species, Lamb’s-quarters and, rarely, Small-flowered Forget-me-not. Grasses are present but contribute little to the overall vegetative cover.

Terrestrial plant communities in the uppermost elevation bands contain a much greater diversity of plant species than these lower-elevation communities. The CO, CT, and WS are among the most species-rich plant communities within the drawdown zone of the Kinbasket Reservoir, and examples of these communities in eastern Bush Arm are particularly rich. The CO and CT communities, which occupy the highest elevation bands and occur on the best-drained soils, contain a relatively high percentage of introduced and weedy plant species, while the WS community (wetter, finer soils) contains a greater percentage of native plants. Early-seral species such as clovers, Oxeye Daisy, Self-heal, Common Dandelion, hawkweeds, Norwegian Cinquefoil, and Common Horsetail dominate the CO and CT communities, which are largely differentiated by the greater abundance of woody plants (specifically, cottonwood and willows) in the CT community.

The WS community, in comparison, has a heavy and diverse component of woody vegetation (including a large variety of willow species) and a herb layer that includes many sedge species such as Slender Sedge, Kellogg’s Sedge, Sawbeak Sedge, and Crawford’s Sedge. Other herb species present include Marsh Horsetail, Swamp Horsetail, Blue Wildrye, Bluejoint Reedgrass, Douglas’ Water-hemlock, Yellow Monkey-flower, Small Bedstraw, Purple-leaved Willowherb, and Buckbean. The vegetation of this community is strongly influenced by the presence of permanent and semi-permanent water and includes many species that are typically of wetland habitats. The SH community, which occurs only in permanently saturated and marshy sites, has a relatively low plant species diversity that is composed primarily of hardy wetland plants. The dominant vegetation typically includes one or both of Swamp Horsetail and/or Marsh Horsetail, while additional species such as Kellogg’s Sedge, Water Sedge, Beaked Sedge, and Yellow Sedge occur but tend to contribute only to a small proportion of the overall cover.


Page 146

Figure 36. Shallow marshes alongside the Bush Arm Causeway (km 65). Top left photo taken after inundation from the Bush River (June 2008). Photos © Krysia Tuttle (left) and Virgil C. Hawkes (right).

Bush Arm Equisetum Marsh

This region of Bush Arm, near its western end, is noticeably different in its plant community composition than areas farther east, but still retains a relatively high level of species diversity and some lingering indications of a calcareous influence in the sediments. The areas within the drawdown zone include a wide variety of plant communities, but several of these (CH [Common Horsetail], CO [Clover-Oxeye Daisy], and CT [Cottonwood-Clover]) are peripheral to the wetter areas and do not contribute to overall amphibian habitat; these communities are not discussed further.

The remaining areas of this site are dominated by a few plant communities that are typical of finer or siltier soils, wetter conditions, and longer periods of inundation. As elsewhere in the reservoir, the LL (Lady’s-thumb – Lamb’s-quarters) plant community occurs over most of the lowest elevation bands. This community is characterized by low species richness and low species percent cover. Most of the vegetation is composed of annuals or seedlings of perennial species that are able to germinate following the reduction in the level of the reservoir; many of these plants (and almost all of the perennials) do not have sufficient time to reproduce and many of the plants remain in an immature state. The dominant species characterizing this community are Lady’s-thumb and Lamb’s-quarters. In addition to these two species, plants that are typical of this community include Purslane Speedwell, Common Knotweed, Norwegian Cinquefoil, Marsh Yellow Cress, Red Sand-spurry, Common Horsetail, Kellogg’s Sedge, and Toad Rush. Norwegian Cinquefoil and Common Knotweed are often co-dominants and are relatively frequent within this community.

A vast area above the LL community is occupied by the rather infrequent MA (Marsh Cudweed-Annual Hairgrass) community. This plant community was found primarily at the mouth of Bush Arm, and its plant composition appears to be related to a high percentage of charcoal that remains in the soil from the burning of woody vegetation and debris at this location. Marsh Cudweed (Gnaphalium uliginosum) and Annual Hairgrass (Deschampsia danthonioides) are the two dominant species within this community. Other associated species include Pennsylvania Bitter-cress (Cardamine pensylvanica), Wormseed Mustard (Erysimum cheiranthoides), Small Bedstraw, Pineapple Weed (Matricaria discoidea), Yellow Monkey-flower, Small-flowered Forget-me-not, Common


Page 147

Knotweed, Norwegian Cinquefoil, Marsh Yellow Cress, Wool-grass, and Purslane Speedwell.

The remaining areas in and around this site are occupied by the KS (Kellogg’s Sedge) and SH (Swamp Horsetail) communities, with the SH community occurring in the wettest conditions. Both communities have relatively low plant diversity, especially the SH community, and are composed of species that can tolerate somewhat prolonged annual inundation by the reservoir. The KS community is dominated by Kellogg’s Sedge, with smaller components of other species. Wetter sites are imperfectly drained, resulting in communities of Kellogg’s Sedge in association with Wool-grass, Yellow Sedge, and Toad Rush. Drier sites tend to be dominated by Kellogg’s Sedge with co-dominants of clover species and Narrow-leaved Collomia. In comparison, vegetation of the SH community is composed primarily of hardy wetland plants such as Swamp Horsetail and/or Marsh Horsetail, Kellogg’s Sedge, Water Sedge, Beaked Sedge and Yellow Sedge. These various sedge species tend to contribute only to a small proportion of the overall cover.

Figure 37. Photographs of Bush Arm equisetum marsh before (June 2008) and after

(July 2008) inundation. Photos © Krysia Tuttle.

Description of Study Sites

The study site descriptions below are based primarily on the information contained in Enns et al. (2007), which describes the vegetation communities of Arrow Lakes Reservoir for CLBMON-33, Inventory of Vegetation Resources of Arrow Lakes Reservoir. The level of redundancy among the various sections serves to impart the similarities and exaggerate the differences between study areas.

ARROW LAKES RESERVOIR

Revelstoke Reach

The vast majority of the amphibian habitats present in drawdown zone of Revelstoke Reach are typified by the PC (Reed Canarygrass-Lenticular Sedge Mesic) community. Within this plant community, Reed Canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) often forms extensive, very dense pure stands, with lesser amounts of Lenticular Sedge (Carex lenticularis), Common Horsetail (Equisetum arvense), tumble-mustards (Sisymbrium spp.), Small Bedstraw (Galium trifidum), Yellow Monkey-flower (Mimulus guttatus), Field Mint (Mentha arvensis), forget-me-nots (Myosotis spp.), Common Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), and mosses. Additional species of plants, including several other


Page 148

species of Carex, can occur in this community but are decidedly uncommon, and areas with extensive disturbance (especially due to grazing by geese) are often invaded by a wider variety of exotic annual weeds.

Away from the dynamic edge of the flats in Revelstoke Reach, where the fluvial effects of the river have resulted in narrow bands of nearly barren BE (Beach, non- to sparsely-vegetated sands or gravels) community, a series of sloughs, backchannels, and oxbows host examples of the PO (Waterlily-Potamogeton open water) plant community. This plant community exists in places where standing or slow-moving water remains within the drawdown zone after the lake level has dropped. It is a rather depauperate community with few representative species, and most plants are either edge-dwelling emergents or aquatics. Floating-leaved Pondweed (Potamogeton natans), knotweed (Polygonum spp.), and Eurasian Water-milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) are examples of some of the typical vegetation in this community.

In places where creeks from upland areas enter the drawdown zone, examples of the RS (Willow – Red-osier Dogwood stream entry) community are established. This community has relatively high species richness when compared with other community types in the drawdown zone and includes various species of willows (Salix spp.), Red-osier Dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), Thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus), and even small trees. The herbaceous vegetation is composed of Tufted White Prairie Aster (Aster ericoides), Biennial Cinquefoil (Potentilla biennis), knapweed (Centaurea spp.), Bluejoint Reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis), Redtop (Agrostis gigantea), Canada Goldenerod (Solidago canadensis), Western Witchgrass (Dichanthelium acuminatum), Quackgrass (Elymus repens), and rushes (Juncus spp.), as well as several species of mosses, lichens, and fungi. This is one of the best-developed plant communities in the drawdown zone of Revelstoke Reach and includes a large both woody and non-woody plant species. Examples of the habitat types that occur in Revelstoke Reach are shown in Figure 38.

Figure 38. Revelstoke Reach (9 mile) before (May 2008) and after (July 2008)

inundation. Photos © Krysia Tuttle.

Blanket Creek Provincial Park

The flatter portions of this area away from the immediate influence of the creek were dominated by the PC (Reed Canarygrass-Lenticular Sedge Mesic) community. Reed Canarygrass often forms extensive, very dense pure stands within this community type, with lesser amounts of Lenticular Sedge, Common Horsetail, tumble-mustards, Small


Page 149

Bedstraw, Yellow Monkey-flower, Field Mint, forget-me-nots, Common Dandelion, and mosses. Additional species of plants, including several other species of Carex, can occur in this community but are decidedly uncommon, and areas with extensive disturbance (especially due to grazing by geese) are often invaded by a wider variety of exotic annual weeds.

Where the creek enters the drawdown zone, examples of the WR (Silverberry-river) community are established on the coarser soils and cobbles deposited by the creek. This plant community is highly influenced by the dynamic nature of the creek, especially the large amounts of early-spring runoff that often occur in these systems. Several species of willows, along with Silverberry (Elaeagnus commutata), are often the only vegetation that can persist under these conditions. Other annual herbs are sometimes present in tiny amounts, but do not contribute substantially to the plant community.

Away from the immediate influence of the creek, and often adjacent to upland forested communities, the CR (Cottonwood-riparian) community exists on more stable soils. This community experiences infrequent flooding and contains a relatively high number of upland plant species. Black Cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp.trichocarpa) trees and saplings dominate the overstory of this community, along with smaller numbers of Trembling Aspen (Populus tremuloides), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and Western White Pine (Pinus monticola). The shrubby and herbaceous species present are very diverse and include species such as Oregon-grape (Mahonia spp.), Falsebox (Paxistima myrsinites), Pinegrass (Calamagrostis rubescens), bedstraw (Galium spp.), peavine (Lathyrus spp.), as well as several horticultural and other exotic species. This plant community contains the most flood-intolerant plant species within the drawdown zone of the reservoir due to its lack of regular inundation. Examples of the habitat types that occur in the drawdown zone near Blanket Creek Provincial Park are shown in Figure 39.

Figure 39. Example of habitat types present in the drawdown zone near Blanket Creek

Provincial Park. Photos © Krysia Tuttle.


Page 150

Shelter Bay

The area surveyed in Shelter Bay included the boat launch and a large debris pile that was situated outside of the drawdown zone (see Figure 40). For the most part, the habitats within the drawdown zone were similar to those found in Revelstoke Reach, but on a much smaller spatial scale. The debris pile that occurred outside of the drawdown zone proved to be a good spot for Western Terrestrial Garter Snakes.

Figure 40. Near Shelter Bay ferry terminal at Arrow Lakes Reservoir in May 2008

before inundation. Photos © Krysia Tuttle.

Galena Bay

Much of the shoreline in this portion of the reservoir is non-vegetated and often steep, offering little or no potential habitat for amphibians. The small areas that are vegetated primarily correspond with the locations where creeks flow into the reservoir or in small, shallow bays where the shoreline is flat enough to permit the establishment of some vegetation. The vegetation at these sites mostly corresponds with the PC (Reed Canarygrass-Lenticular Sedge Mesic) community that is so widespread throughout the reservoir. The vegetation of this community is dominated by extensive, dense, and often pure stands of Reed Canarygrass, with lesser components of species such as Lenticular Sedge, Common Horsetail, tumble-mustards, Small Bedstraw, Yellow Monkey-flower, Field Mint, forget-me-nots, Common Dandelion, and mosses. Additional species of plants, including several other species of Carex, can occur in this community but are decidedly uncommon, and areas with extensive disturbance (especially due to grazing by geese) are often invaded by a wider variety of exotic annual weeds.

A small area of RS (Willow – Red-osier Dogwood stream entry) community is present at this site at the entrance point of one of the creeks. This community has relatively high species richness when compared with other community types in the drawdown zone and includes various species of willows, Red-osier Dogwood, Thimbleberry, and even small trees. The herbaceous vegetation is composed of Tufted White Prairie Aster, Biennial Cinquefoil, knapweed, Bluejoint Reedgrass, Redtop, Canada Goldenrod, Western Witchgrass, Quackgrass, and rushes, as well as several species of mosses, lichens, and fungi.

Beaton Arm

Most of the vegetated portions of the drawdown zone at the end of Beaton Arm are covered with examples of the PC (Reed Canarygrass-Lenticular Sedge Mesic)


Page 151

community that is so widespread throughout the reservoir. The vegetation of this community is dominated by extensive, dense, and often pure stands of Reed Canarygrass, with lesser components of species such as Lenticular Sedge, Common Horsetail, tumble-mustards, Small Bedstraw, Yellow Monkey-flower, Field Mint, forget-me-nots, Common Dandelion, and mosses. Additional species of plants, including several other species of Carex, can occur in this community but are decidedly uncommon, and areas with extensive disturbance (especially due to grazing by geese) are often invaded by a wider variety of exotic annual weeds.

Where driftwood has accumulated in the highest portions of the drawdown zone, the LO (Blue Wildrye-logs) community is established. This plant community is characterized by an accumulation of large woody debris, as well as remnants of the previous plant community that existed before this accumulation occurred. Many exotic grasses and forbs occur in this community due to the scouring nature of the woody debris that opens up disturbed soils for establishment of these invasive species. Native shrubs, especially willows, are sometimes established in this community as well.

Above the LO community, on the driest and least-often flooded portions of the drawdown zone, the CR (Cottonwood-riparian) community occurs. This community experiences infrequent flooding and contains a relatively high number of upland plant species. Black Cottonwood trees and saplings dominate the overstory of this community, along with smaller numbers of Trembling Aspen, Douglas-fir, and Western White Pine. The shrubby and herbaceous species present are very diverse and include species such as Oregon-grape, Falsebox, Pinegrass, bedstraw, peavine, as well as several horticultural and other exotic species. This plant community contains the most flood-intolerant plant species within the drawdown zone of the reservoir due to its lack of regular inundation.

Other plant communities that occur at the head of Beaton Arm but do not cover significant portions of the drawdown zone include the PA (Reed Canarygrass-Redtop upland) and WR (Silverberry-river) communities. The PA community occurs on raised, well-drained, sandy or gravely microsites and contains relatively high species diversity. Reed Canarygrass dominates this community, with other native and introduced grasses such as Redtop, Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera), Blue Wildrye, Canada Bluegrass (Poa compressa), and Kentucky Bluegrass (Poa pratensis) occurring in smaller numbers. Introduced forbs such as Chicory (Cichorium intybus) and Oxeye Daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare) are also often present, as well as several mosses such as Red-stemmed Feathermoss (Pleurozium schreberi) and Tree Moss (Climacium dendroides) that are often associated with forested habitats. In contrast, the WR community is fairly depauperate and often contains only willows and Silverberry. It is characteristic of very coarse fluvial soils, usually with a high percentage of gravels and cobbles, and is a highly dynamic community. Examples of the habitat types that occur at the east end of Beaton Arm are shown in Figure 41.


Page 152

Figure 41. Example of habitat types present in the drawdown zone at the east end of

Beaton Arm. Photos © Krysia Tuttle.

Nakusp

The BE (Beach non- to sparsely-vegetated sands or gravels) and BG (Sparsely-vegetated boulder flats) communities dominate the habitats present at this site, which is located in and around the mouth of Kuskanax Creek in Nakusp. Both of these communities are largely or entirely lacking in vegetation, and are differentiated primarily by the type of substrate that is present. The few plants that occur in these communities are usually restricted to scattered waifs from other established plant communities nearby, with willows, horsetail, Reed Canarygrass, and other hardy species being the most commonly encountered.

Above these poorly-vegetated flats, and on more stable substrates, is a mosaic of habitats that contains examples of at least seven described plant communities. At the uppermost portions of the drawdown zone are small areas that correspond with the LO (Blue Wildrye-logs) community. This plant community is characterized by an accumulation of large woody debris, as well as remnants of the previous plant community that existed before this accumulation occurred. Many exotic grasses and forbs occur in this community due to the scouring nature of the woody debris that opens up disturbed soils for establishment of these invasives. Native shrubs, especially willows, are sometimes established in this community as well.

Several polygons of the RH (Redtop – Hare’s-foot Clover upland) community occur on well-drained soils in the high-elevation bands where there has been no accumulation of woody debris. This plant community has relatively high species diversity and contains woody vegetation (tree seedlings, shrubs) as well as a variety of native and introduced forb and grass species. The woody vegetation is characterized by species such as Douglas-fir, Western Hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Western Redcedar (Thuja plicata), Western White Pine, Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), Trembling Aspen, and Grand Fir (Abies grandis), while the shrub layer contains species such as mountain-ash (Sorbus spp.), roses (Rosa spp.), and alder (Alnus spp.). The grass and forb layer is dense and contains Redtop, Timothy (Phleum pratense), Junegrass (Koeleria macrantha), Poverty Oatgrass (Danthonia spicata), and Bluebunch Wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata). Introduced, weedy vegetation is common in this community (but is not as dominant as in the LO community), with Hare’s-foot Clover (Trifolium arvense) being particularly abundant.


Page 153

On the highest elevation bands, where the substrates are very stable and inundation is very infrequent, the CR (Cottonwood-riparian) community is established. Black Cottonwood trees and saplings dominate the overstory of this community, along with smaller numbers of Trembling Aspen, Douglas-fir, and Western White Pine. The shrubby and herbaceous species present are very diverse and include species such as Oregon-grape, Falsebox, Pinegrass, bedstraw, peavine, as well as several horticultural and other exotic species. This plant community contains the most flood-intolerant plant species within the drawdown zone of the reservoir due to its lack of regular inundation.

Three communities that cover small areas of the drawdown zone in this area are the PE (Reed Canarygrass-horsetail middle to lower slope), WR (Silverberry-river), and PA (Reed Canarygrass-Redtop upland) communities. Both the PE and PA communities are dominated by Reed Canarygrass, but the PE community tends to occupy finer, siltier soils while the PA community is more common on well-drained, sandy or gravely substrates. The PA has higher species diversity than the PE, which is characterized by a particularly low species diversity that contains only horsetail, Lenticular Sedge, and willows in addition to the ubiquitous Reed Canarygrass. The PA community, in contrast, contains numerous native and introduced grass species (Redtop, Creeping Bentgrass, Blue Wildrye, Canada Bluegrass, Kentucky Bluegrass, etc.) as well as many non-native, weedy forbs such as Chicory and Oxeye Daisy.

The WR community, which occurs only along the immediate shores of Kuskanax Creek on very coarse cobble substrates that are highly dynamic and exposed to the fluvial processes of the creek, has very low species diversity and often contains only willows and/or Silverberry shrubs. There is often little or no herbaceous vegetation in this community due to the regular scouring of the substrate during the spring freshet. Examples of the habitat types that occur around Nakusp are shown in Figure 42.

Figure 42. Nakusp town beach areas at Arrow Lakes Reservoir in May 2008. Photos ©

Krysia Tuttle.

McDonald Provincial Park

This area is dominated by the SS (non-vegetated sand and/or gravels-steep) community and is therefore virtually lacking in vegetation other than the occasional waif of Reed Canarygrass or Common Horsetail. The small pockets of vegetation that do occur here correspond with at least four different described vegetation communities. The most widespread are the PA (Reed Canarygrass-Redtop upland) and PC (Reed Canarygrass-Lenticular Sedge mesic) communities. Both of these communities are dominated by Reed Canarygrass, with the PC community occurring on finer soils and the PA community occurring on sandy or gravely, well-drained soils. Aside from Reed


Page 154

Canarygrass, a wide variety of forbs and grasses (both native and introduced) occur in these communities, although Redtop is more common in the PA community while Lenticular Sedge is more common in the PC community.

Other plant communities that occur here, but which cover only a very small portion of the area surveyed, are the RS (Willow – Red-osier Dogwood stream entry) and LO (Blue Wildrye-logs) communities. The RS community is very limited in extent and is found only around the entrance point of a small creek. This community has relatively high species richness when compared with other community types in the drawdown zone and includes various species of willows, Red-osier Dogwood, Thimbleberry, and even small trees. The herbaceous vegetation is composed of Tufted White Prairie Aster, Biennial Cinquefoil, knapweed, Bluejoint Reedgrass, Redtop, Canada Goldenrod, Western Witchgrass, Quackgrass, and rushes, as well as several species of mosses, lichens, and fungi. This is one of the best-developed plant communities in the drawdown zone of Revelstoke Reach and includes a large both woody and non-woody plant species.

The LO community, in contrast, is composed of aggregations of large woody debris along the high-water mark of the drawdown zone. The plant community is characterized by remnants of the previous plant community that existed before this accumulation occurred. Many exotic grasses and forbs occur in this community due to the scouring nature of the woody debris that opens up disturbed soils for establishment of these invasives. Native shrubs, especially willows, are sometimes established in this community as well. Examples of the habitat types that occur at McDonald Provincial Park are shown in Figure 43.

Figure 43. McDonald Creek Provincial Park at Arrow Lakes Reservoir in May 2008.


Burton Creek

The plant communities that exist at Burton Creek closely parallel the elevation of the drawdown zone, with the BE (Beach non- to sparsely-vegetated sands or gravels) community dominating the lowest elevations, the PC (Reed Canarygrass-Lenticular Sedge Mesic) community dominating the middle elevations, and the RH (Redtop – Hare’s-foot Clover upland) community dominating the uppermost elevations. The landscape of the Burton Creek site contains numerous shallow, permanently flooded pools and sloughs that provide exceptional habitat for pond-breeding amphibians such as Western Toads.

The BE community occurs on well-drained, sandy or gravely flats and is very sparsely vegetated. The few plants that do occur are largely waifs from nearby established plant


Page 155

communities and include Reed Canarygrass, Lenticular Sedge, and a variety of rushes. In the common and widespread PC community, which is found in abundance throughout the reservoir, the vegetation is dominated by extensive, dense, and often pure stands of Reed Canarygrass, with lesser components of species such as Lenticular Sedge, Common Horsetail, tumble-mustards, Small Bedstraw, Yellow Monkey-flower, Field Mint, forget-me-nots, Common Dandelion, and mosses. Additional species of plants, including several other species of Carex, can occur in this community but are decidedly uncommon, and areas with extensive disturbance (especially due to grazing by geese) are often invaded by a wider variety of exotic annual weeds.

The RH community is found on well-drained soils in the high-elevation bands where there has been no accumulation of woody debris. This plant community has relatively high species diversity and contains woody vegetation (tree seedlings, shrubs) as well as a variety of native and introduced forb and grass species. The woody vegetation is characterized by species such as Douglas-fir, Western Hemlock, Western Redcedar, Western White Pine, Black Locust, Trembling Aspen, and Grand Fir, while the shrub layer contains species such as mountain-ash, roses, and alder. The grass and forb layer is dense and contains Redtop, Timothy, Junegrass, Poverty Oatgrass, and Bluebunch Wheatgrass. Introduced, weedy vegetation is common in this community (but is not as dominant as in the LO community), with Hare’s-foot Clover being particularly abundant. Examples of the habitat types that occur at Burton Creek are shown in Figure 44.

Figure 44. Photographs of Burton Creek before (May 2008) and after (September 2008)

inundation. Photos © Krysia Tuttle.

Fauquier

Only one site was assessed at Fauquier as there appeared to be little in the way of suitable amphibian and reptile habitat in the drawdown zone. The site that was assessed was a small sewage pond outside of the drawdown zone for its potential to serve as a pseudo-control. Upon investigation it was determined that this site would not provide a suitable comparison between drawdown and non-drawdown zone habitat.

Edgewood

Most of the habitats present here are non-vegetated and correspond with the BE (Beach non-vegetated flat sands) community. The few plants that do occur in this community are scattered rushes and grasses, especially if finer sediments are available. The vegetated portions of this area host examples of the widespread PC (Reed Canarygrass-Lenticular Sedge Mesic) community. The vegetation of this community is dominated by extensive,


Page 156

dense, and often pure stands of Reed Canarygrass, with lesser components of species such as Lenticular Sedge, Common Horsetail, tumble-mustards, Small Bedstraw, Yellow Monkey-flower, Field Mint, forget-me-nots, Common Dandelion, and mosses. Additional species of plants, including several other species of Carex, can occur in this community but are decidedly uncommon, and areas with extensive disturbance (especially due to grazing by geese) are often invaded by a wider variety of exotic annual weeds.

A small portion of habitat on the uppermost elevations of the drawdown zone here contains an example of the LO (Blue Wildrye-logs) community. This plant community is characterized by an accumulation of large woody debris, as well as remnants of the previous plant community that existed before this accumulation occurred. Many exotic grasses and forbs occur in this community due to the scouring nature of the woody debris that opens up disturbed soils for establishment of these invasives. Native shrubs, especially willows, are sometimes established in this community as well. Examples of the habitat types that occur at Edgewood are shown in Figure 45.

Figure 45. Edgewood recreation area and boat launch at Arrow Lakes Reservoir in May

2008. Photos © Krysia Tuttle.

Renata

Most of the drawdown zone at this site is poorly vegetated and is classified as the BE (Beach non- to sparsely-vegetated sands or gravels) community. The BE community occurs on well-drained, sandy or gravely flats and is very sparsely vegetated. The few plants that do occur are largely waifs from nearby established plant communities and include Reed Canarygrass, Lenticular Sedge, and a variety of rushes. Other sparsely-vegetated communities present at this site include the BG (Non-vegetated boulders, gentle slope), BB (Non-vegetated boulders, steep), and SS (Non-vegetated sand and/or gravels, steep) communities. These communities are all essentially devoid of any appreciable amounts of vegetation and occur on well-drained substrates; they are differentiated primarily by the type of substrate that is present as well as the slope of the site.

Most of the vegetated portions of this site are occupied by the PC (Reed Canarygrass-Lenticular Sedge Mesic) community. The vegetation of this community is dominated by extensive, dense, and often pure stands of Reed Canarygrass, with lesser components of species such as Lenticular Sedge, Common Horsetail, tumble-mustards, Small Bedstraw, Yellow Monkey-flower, Field Mint, forget-me-nots, Common Dandelion, and mosses. Additional species of plants, including several other species of Carex, can occur in this community but are decidedly uncommon, and areas with extensive


Page 157

disturbance (especially due to grazing by geese) are often invaded by a wider variety of exotic annual weeds.

At the mouths of both Dog Creek and Renata Creek are examples of the species-poor WR (Silverberry-river) community. This community occurs on very coarse cobble substrates that are highly dynamic and exposed to the fluvial processes of the creeks. It has very low species diversity and often contains only willows and/or Silverberry shrubs. There is often little or no herbaceous vegetation in this community due to the regular scouring of the substrate during the spring freshet.

Two communities that are present over very small portions of the site are the RR (Reed-rill) and PA (Reed Canarygrass-Redtop upland) communities. The RR community is found in areas where there is a continuous source of fresh water, such as a seepage area or spring, and is usually associated with fine substrates. A variety of semi-aquatic plants are found in this community such as rushes, grasses, and sedges, as well as Swamp Horsetail (Equisetum fluviatile) and occasional willow shrubs. The PA community, in contrast, occurs on raised, well-drained, sandy or gravely microsites and contains relatively high species diversity. Reed Canarygrass dominates this community, with other native and introduced grasses such as Redtop, Creeping Bentgrass, Blue Wildrye, Canada Bluegrass, and Kentucky Bluegrass occurring in smaller numbers. Introduced forbs such as Chicory and Oxeye Daisy are also often present, as well as several mosses such as Red-stemmed Feathermoss and Tree Moss that are often associated with forested habitats. Examples of the habitat types that occur at Renata are shown in Figure 46.


Page 158

Figure 46. Renata Creek area at Arrow Lakes Reservoir in June 2008. Photos © Krysia

Tuttle.

Deer Park

The shoreline at Deer Park is narrow and steep and contains relatively little in the way of established vegetation communities. Most of the shoreline corresponds with non- or sparsely-vegetated habitats such as the BG (Non-vegetated boulders, gentle slope), BE (Beach non- to sparsely vegetated sands or gravels), BB (Non-vegetated boulders, steep), and SS (Non-vegetated sands and/or gravels, steep) communities. None of these communities contains any significant amounts of vegetative cover, and what little vegetation occurs there is generally restricted to waifs of Reed Canarygrass, Common Horsetail, or other hardy species from nearby established communities.

A relatively small area around the mouth of Deer Creek corresponds with the WR (Silverberry-river) community. This community usually establishes itself on very coarse cobble substrates that are highly dynamic and exposed to the fluvial processes of creeks. It has very low species diversity and often contains only willows and/or Silverberry shrubs. There is often little or no herbaceous vegetation in this community due to the regular scouring of the substrate during the spring freshet.

Syringa Provincial Park

Syringa Provincial Park was not included in the 2007 vegetation community mapping (Enns et al. 2007). However, there were areas within the drawdown zone that were investigated for potential amphibian and reptile habitat in 2008. The majority of the drawdown zone consisted of non-vegetated or sparsely vegetated habitats with little to no potential for pond-breeding amphibians (Figure 47). The only herp documented from this area in 2008 was one Northern Alligator Lizard.


Page 159

Figure 47. Syringa Provincial Park area at Arrow Lakes Reservoir in June 2008. Photos

© Krysia Tuttle.

Amphibian and Reptile Habitat Outside of the Drawdown Zone

There are several areas outside of the drawdown zone, adjacent to either Kinbasket or Arrow Lakes Reservoir, which may serve as potential “pseudo-control” sites. These areas are not influenced by reservoir fluctuations, but in most cases, have been created by animal activity (i.e., beavers) or were created as part of a habitat creation program. The following sections briefly describe these areas and how they may prove to be useful in terms of comparing impacted habitats in the drawdown zone to non-impacted habitats immediately adjacent to the drawdown zone.

Arrow Lakes: Wildlife Habitat at Hugh Keenleyside Dam

On the northeast side of Hugh Keenleyside Dam there is a small wildlife habitat area that occurs just outside of the drawdown zone (Figure 48). The habitat area has high banks on the west side and is higher in elevation that the reservoir, thus, it does not get inundated at any time during the year. The pond is approximately 0.5 to 1 m deep and 200 m in length. It is fed by two small streams entering through culverts on the east side, which also border the paved road. The pond itself is muddy bottomed with only a small amount of aquatic vegetation. The banks of the pond are lined with sedges, grasses and several invasive species (e.g., Canada Thistle). Although no amphibians or reptiles were observed during a one hour search in June, this pond may have a breeding population of Western Toads, Columbia Spotted Frogs or Long-toed Salamanders, and will be searched in the spring of 2009.


Page 160

Figure 48. Pond above drawdown zone near Hugh Keenleyside Dam, Arrow Lakes

Reservoir. Photo © Krysia Tuttle.

Arrow Lakes: Road-side Pond in Farmer’s Field

There is a small pond near 9 mile in Revelstoke Reach that occurs outside of the drawdown zone, adjacent to a farmer’s field (Figure 49). This pond was the only pond where Long-toed Salamanders were documented in the vicinity of Arrow Lakes Reservoir in 2008 (Figure 22). Although this pond is outside of the drawdown zone, we will continue to monitor this pond for Long-toed Salamanders (and other amphibians) as part of the long-term monitoring program.

Figure 49. Road-side pond just outside of the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes

Reservoir in Revelstoke Reach. Photos © Virgil C. Hawkes.

Kinbasket Reservoir: Beaver Pond above Valemount Peatland

There is a small beaver-created pond in the Valemount Peatland area that either occurs just outside of the drawdown zone or is in the drawdown zone but not annually inundated due to its high banks and elevated situation (Figure 50). This pond is approximately 0.5 to 1 m deep and ~20 m wide and long, and lined with thick sedges, bull rush and willow species, as well as submergent vegetation. Metamorph Columbia Spotted Frogs were documented in the thick sedge lining the pond. In the spring of 2009, we will visit this pond early in the year to determine if breeding occurs at this site.


Page 161

Figure 50. Beaver pond just above the normal operational maximum of Kinbasket

reservoir adjacent to the Valemount Peatland. Photo © Krysia Tuttle.

Kinbasket Reservoir: Bush Arm Perched Wetland

At approximately km 79 on the Bush Arm FSR, there is a perched wetland that occurs outside of the drawdown zone. We believe this perched wetland to be the source for the Columbia Spotted Frog population that inhabits the equisetum march in the drawdown zone < 200m away. The perched wetland is part floating bog and part open water (Figure 51). In 2008, we documented numerous Columbia Spotted Frogs of all age and size classes and several Common Garter Snakes at the perched wetland. This perched wetland could be monitored in association with the equisetum marsh in the drawdown zone to determine if the Columbia Spotted Frog population that resides in the perched wetland fluctuates in a manner similar to that of the population that resides in the drawdown zone. Similarly, through the use of photo ID, it may be possible to determine if the population that resides in the perched wetland migrates in and out of the drawdown zone depending on reservoir elevations.

Figure 51. Perched wetland at ~km 79 on Bush Arm FSR, Kinbasket Reservoir. Photos

© Virgil C. Hawkes.

columbia river project water use plan kinbasket and arrow

Documents