herpetofauna of the lower snake river habitat management …mwfb.ucdavis.edu/assests/pdfs/2008 herp...

Herpetofauna of the Lower Snake River Habitat Management Units

Results from the 2008 Field Season

A Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Walla Walla District

Ona S. V. Alminas, Peter L. Gibert, Andrew Engilis Jr. Museum of Wildlife and Fish Biology

December 2009

Covering the following HMUs

Villard Ponds

Big Flat Lost Island

Hollebeke Skookum

55-Mile

USACE Lower Snake River HMUS Herpetofaunal surveys, 2008 Interim Report

Museum of Wildlife and Fish Biology 2 University of California, Davis

Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology University of California, Dav

Herpetofauna of the Lower Snake River Habitat Management Units

Results from the 2008 Field Season A Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -

Walla Walla District December 2009

By Ona S. V. Alminas, Andrew Engilis Jr., Peter L. Gibert

Museum of Wildlife and Fish Biology University of California, Davis

Suggested citation. Alminas, O. S. V., P. L. Gibert and A. Engilis, Jr. 2009. Herpetofauna of the Lower Snake River Habitat Management Units - Results from the 2008 Field Season. A report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District. Museum of Wildlife and Fish Biology, Dept of Wildlife, Fish and Conserv. Biology, University of California, Davis.

Covering the following HMUs

Villard Ponds

Big Flat Lost Island Hollebeke Skookum

55-Mile



Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 6 Methods........................................................................................................................................ 7 General Results .......................................................................................................................... 13 Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 16 Species Accounts ....................................................................................................................... 22

Long-toed Salamander ........................................................................................................... 22 Woodhouse’s Toad ................................................................................................................ 27 Pacific Treefrog ..................................................................................................................... 31 American Bullfrog ................................................................................................................. 33 Western Skink ........................................................................................................................ 37 Rubber Boa ............................................................................................................................ 38 Western Yellow-bellied Racer ............................................................................................... 39 Gopher Snake ......................................................................................................................... 43 Wandering Garter Snake ........................................................................................................ 47 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake ................................................................................................. 48

Literature Cited .......................................................................................................................... 55



List of Tables Table 1. Walla Walla District HMUs surveyed for reptiles and amphibians in 2008 field season. .......... 8 Table 2. Potential Washington state special status herpetofuanal species for the study area. ................... 8 Table 3. Coverboard effort per HMU surveyed. .................................................................................... 12 Table 4. Summary of effort and results by method. ............................................................................... 13 Table 5. Number of confirmed species identifications by survey method. ............................................ 14 Table 6. Checklist of reptiles and amphibians detected at 6 HMUs, all methods combined. ................ 15 Table 7. Phenology of Long-toed Salamanders in guzzlers at 55-Mile HMU. ...................................... 25 Table 8. Phenology of Long-toed Salamanders in guzzlers at Skookum HMU. .................................... 26 Table 9. Detections of Woodhouse’s Toad at Big Flat HMU. ............................................................... 28 Table 10. Detections of Woodhouse’s Toad at Lost Island HMU. ......................................................... 29 Table 11. Detections of Pacific Treefrogs at Villard Ponds HMU. ......................................................... 32 Table 12. Detections of American Bullfrog, Villard Ponds HMU. ......................................................... 34 Table 13. Detections of American Bullfrog at Big Flat HMU. ............................................................... 35 Table 14. Detections of Western Yellow-bellied Racer, Big Flat HMU. ................................................ 40 Table 15. Detections of Western Yellow-bellied Racer, 55-Mile HMU. ................................................ 41 Table 16. Detections of Gopher Snakes, 55-Mile HMU. ........................................................................ 44 Table 17. Detections of Gopher Snakes, Skookum HMU. ...................................................................... 45 Table 18. Detections of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, Big Flat HMU. .................................................. 49 Table 19. Detections of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, Lost Island HMU. ............................................. 51 Table 20. Detections of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, Hollebeke HMU. ............................................... 51 Table 21. Detections of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, 55-Mile HMU. .................................................. 52 Table 22. Detections of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, Skookum HMU. ................................................ 53 Appendix A. Species list for Walla Walla District HMUs, entire study area (lower Snake River) ....... 57 Appendix B. Snakeskin molt identifications ........................................................................................... 58 Appendix C. Big Flat HMU detection coordinates ................................................................................. 59 Appendix D. Lost Island HMU detection coordinates ............................................................................ 60 Appendix E. Hollebeke HMU detection coordinates .............................................................................. 60 Appendix F. Skookum HMU detection coordinates ............................................................................... 61 Appendix G. 55-Mile HMU detection coordinates ................................................................................. 62 Appendix H. Villard Ponds HMU detection coordinates ........................................................................ 63 Appendix I. Big Flat HMU coverboard descriptions and coordinates ................................................... 64 Appendix J. Lost Island HMU coverboard descriptions and coordinates .............................................. 67 Appendix K. Hollebeke HMU coverboard descriptions and coordinates .............................................. 69 Appendix L. Skookum HMU coverboard descriptions and coordinates ................................................ 71 Appendix M. 55-Mile HMU coverboard descriptions and coordinates ................................................ 73 Appendix N. Villard Ponds HMU coverboard descriptions and coordinates ......................................... 76 Appendix O. List of scientific names for plant species used in this report ............................................ 77



Acknowledgements We would first and foremost like to thank Edith P. Jovel of the Museum of Wildlife and Fish Biology (MWFB) whose long hours in the field contributed tremendously to the field aspect of this project. The assistance of Robert Thomson and Levi Gray with the Shaffer Lab (UC Davis, Dept. of Evolution and Ecology) has been invaluable for this project. Robert provided support with taxonomy recommendations and genetic analyses of tadpole tail clips. Both Robert and Levi provided feedback on survey method tips, species identification, and confirmed identification of snakeskin molts we collected in the field. Michael Guilfoyle of the Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) arranged for the research to be coordinated through the Walla Wall District office, obtained our Washington state scientific collecting permit and assisted in the field. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wildlife Biologist Mark Halupczok of the Walla Walla District arranged field site access and assisted with logistics for truck and boat transportation to remote sites. Pete Ober and Mark Plummer, Fisheries Biologists with the Walla Walla District also assisted with vehicle and boat transportation to remote sites. Research associate Mana Hattori, Collections Manager Irene E. Engilis, Ornithologist John Trochet with the Museum of Wildlife and Fish Biology at UC Davis contributed records of incidental herp sightings from previous small mammal trapping efforts. MWFB Biologist Avery Cook assisted with construction of tables for this report. Irene Engilis assisted with ordering supplies and worked to coordinate the small mammal trapping efforts. We also thank the workers from De Ruwe Habitat Management for taking the time to share their experiences with herpetofauna at the HMUs, and Carlos Alvarado, who assisted with materials, supplies and methods for this project. Lori Salzer of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) was gracious enough to provide historical records for species status species in our study area. Gretchen Padgett-Flohr of the University of Illinois Carbondale, Steve Wagner of Central Washington University, Jason Lowe of the Bureau of Land Management and Dede Olson of the USDA Forest Service provided information regarding amphibian chytridiomycosis in Washington state. Photo credits: All photos were taken by Ona Alminas and Andrew Engilis, Jr.



Introduction

The Columbia River and Snake River watersheds remain some of the most altered in western North America. With over 20 dams, massive land conversion for agriculture and recreation, and a rapidly growing human population, wildlife refuges and managed lands provide some of the only protected remaining habitats. In association with the dams, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) manages a network of Habitat Management Units (HMUs) that are distributed along most of the shoreline of the Snake and Columbia rivers. Traditionally these HMUs have been managed for recreation including hunting, fishing and off-road vehicles. In the past two decades USACE biologists recognized that the HMUs also support a vast array of wildlife and vegetation, and so began to question the future management of the HMUs and the biodiversity they support. There was a need for natural resource baseline data for making species and habitat management decisions on USACE lands. The USACE began to develop strategies to inventory and investigate natural resources and management for multiple species. These directives are organized into three basic levels of effort: land use classifications and rapid assessment of diversity (Level 1), multi-species detailed inventories (Level 2), adaptive management investigations (Level 3) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1996).

In 2005 the USACE and the Museum of Wildlife and Fish Biology at the University of California, Davis (MWFB) entered into a cooperative agreement to initiate Level 1 vertebrate inventories of small mammal diversity and abundance relative to Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia ) in the Walla Walla District, eastern Washington (Guilfoyle 2006). From this survey start, our efforts and collaboration have evolved into a general Level 2 biodiversity inventory of terrestrial vertebrates within the District, including reptiles and amphibians (herpetofauna). The scope of this effort was to inventory amphibians and reptiles at Walla Walla district HMUs along the lower Snake River in southeastern Washington. Within this scope, the main goals were to examine species richness at each HMU, discuss habitat use, and as a result of our research, fill in the gaps in distribution for several species along the Lower Snake River canyon and the Columbia/Snake River confluence.

This is the interim report of the 2008 field season findings. The herpetofaunal surveys began in 2008 on HMUs in and around the Tri-Cities region of the Walla Walla District, spanning 55 river miles up the Snake River from Burbank to Lyon’s Ferry (Walla Walla and Franklin counties) (Table 1). When 2009 surveys (year 2) are completed, the work will have covered a 130 mile length of the Snake River (Tri-Cities, Washington to Lewiston, Idaho ) and portions of the Columbia River from Umatilla, Oregon to Richland, Washington (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Overview of Snake River pools and associated USACE lands surveyed in 2008 (black ovals) and planned survey areas for 2009 (dotted ovals). Image: http://www.nww.usace.army.mil/lsr/REPORTS/sportfish/phase_2/ph2_part1.htm#2.1



Understanding the diversity and distribution of the region’s herpetofauna is a critical step in understanding the ecological condition of the HMUs under investigations. Owing to their comparatively sedentary nature, amphibians and reptiles are susceptible to local habitat changes and environmental conditions. Therefore their presence and absence can serve as accurate indicators on ecosystem health, food-webs, environmental contaminants, impacts of invasive species, and other anthropogenic forces influencing the landscape (Lawler et al. 2003).

Methods

Study Area Our area of study was located in Southeastern Washington along a stretch of the Snake River near the confluence with the Columbia River from Burbank, Washington upstream 55 miles along the Snake River to Central Ferry, Washington (Figure 1). This stretch of the Snake River falls within Walla Walla and Franklin counties and encompasses three river “pools” formed by the Lower Monumental, Ice Harbor and McNary dams. The McNary pool encompasses the Columbia River and confluence with the Snake River upstream to the Ice Harbor Dam. The river between the Ice Harbor Dam and Lower Monumental Dam form the Ice Harbor pool and the stretch of river between Lower Monumental Dam to the Little Goose Dam comprise the Lower Monumental Pool (Figure 1). In 2008 we inventoried HMUs managed along the Snake River within the McNary, Ice Harbor and Lower Monumental pools (Figure 2). Two-letter site codes were developed to abbreviate each HMU name for GPS and other detection descriptions (Table 1).

Figure 2. HMUs surveyed for reptiles and amphibians in the 2008 field season.

Ice Harbor Dam

Lower Monumental Dam



Nomenclature & Species Lists As with some vertebrate groups, the taxonomy and systematics of North American herpetofauna is in a state of flux. For example, the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (SSAR) proposed major name changes to 48 of the 100 described genera of North American anurans in the peer-reviewed Amphibian Tree of Life (Frost et al. 2006, R.C. Thomson, pers. comm.). Data derived from modern molecular techniques are fast becoming the standard in exploring questions regarding speciation, and the more researchers publish molecular (genetic) data of herpetofaunal species, the more questions arise regarding species and sub-species level placements within known North American herpetofaunal systematics. As a result, many of these publications in herp phylogenetics have attempted to resolve taxonomic questions by offering final revisions in placement within a clade, but instead have created scientific and common name instability and taxonomic confusion (R. C. Thomson, pers. comm.). We built a species list of potential amphibians and reptiles for the study area from peer-reviewed publications, literature and local agencies. The taxonomy presented for this report follows Stebbins (2003) with updates to scientific and common names that have been accepted in the literature. A total of 24 species (2 salamanders, 7 frogs, 1 turtle, 5 lizards and 9 snakes) were identified for the entire study area along the Snake and Columbia Rivers from Clarkston, WA to Tri-Cities, WA. For the HMUs surveyed in Walla Walla and Franklin counties in 2008, this list is reduced to 21 possible species. This species list, along with alternate and proposed names, can be found in Appendix A. Table 2 lists special status species for the entire study area. Table 2. Potential Washington state special status herpetofaunal species for the study area.

Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status Columbia Spotted Frog Rana luteiventris State Candidate for listing Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens State Endangered, Federal Species of Concern Western Toad Bufo boreas State Candidate for Listing, Federal Species of Concern

Sagebrush Lizard Sceloporous graciosus State Candidate for Listing, Federal Species of Concern Striped Whipsnake Masticophis taeniatus State Candidate for listing Source: WDFW (2008) Survey Methods While a combination of several survey methods will result in the most number of species detected, budgetary, time and personnel constraints limited the number of methods that could be implemented. Each of these methods (drift fence arrays, pitfall and funnel trapping) is biased in the species they detect and limited in terms of applicability in different habitats (Corn & Bury, 1990). Six survey methods were used to determine herpetofaunal species diversity within the study area, and were conducted from April through September 2008 (Table 1). Relative abundance was calculated for the visual encounter surveys as the number of animals observed per hour surveyed. All detection locations were recorded with a Garmin Vista HCX handheld GPS unit, in the form of each two-lettered site code

Table 1. Walla Walla District HMUs surveyed for reptiles and amphibians in 2008 field season.

HMU (site code) Acreage Pool Dates of Surveys April May June July September

Villard Ponds (VP) 266 Mc Nary 12,16,18 23,27 9 Big Flat (BF) 832 Ice Harbor 8,9,10 13,14,16 24,25,27 10,11,13 Lost Island (LI) 162 Ice Harbor 10,11 15,16 26,27 12,13 Hollebeke (HO) 247 Ice Harbor 12,13 17,18 28,29 14,15,16 Skookum (SK) 764 Lower

Monumental 16,17,18 21,22 30 1,2 18,19

55-Mile (FF) 271 Lower Monumental

14,15,16 19,20 2,3 16,17,18



followed by the four-letter species code (listed in Appendix A) and the numbered occurrence of that species. For example, “FFPSRE1” signifies the first detection of Pseudacris regilla (Pacific Treefrog) for 55-Mile HMU. Visual Encounter Surveys (VES) Visual encounter surveying (VES) is a standard and non-invasive method for inventorying herps. This method is useful for determining the presence or absence of herptile species at a site and is a technique best employed when several study areas need to be surveyed in a short time (Corn and Bury 1990). VES allows researchers to cover a larger general area with different habitats and examine objects that are most likely to reveal animals (Manley et al. 2006, Corn & Bury 1990). We used VES as our primary method for inventorying herps on all HMUs. Because herptile activity is contingent with the weather, researchers attempted to coordinate site visits with rainy weather for amphibians and warm weather for reptiles. Our methods entailed two or three researchers walking through a habitat type, parting vegetation with lumber or snake hooks, overturning debris, rocks, and logs to look for herps, not spending more than 10 minutes at any one object and making sure to return the cover items to their original positions (following Corn & Bury, 1990) (Figure 3). These surveys were conducted multiple times each visit by one to three MWFB researchers. VES were not time or area constrained, but time spent searching within a habitat type in the form of researcher hours was recorded so effort could be calculated. Researchers attempted to capture each individual seen to correctly identify to species (with the exception of Northern Pacific Rattlesnakes, Crotalus oreganus oreganus, which were positively identified without capture). When an animal was captured, processing (handling) time of that animal did not factor in to the total search time (Corn & Bury 1990). Animals captured were processed with photo documentation and measurement (snout-vent and total length); air temperature, habitat and other details of the detection were recorded. Once identified, the animal was released at the capture point, and its location marked with by GPS unit. The locations of animals seen or heard and positively identified without capture were also marked in this manner for future comparisons.

Nocturnal VES and road searches Some of the potential reptile species in our study area are best found on warm nights along roads, shrub-steppe, leaf-littered damp areas or in rocky habitat, specifically Night Snake (Hypsiglena chlorophaea), Ring-neck Snake (Diadophis punctatus) and Rubber Boa (Charina bottae). During warm, rainy weather anurans such as Great Basin Spadefoot (Spea intermontana) and Woodhouse’s Toad (Bufo woodhousii) can be found along dirt and paved roads as they emerge from their burrows (Washington Herp Atlas, 2005). We conducted nocturnal surveys during rainy and/or warm periods to record these movements, in evenings near and after sundown. Nocturnal VES followed the same methods to search for and record species as diurnal VES and were conducted on warm nights in habitats specific for crepuscular and nocturnal species. Searches were conducted using Maglite S2D015 flashlights and/or a NiteRider Trailrat 15W halogen light for spotlighting. Additionally, night-time road searches on dirt and/or paved roads within each HMU were conducted either on foot or by

Figure 3. MWFB biologists conducting VES.



cruising in a Polaris Ranger utility cart, documenting time spent searching. Locations of detected animals were marked with GPS unit. Anuran call survey/ eyeshine spotlighting Anuran call surveys during the late spring and summer were conducted to inventory frog and toad species (anurans). Each HMU was visited at least one night during each of the monthly survey periods to listen for broadcasting anurans. Each area within a HMU with standing water was visited and species and number of animals recorded when known or estimated. Prior to initiating surveys, MWFB researchers trained in frog calls using those published by Davidson (1995). We modified a chorus scoring system used by Kinkead (2006) that assigns an index ranking categorizing the number of frogs singing. A ranking of “1” signifies that individual frogs can be counted, with space between calls. A “2” signifies there is an overlap in calls but the observer is still able to distinguish between individuals. Finally, a “3” designates a full chorus of constantly overlapping calls where the observer can no longer discern between individuals. During quiet nights with low activity, customized Davidson (1995) calls were broadcasted over a portable speaker system to try to elicit a response, listening 5 minutes between broadcasts for a response. Anuran detections elicited in this manner were noted on datasheets. In April and May, MWFB researchers used Maglite S2D015 flashlights and/or a NiteRider Trailrat 15W halogen light at eye level to spotlight for eyeshine with 10 x 42 binoculars along shorelines of ponds, wetlands and inlets, particularly in areas where low or no anuran calling occurred. Areas that yielded eyeshine detections were visited at later dates to conduct anuran call surveys to confirm the presence of anurans. Locations of detected animals were marked with GPS unit. Dipnet/ water surveys We surveyed standing water and/or inlet areas at each HMU for amphibian eggs and larvae in early spring (Figure 4). River inlets with suitable habitat and ponds within sites were surveyed at least once whereas shorelines with steep inclines or no emergent vegetation were not surveyed due to unlikelihood of these habitats supporting amphibians (USFWS 1991). For large bodies of water, one to two MWFB researchers donned waders to wade through water, visually inspecting the surface water for frog egg masses and using long-handled dipnets. Nets used were 3/16 inch mesh, and were 16 by 16 by 12 inches in size. Sweeps were conducted in a random fashion, but served to sample the entire wadable area, dipping in areas where aquatic vegetation was reduced. Dipnet surveys were contained within the area of the water body, and time spent searching in the form of researcher hours was recorded so effort could be calculated. When an amphibian was netted, processing (handling) time of that animal did not factor in to the total search time (Corn & Bury 1990). Animals captured were processed with photo documentation and measurement (total length); air temperature, water temperature (at 6 inches from the surface) and other details of the detection were recorded. Tadpole locations within a body of water were not marked at point of detection; rather, the general location was marked with by GPS unit to document the portion of the water body where they were found. At Big Flat, a suspect group of tadpoles were tail clipped to confirm identity through genetic testing with the Shaffer Lab at UC Davis. Figure 4. Left: MWFB biologist dipnetting with waders. Right: MWFB biologist using small nets to capture

tadpoles.



Guzzler dipnet survey We expanded the Dipnet/ Water protocol after discovering amphibian eggs in gallinaceous guzzlers at 55-Mile in April. All guzzlers at all sites were sampled in subsequent visits (Figure 5). Guzzlers were visited during the day to mark their locations with a GPS unit, using the two-lettered site codes listed in Table 1 followed by “WT” (signifying “watering trough”) and the numbered encounter of that guzzler. For instance, “BFWT3” signifies the third guzzler encountered and surveyed at Big Flat HMU. Also during daytime visits, general habitat surrounding the guzzler, as well as presence of eggs or sign of amphibians was noted. Guzzlers were then visited at night for optimal viewing using a NiteRider Trailrat 15W halogen light and for recording nocturnal activity. Visual estimates of numbers of eggs and larvae were recorded rather than physical counting to prevent disruption to the amphibians at these stages. Captured amphibians at older larval stages were processed with photo documentation and measurement (total length); air temperature, water temperature (at 6 inches from the surface), and other details of the detection were also recorded. Guzzlers with amphibian sign in the early spring were checked during subsequent monthly visits to track changes in numbers and development. Snakeskin / Reptile Determinations When molted snake skins were found, we noted general habitat and marked each snakeskin molt with a GPS unit (Figure 6). The skin was then collected and stored in plastic bags for later identification by researchers with the Shaffer Lab at the University of California, Davis. Only skins that were complete enough for positive identification were used in analyses.

Coverboard surveys Coverboards or artificial cover objects (such as sheet metal or scrap materials) are widely used for herpetofaunal surveys. Sizes of boards differ depending on the study parameters. We used sheets two feet square by 1.1 cm thick Oriented Strand Board (OSB) following Pittman and Dorcas (2006). Because of unknown densities of herptiles along the Lower Snake River HMUs, we used coverboards

Figure 6. Snakeskins were collected, marked by GPS and bagged for later identification.

Figure 5. MWFB researchers examining guzzlers for breeding amphibians.



in lower densities to assess abundance with the idea to add more boards later if needed. As such we placed a total of 608 boards across 6 HMUs. Boards were paired as a unit (called a node); one board was a “bare” treatment and the other was “vegetated” treatment (Kinkead 2006). With the bare treatment, all grasses, debris, leaf litter was removed from underneath the board, providing direct contact with the soil. In vegetated treatments, the leaf litter, grasses and debris were left and the area was simply smoothed out and board placed on top, with the idea that the additional litter would attract snakes (Figure 7) (Kinkead 2006). Six board nodes (labeled A through F) were laid down at 50 meter intervals along a transect approximately 250 meters long, for a total of 12 boards per transect. We used aerial photographs to pre-place transects and these were then field adjusted as needed to ensure uniform habitat sampling to target different species. Once established, each node within a transect was labeled with a lumber crayon and marked with a GPS unit to facilitate repeatable surveys.

Since HMUs varied in size, board numbers were more or less adjusted to have equal sampling effort on small vs. large HMUs (Table 3). Villard Ponds and Skookum HMUs had lower board densities compared to the other 4 sites (0.14 and 0.13, respectively). This is because Villard Ponds acreage includes much of the pond and inlet areas of the Columbia River, and boards at Skookum HMU were concentrated within the approximately 260 acre intensively managed portion of the unit [no boards were placed out in the non-managed portion to the east, where the habitat consists of former rangeland inundated with cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and scattered grey rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa)]. Additional board pairs were placed within 15 meters of one guzzler at 55-Mile and all 3 guzzlers at Skookum in hopes of detecting incoming or dispersing breeding salamanders. Boards were checked during monthly visits and all species detected were recorded. Additional information, such as habitat, snout-vent and total length were recorded when necessary. Incidental detections Locations of any reptiles or amphibians detected incidentally were marked with a Garmin Vista HCX handheld GPS unit and described in the same way as those found during a VES.

Table 3. Coverboard effort per HMU surveyed. HMU No. Transects No. Boards Boards per acre Villard Ponds 3 36 0.14 Big Flat 15 180 0.22 Lost Island 7 84 0.52 Hollebeke 8 96 0.39 Skookum 8 102 0.13 55-Mile 9 110 0.41 totals 50 608 Average - 0.30

Figure 7. Cover board treatments. Left: vegetated treatment - grasses and leaf litter present. Right: bare treatment -grasses and leaf litter removed.



General Results From April through September 2008, we spent 271.6 hours conducting a total of 235 surveys and 1773 board checks. We confirmed 11 species of reptiles and amphibians between all 6 HMUs (4 amphibian and 7 reptile), with an average species richness of 5.3 species per site. A total of 741 animals were captured or detected during this inventory (from all survey methods combined), including 632 amphibians (287 salamanders, 345 frogs) and 109 reptiles (3 turtles, 1 lizard, 105 snakes). These totals include all captured or observed adult amphibians and reptiles as well as frog tadpoles and salamander larvae. More species were detected by the Visual Encounter Survey (VES) method than any other method (8 species), with incidental detections next (6 species) (Table 4). The least productive survey method was the coverboards, which yielded detections of 11 animals from 1773 board checks (table 4, 5).

Of the projected 21 species for our study area, we detected 11 species (Table 6). The site with the most number of species detected was 55-Mile HMU (7 species) and the HMU with the fewest number of species found was Lost Island HMU (3 species). The most abundant herptile species detected was the Long-toed Salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum), which were found in egg, larval and adult stages in guzzlers at two HMUs (Tables 4, 5, 6). The most abundant reptile and snake was the Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, whose presence was detected by four survey methods. The American Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) was the most common anuran, and was detected by five survey methods. A single detection of Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta) was confirmed by the positive identification of turtle carapace at Villard Ponds HMU. A single Western Skink (Plestiodon skiltonianus) was detected by VES at 55-Mile HMU. Presence of Rubber Boa (Charina bottae) was confirmed through positive identification of a snakeskin molt. Twenty-five detections of Western Yellow-bellied Racer (Coluber constrictor mormon) occurred by four survey methods, with 14 detections by positive snakeskin determinations. Fifteen Gopher Snake detections (Pituophis catenifer) occurred by three survey methods. A single detection of Wandering Garter Snake (Thamnophis elegans vagrans) occurred at Big Flat HMU, by VES. The most widely distributed species were the Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, Gopher Snake (Pituophis catenifer), and Western Yellow-bellied Racer (C. c. mormon) which were detected at 5 of the 6 HMUs by our surveys. No state sensitive species were detected during the 2008 inventory period.

Table 4. Summary of effort and results by method.

Sampling method Duration (hours)

Number of detections

Individual detection rate

Species richness

Visual encounter surveys (n=98) 133.7 hr 181* 1/ 44.3 minutes 8 Nocturnal VES and road searches (n=22) 29.9 hr 7 1/ 256 minutes 2 Anuran call surveys (n=56) 65.2 hr 102 1/38.4 minutes 3 Dipnet surveys (n=21) 25.5 hr 100 1/15.3 minutes 3

Guzzler dipnet surveys(n=36) 17.3 hr 287 1/3 guzzlers showed

presence 1 Coverboards (n=1773 checks) -- 11 1/ 0.0062 boards 3 Snakeskin/ reptile determinations -- 23 -- 5 Incidental detections -- 30 -- 6

* denotes individuals heard or seen during VES.



Table 5. Number of confirmed species identifications by survey method.

Species VES Nocturnal VES

Anuran call Dipnet Guzzler

dipnet Cover boards

Snakeskin/ reptile

determination Incidental totals

Long-toed Salamander 287 287 Woodhouse's Toad 36 64 4 2 7 113 Pacific Treefrog 9 1 10 American Bullfrog 91 2 29 89 4 215

Painted Turtle 1 1 Western Skink 1 1

Rubber Boa 1 1

Western Yellow-bellied Racer 5 2 14 4 25

Gopher Snake 5 6 4 15 Wandering Garter Snake 1 1 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake 39 5 6 9 59

Frog sp. 6 1 7

Snake sp. 2 1 3 Thamnophis sp. 1 1

Turtle sp. 1 1 2 Confirmed species by survey method

7 2 3 2 1 3 5 6 741



Table 6. Checklist of reptiles and amphibians detected at 6 HMUs, all methods combined.

Species Scientific name No. detections Big Flat Lost

Island Hollebeke 55-Mile SkookumVillard Ponds

Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum 287 X X

Woodhouse’s Toad Bufo woodhousii 113 X X X X

Pacific Treefrog Pseudacris regilla 10 X X X

American Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana 215 X X

Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta 1 X

Western Skink Plestiodon skiltonianus 1 X

Rubber Boa Charina bottae 1 X

Western Yellow-bellied Racer Coluber constrictor mormon 25 X X X X X

Gopher Snake Pituophis catenifer 15 X X X X X

Wandering Garter Snake Thamnophis elegans vagrans 1 X

Northern Pacific Rattlesnake Crotalus oreganus oreganus 59 X X X X X

Frog Sp. 7 X X Snake sp. 3 X X X Thamnophis sp. 1 X Turtle sp. 2 X X Totals (confirmed species) 741 (728) 8 (6) (3) 4 (3) (7) 7 (5) 8 (6)



Discussion Previous studies The most number of species detected by our surveys were at 55-Mile HMU (7 species) followed by Big Flat and Villard Ponds (6 species) (Table 6). Hollebeke and Lost Island HMUs each yielded detections of 3 species by our survey methods. A fourth, Western Yellow-bellied Racer was detected by Loper & Lohman (1998) at Hollebeke HMU. Asherin and Claar (1976) found 9 species of reptiles and amphibians along the McNary pool (Woodhouse’s Toad, Bullfrog, Painted Turtle, Sagebrush Lizard, Common side-blotched Lizard, Western Yellow-bellied Racer, Gopher Snake, Wandering Garter Snake, Northern Pacific Rattlesnake), 4 species of reptiles and amphibians at sites surveyed within the Ice Harbor Pool (Woodhouse’s Toad, Western Yellow-bellied Racer, Northern Pacific Rattlesnake and Great Basin Gopher Snake), and detected 9 species within the Lower Monumental and Little Goose pools (Pacific Treefrog, Bullfrog, Columbia Spotted Frog, Great Basin Spadefoot, Western Yellow-bellied Racer, Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, Gopher Snake, Wandering Garter Snake and Valley Garter Snake).

Figure 8. Species richness results from previous surveys by pool, Snake & Columbia Rivers

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

McNary Ice Harbor LowerMonumental

Little Goose Lower Granite

Spec

ies r

ichn

ess

Asherin & Claar (1976) Loper & Lohman (1998) UC Davis (2008)

Figure 8 depicts the number of species found in each pool by previous and current research. Our survey efforts in the Ice Harbor pool exceeded the number of herp species found by previous research. Loper and Lohman (1998) did not conduct any surveys for herptiles in the McNary pool, whereas Asherin and Claar (1976) had found 9 species at five sites. Our surveys at a single site in the McNary pool (Villard Ponds) yielded detections of 6 species. Three species in the McNary pool (Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, Sagebrush Lizard and Common Side-blotched Lizard) not found by our surveys were found at sites near the confluence of the Snake and Columbia Rivers (Asherin and Claar 1976). The Sagebrush and Common Side-blotched Lizards were found by the researchers to occupy big sage (Artemisia tridentata) and rubber rabbit brush (Ericameria nauseosa) habitats, which from the five sites described by the researchers narrow to Finley-Hover Park (adjacent to the current Toothacre HMU) and/or Hat Rock State Park (Asherin and Claar 1976).



Lack of lizards Out of the possible 4 species of lizard for the study area, we found only a single individual of one species, the Western Skink (Plestiodon skiltonianus). Three other species’ distributions show records for the Snake/ Columbia River confluence: Common Side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), Sagebrush Lizard (Sceloporous graciosus), and Pigmy Short-horned Lizard (Phrynosoma douglasii). These species are known to occupy open shrub-steppe and sandy habitat comprised of rubber rabbit brush (Ericameria nauseosa) and Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), much of which has been developed for agriculture or urban use in areas surrounding Tri-Cities and is heavily degraded at most HMUs. Records for Common Side-blotched Lizard from the Snake/ Columbia confluence date prior to 1984; recent records are reported further upstream the Columbia River from north Benton and south Grant counties (WA Herp Atlas, 2005). This species relies on shrub-steppe, sandy or rocky areas, with shrubs for evading predators and extreme temperatures (WA Herp Atlas, 2005; Stebbins 2003). Historical accounts for Sagebrush Lizard show a similar distribution, with records prior to 1984 in the Snake/ Columbia Rivers confluence and more recent records in Juniper Dunes Wilderness Area (Franklin Co.), north Benton and south Grant counties (WA Herp Atlas, 2005). The Sagebrush Lizard is more of a habitat specialist, with the most recent records for the state of Washington linked with sand dunes or other sandy habitats (WA Herp Atlas 2005). The third potential lizard species is the Pigmy Short-horned lizard, whose distribution (because of its habits) is similar to that of the Sagebrush lizard. Both species were detected during visits to Juniper Dunes Wilderness in April 2006 and May 2008.

Out of the HMUs surveyed in 2008, 55-Mile and Hollebeke HMUs supported potential habitat for these species. We extensively surveyed an acre-sized patch of open sand dunes at 55-Mile for lizards; none were found. This negative finding is likely due to the small size of appropriate habitat combined with the fact that the closest distributional record for either of the three species is Juniper Dunes Wilderness (Pigmy Short-horned Lizard and Sagebrush Lizard) (WA Herp Atlas, 2005). At Hollebeke HMU, we specifically surveyed within 11 acres of Big sagebrush and sandy habitat to detect these lizard species and did not find a single one. A possible explanation for Hollebeke’s lack of lizards may lie in the fact that much of the big sagebrush habitat had dense groundcover of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), and this groundcover hinders lizard movements, who prefer open ground for tracking prey and evading predators (WA Herp Atlas 2005; Green et al. 2001). Our continuing efforts at HMUs in the McNary pool in 2009 will survey these habitat types to update the distributional status of these species in their historical range. Other species not detected Due to their ectothermic abilities, weather and climate dictate the movements and life history of amphibians and reptiles significantly more than for birds and mammals. A complete inventory of amphibians and reptiles can be a challenge for short-term surveys due to a number of climatic conditions, such as lower than average rainfall, extreme temperatures or flooding (Mitchell 2004). Therefore, our site visits of 1 to 4 days per month may have missed certain weather patterns crucial to the detection of certain species. Nonetheless, the survey effort by this project was significant, and fulfilled the purpose of establishing baseline data for the lower Snake River HMUs in Franklin and Walla Walla counties.

Though Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) shows distributional records at the Snake and Columbia River confluence, we did not detect this species at any HMU, specifically Villard Ponds HMU, which lies in the vicinity of two 1962 records from Burbank (WA Herp Atlas, 2005; L. Salzer, pers. comm.).

Similar to Tiger Salamander, we did not detect at any HMU the state endangered Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens), whose historical records fall within the Tri-Cities and the Snake/ Columbia River confluence and upstream the Columbia River (Benton county) (WA Herp Atlas, 2005). A single record from 1941 falls right within Yakima Delta HMU, indicating their historical presence within our study area (L. Salzer, pers. comm.). We spent 17.9 hours in spring and summer 2008 listening for calling anurans at Villard Ponds HMU, a site adjacent to historical Northern Leopard Frog records; none were detected. Our continuing efforts at HMUs in the McNary pool in 2009 will update the distributional status of these species in their historical range.



The Great Basin Spadefoot (Spea intermontana) was not detected at any HMU surveyed in 2008. It was, however, found on private land adjacent to Hollebeke HMU. On 18 May 2008, at least 30 tadpoles were found in a cattle watering hole at 5135320.2 N, 371395.9 E and at least 15 chorusing males were heard calling from a concrete-lined irrigation basin surrounded by apple orchards at 5134962.7 N, 370013.8 E (zone 11 N, WGS 84 Datum). This species is well-known from the Snake/ Columbia River confluence and upstream the Snake River, as it is primarily a shrub-steppe specialist, spending most of its adult life buried underground. Adult Great Basin Spadefoots return to water only to breed, often using slow-moving springs, seasonal pools, irrigation ditches to lay 10 to 40 eggs (WA Herp Atlas, 2005). This species appears to tolerate some habitat alteration, as it is able to breed in agricultural lands with a source of standing irrigation water. No HMU surveyed in 2008 had potential breeding sites for this species. Historical records of Great Basin Spadefoot exist along the Snake River upstream in southeast Whitman and north Asotin counties (WA Herp Atlas, 2005). Our continuing efforts at HMUs in the Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower Granite pools in 2009 will update the distributional status of this species in the Snake River canyon.

Due to its secretive nature, records for Ring-necked Snake (Diadophis punctatus) in

Washington state are scarce. They seem to prefer moist habitats, and in other states can be found under rotting logs, stones, stumps and other debris within forested or other woodland habitats. Their distribution in the Columbia Basin is limited to a handful of pre-1984 records in southeastern Whitman county, surrounding the Snake River Basin, and Hell’s Canyon (WA Herp Atlas 2005). A record from 1975 from the McNary National Wildlife Refuge (Walla Walla Co.) falls within approximately 5 miles from Villard Ponds HMU (WA Herp Atlas, 2005). Our continuing efforts at HMUs in the McNary, Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower Granite pools in 2009 will update the distributional status of this species in the Snake River canyon.

The Striped Whipsnake (Masticophis taeniatus) utilizes a variety of habitats including sagebrush and shrublands, grasslands, canyons, piñon-juniper and pine woodlands and occasionally seasonal or permanent creeks or streams (Stebbins 2003). Records of Striped Whipsnake in the Columbia basin are not numerous, with detections from intact shrub-steppe habitat with some cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) groundcover (WA Herp Atlas, 2005). The closest records of this species are from upstream along the Snake River, in the eastern middle portion of Benton county, with more records from southeastern Grant county near the Columbia River (WA Herp Atlas 2005). While our study area is somewhat beyond the range depicted by historical records, we will continue to search for this species in our efforts at McNary pool HMUs in 2009. The Common Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) is the most widely distributed and one of the most common snakes in the state of Washington (WA Herp Atlas, 2005). The subspecies in eastern Washington is the Valley Garter Snake (T. s. fitchi). Like most garter snakes, Common Garter Snakes

Figure 9. Left: Great Basin Spadefoot tadpoles found in a watering hole for cattle. Right: Adult male found along concrete banks of an irrigation basin.



are typically found in or near aquatic habitats such as ponds, wetlands, springs, creeks and rivers, but will also utilize terrestrial habitats, particularly in the spring and fall when emerging or dispersing to hibernacula sites (WA Herp Atlas 2005). While we did not detect this species at any HMU in the McNary pool during 2008 surveys, this species has been detected upstream the Snake River at Deadman Creek, Chief Timothy and Alpowa HMUs (Loper & Lohman 1998). Our continuing efforts at HMUs in the McNary, Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower Granite pools in 2009 will update the distributional status of this species in the Snake River canyon. The Night Snake (Hypsiglena chlorophaea) is a crepuscular and nocturnal snake present whose distribution in Washington state falls primarily within the Columbia basin (Stebbins 2003). Due to its nocturnal and secretive behavior, this snake can be hard to detect, and prior to research between 2003 and 2005, only a few records existed. Between 2003 and 2005, road cruising along state routes and other roads by Weaver (2008) yielded 121 detections of Night Snake in 8 counties, with one first county record (Douglas). Historical record of Night Snake from the McNary National Wildlife Refuge prior to 1984 is the one closest to our study area, and falls within a 5 mile radius of Villard Ponds HMU (WA Herp Atlas 2005). This species has been detected upstream the Columbia River at Tucannon HMU by drift fence/trapping methods in upland habitat (Loper & Lohman 1998). A note about turtles A species not listed in Appendix A but one which is always a possibility is the Red-eared Slider, an aquatic turtle species popular in the pet trade. It is native to the Midwest and southern U.S. but populations of this species have sprung up all over western states due to release from captivity into the wild. In Washington state, populations of Red-eared Sliders are known from Puget Sound and surrounding waterways to the east; Sliders are also reported from the lower Columbia River at the south end of Klickitat county (WA Herp Atlas, 2005). More undocumented populations of this species undoubtedly exist in Washington. Due to the unknown status of this species within our study area, turtles seen whose identification could not be positively confirmed have been listed as “Turtle sp.” in tables 5 and 6 and are discussed here. A turtle was seen basking on a floating tire in the east end of the North Pond at Big Flat HMU during a VES on 14 May 2008 but could not be positively identified before it flushed into the water. Likewise, a turtle was briefly glimpsed at Villard Ponds HMU during a dipnet survey on 18 May 2008 but could not be positively identified due to the fleeting look. A confirmed detection of the native Painted Turtle was determined from the collection of a turtle carapace (shell), where the signature patterning of the plastron was still visible. It was found in riparian habitat on 9 Sept 2009 at 5117071.2 N, 344822.0 E (zone 11 N, WGS 84 datum). Survey method efficiency Unlike mammals and birds, whose presence is often conspicuous, reptiles and amphibians are considered secretive in nature due to the difficulty in detecting their presence from chance encounters. Single survey techniques can uncover the mammal and avian diversity within a study area; with reptiles and amphibians, a variety of survey methods and techniques are required to detect species occupying both aquatic and terrestrial habitats (Corn & Bury 1990, Ryan et al. 2002). Survey methods employed for a herpetofaunal study will depend on the study objectives and goals. For inventorying purposes, a variety of methods, combined with site visits during favorable weather conditions are necessary to document as many species as possible at a site. The results of this survey show that certain methods vary in their success of detecting certain species, even those within the same taxonomic group (as with anurans, in our case). Visual Encounter Surveying (VES) is a standard and non-invasive method which allows researchers the flexibility to search a variety of habitats. In general, the flexible nature of VES makes them difficult to replicate in future efforts, and analyses based on this method will often not provide sufficient quantitative data on population size and structure or life history traits (Mitchell 2004). Rather, the data from the VES method is more qualitative, making it an appropriate method for inventory work (as with our objective, documenting occurrence of amphibian and reptiles within a study area). Our VES were not area or time constrained, rather an opportunistic search of habitats known to support certain species. During our surveys on USACE HMUs, 7 out of 11 species were detected by VES. Species not detected by VES were: Long-toed Salamanders, which were only



detected through visual inspection and dipnetting of guzzlers; Pacific Treefrog, which were detected by anuran auditory call surveys and incidentally; lastly, Painted Turtle and Rubber Boa were both detected through Snakeskin/ reptile determinations (Table 6).

Despite 29.9 researcher survey hours, the nocturnal VES method was the least effective method for detection of herptiles (Table 4). Northern Pacific Rattlesnakes, American Bullfrogs were the only two species detected by this method, and both were species already detected by other methods.

Anuran call surveys proved to be an effective method for inventorying anuran diversity and numbers at HMUs (Table 4). The 65.2 survey hours conducted by MWFB researchers yielded 102 detections of anurans at 6 HMUs. Pacific Treefrogs were the only species detected by anuran call surveys alone [both Woodhouse’s Toads and American Bullfrogs were also seen or heard during VES]. A total of 25.5 researcher hours were spent surveying bodies of water with dipnets (Table 4). While no species was found by this method alone, it did result in the detection of American Bullfrog and Woodhouse’s Toad tadpoles, confirming breeding of both these species at Big Flat HMU.

From the time Long-toed Salamanders were first detected breeding in gallinaceous guzzlers at 55-Mile HMU in April 2008, we subsequently surveyed all guzzlers at all HMUs (Table 4). Lower Monumental pool HMUs (Skookum and 55-Mile) were the only ones found to contain salamanders. A minimum of 287 hatchlings were found between the 6 guzzlers between these two HMUs (the maximum number of eggs or larvae between all visits were tallied to produce this minimum number estimate). No other amphibian species was found to use these guzzlers for breeding. The method of collecting snakeskin molts and turtle shells proved to be a effective one – of the 30 snake molts and turtle carapace collected, 23 were identifiable to species (Table 4, Appendix B). Snakeskin molt collection began in June 2008 when MWFB researchers first started to see them and through the summer with 77% of the molts being encountered in September 2008, presumably after snakes had bred and were preparing for hibernation. Positive identification of the snake molts was made by Robert Thomson and Levi Gray at the Shaffer Lab (Dept. of Evolution and Ecology, UC Davis). This method yielded the detection of 5 species, including the presence of Garter Snake species at Skookum HMU. Rubber Boa at 55- Mile HMU and Painted Turtle at Villard Ponds HMU were confirmed by this method alone.

The artificial cover objects (coverboards) were found to be the least successful for species detection after nocturnal VES (3 species were found to use them, all which were also detected by other methods) (Table 4). A possible explanation for this is our infrequent board checks – boards at each site were checked during monthly visits, so we only had 3 replicates per board per site (checked in May, June and Sept). Limited time and personnel prevented us from being able to check all 608 boards on a weekly basis. Additionally, we don’t know the extent of the disturbance caused by our movement through vegetation as we approached to check them - only in one instance at Big Flat did we actually glimpse a snake sneaking out from underneath a board upon our approach. While coverboards are a good and inexpensive way to monitor herp activity (particularly snakes), it is a technique best suited for frequent and repeated researcher visits. Amphibian chytrid fungus The chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) is the only known chytrid fungus to have jumped to vertebrate hosts. Bd causes the disease chytridiomycosis in anurans (frogs) and caudates (salamanders); it is responsible for declines and extinctions of some species on every amphibian-inhabited continent (Skerratt et al. 2008). The fungus spreads through waterways, amphibian-to-amphibian contact, and other mechanisms not yet understood. Bd is especially virulent at temperatures between 17º and 25º C (63º to 77º F) (Skerratt et al. 2008). The mechanism that causes mortality in amphibians is not yet fully understood but is believed to hinder respiratory functions through the skin and alter blood solute concentrations (Brem et al. 2007). With this in mind, MWFB researchers took precautions to disinfect all equipment with 10% bleach solution before moving to another site.

In Washington state, Bd has been confirmed along the Columbia River, and in Kittitas, Klickitat, Grant, Spokane and Yakima counties in a variety of amphibian species (G. Pagdett-Flohr, D. Olson, J. Lowe, pers. comm.). Information regarding Bd prevalence from our study area along the Snake/ Columbia River confluence and lower Snake River is lacking (D. Olson, pers. comm.). It is



especially important to educate the public about this disease because the Columbia and Snake River confluence (general locations of high human traffic - Villard Ponds, Richland Bend, Yakima Delta, Hood Park HMUs) have historically supported the state endangered Northern Leopard Frog. The historical records for Northern Leopard Frog fall within the Tri-Cities and the Snake/ Columbia River confluence and upstream the Columbia River (Benton county) (WA Herp Atlas, 2005). Confirming the presence of the chytrid fungus in other species within the historical range of Northern Leopard Frog at the Snake/ Columbia River confluence could provide one explanation for its decline in this area. In 2009, we plan to sample amphibian species at HMUs in the Tri-Cities region as well as upstream along sites through Clarkston. Through the surveillance of Bd in amphibians along USACE HMU water bodies, we will fill in the distributional gap for the spread of chytridiomycosis in the Snake River canyon and Columbia/ Snake confluence and ultimately contribute data to GIS mapping of positive detections to help study the spread of this disease.



Species Accounts

This section presents details on each species detection and associated life history and habitat information specific to the Columbia basin as well as HMU findings presented in table and map form, using the Google Earth mapping tool. Much of the life history and habitat information in the species accounts is derived from the Washington Herp Atlas, unless otherwise noted (Washington Herp Atlas, 2005. Washington Natural Heritage Program, Washington Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management and US Forest Service. http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/herp/ last accessed 21 February 2009). Long-toed Salamander The Long-toed Salamander is the most widespread salamander species in Washington, and it is named for its unusually longer fourth toe. The subspecies in our study area and the Columbia Basin is the Central Long-toed Salamander (A. m. columbianus). Long-toed Salamanders are “pond type” breeders in that they lay eggs in slow-moving or lentic waters. No stream-breeding salamanders are known to occur in the lower Snake River region. Long-toed Salamanders are capable of exploiting a variety of habitats including sagebrush, conifer forest, oak and alpine meadows. They may use lakes, ponds, wetlands, ditches, slow moving springs, semi-permanent puddles to breed in; usually in bodies of water where fish are absent, but this can vary with microhabitat complexity. Metamorphosed salamanders will travel to breeding sites by moving within interstitial spaces, by rodent burrows and under moist or decaying material, such as rocks, leaf litter and logs (Nafis 2009). Habitat for this species in the Snake River Canyon has probably dwindled since dam construction, as many of the isolated backwaters and pools formed by flows have largely disappeared. Snake River aerials from 1958 show the river margins surrounding the study sites with much more complex microhabitat than the current, “lake” shoreline of the Snake River today (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2002).

The Long-toed Salamander is a medium-sized salamander usually all dark grey or black with a mottled yellow, greenish or light olive lateral stripe that runs from its head down the tail. Adults range in size from 2.1 to 3.2 in (50 to 80 mm) snout-vent length, and have a laterally-compressed tail. Egg lying commences in the Columbia basin in March and April, and egg development to hatching largely depends on temperature, but spans from 2 to 5 weeks. Long-toed Salamander hatchlings are distinct from Tiger Salamander hatchlings in that they possess structures on the sides of the head called balancers (Figure 13). Within two weeks or so of development, hatchlings lose the balancers, and as the gills develop the top gill filament is usually longer than the other ones on the stalk, whereas in Tiger Salamanders, all gill filaments are approximately equal length. Long-toed Salamander larvae rarely exceed 85 mm total length, and as they metamorphose, the yellow dorsal stripe develops. In Washington state, Long-toed Salamander larvae may metamorphose in the summer or fall of the first year, but larval development is crucially dependent on water temperature, water quality and food resources. Occurrences on HMUs We detected Long-toed Salamanders breeding in gallinaceous guzzlers within the irrigated (managed) portions of 55-Mile and Skookum HMUs. All guzzlers were named and GPS-marked for our purposes with the two-letter site code (Table 1) followed by “WT” and a number in which guzzlers were encountered and surveyed. We monitored salamander development from April, when eggs were discovered, through September (though in dwindling numbers, presumably through metamorphism, natural mortality or predation). Tables 7 and 8 portray the phenology of salamander development in guzzlers. Each individual of each life stage was not counted; rather, visual estimates were made to reduce disturbance to salamander development.

Sign of Long-toed Salamanders was not detected at Big Flat, Lost Island, Hollebeke HMUs. All guzzlers at these three HMUs were checked for sign of Long-toed Salamanders between April and June 2008 by guzzler dipnet survey; none were detected by this or any other search method. There are no guzzlers at Villard Ponds HMU and none were detected at this HMU by any other search method.



These sites appear to be out of the distributional range of the Long-toed Salamander in Washington state (WA Herp Atlas, 2005).

55-Mile HMU Long-toed salamanders were detected at guzzler FFWT1 (Figure 10) on 15 April 2008. We estimated approximately 110 eggs hanging in clumps from duckweed and debris, suggesting the possibility of more than one female having laid eggs in this guzzler. All 3 guzzlers at 55-Mile were found to contain all Long-toed Salamander life stages. Details of salamander development in each guzzler are listed in Table 7. Skookum HMU An adult Long-toed Salamander was seen in SKWT1, as well as at least 6 mature larvae on 16 April 2008 (Figures 11, 12). Approximately 50 eggs were also present, indicating an overlap of generations in guzzler use at this particular location. The three guzzlers within the irrigated (managed) portion of the unit were found to contain Long-toed Salamander life stages. The three guzzlers to the east in the non-managed portion to the east, were not found to have any, where the habitat consists of former rangeland inundated with cheatgrass and scattered grey rabbitbrush. The arid habitat surrounding these guzzlers is likely not favorable for the migration of salamanders. Details of salamander development in each guzzler are listed in Table 8.

Figure 10. Location of guzzlers named for our purposes, 55-Mile HMU.

Figure 11. Left: over-wintered larval Long-toed Salamander, Skookum HMU (guzzler SKWT1, photo taken April 2008). Right: near-hatching Long-toed Salamander egg, balancer obvious (guzzler FFWT1, photo taken April 2008).



Figure 12. Location of guzzlers named for our purposes, Skookum HMU.

Figure 13. Left: gallinaceous guzzler adjacent to irrigated plot (salamander breeding habitat), 55-Mile HMU. Right: guzzler in degraded shrub-steppe habitat within non-managed lands east of managed portion, Skookum HMU (no sign salamanders).



Table 7. Phenology of Long-toed Salamanders in guzzlers at 55-Mile HMU.

Date Guzzler No.

present TL (mm) Life stage Area/ detection description

15 April FFWT1 ~ 110 eggs

Gills and balancers present on larvae in eggs. Most are developed with active embryos, some have milky white ova. Surrounding habitat is bunchgrass, blackberry and other shrubs..

21 May FFWT1 >50 10 to 30 hatchlings

Duckweed layer of 95%; no snails, few inverts, at least 50 larvae seen. Hatchlings approx. 20 mm TL already have front limb buds.

1 July FFWT1 ~ 5-6 40 and 55 larvae

Duckweed layer thick, 5 or 6 larvae of various sizes seen, ranging between 40 and 60 mm (2 individuals were captured, measured and photographed).

16 Sept FFWT1 >2 50 to 60, 60 to 70 larvae

Duckweed layer of 100%; water clear and appears healthy. At least 2 gilled larvae still present, slight spotting apparent along dorsum.

21 May FFWT2 3 2 at 80, 1 at 35

larvae/ adults

Duckweed layer of 95%, some snails and invertebrate life. Large amount of rotting muck floating at bottom. 2 large larvae, possibly adults, flushed at beginning when light shone (swam to storage part of guzzler) and not seen again. One medium sized larva seen, approx. 30 mm total length.

1 July FFWT2 0 Duckweed layer thick, full of rotten debris. No larvae seen.

16 Sept FFWT2 0 Duckweed layer thick, some invertebrates, clean water. No larvae seen.

21 May FFWT3 15 – 20 15 to 25 hatchlings

Duckweed layer 30%. Lots of snails. Some dead earthworms and grass litter present. Hatchlings mixed development. Larger hatchlings, approx. 20 mm TL already have front limb buds - we didn't see rear limb buds. No eggs or adults seen.

1 July FFWT3 >15 larvae Duckweed layer thick. More than 15 larvae present, development not noted.

16 Sept FFWT3 >3 30 to 45,

40 larvae Duckweed layer of 100%, water a bit murkier than the other 2 guzzlers. At least 3 gilled larvae present.



Table 8. Phenology of Long-toed Salamanders in guzzlers at Skookum HMU.

Date Guzzler No.

present TL

(mm) Life stage Area/ detection description

16 April SKWT1 ~ 8, 50 eggs

>80 65 to

75, 110

Adult, larvae, eggs

One striped adult seen (large - >110 mm TL), darted to inaccessible (storage) part of guzzler. At least 6 or 7 gilled larvae seen, 3 were captured (advanced stage, ranging between 60 and 75 mm TL); larvae larger than 80 mm TL seen but not captured. Approximately 50 eggs also present.

19 May SKWT1 >4 51 to 64 larvae

Duckweed layer thick, algal layer on walls, grass debris. Water murky. At least four larvae present, three captured and photographed (Figure XXX). Approx. 4 old (dead) eggs present, no live eggs. No adults seen.

2 July SKWT1 ~ 7 30 to 60 larvae/ adult

Duckweed layer thick, clean water. At least 7 larvae present, one larva almost looks completely transformed, with adult coloration, stripe on dorsum.

18 Sept SKWT1 0 Duckweed layer thin, clean water, few invertebrates. No larvae seen.

16 April SKWT2 >1 >80 Adult

Adult salamander swam to inaccessible (storage) part of guzzler, out of view. It had a light stripe on dorsum. Larvae could've been present but water was murky.

19 May SKWT2 ~ 50 10 to 38 hatchlings

Duckweed layer 100%. Some algae and invertebrates, water murky. Hatchlings starting to grow legs and toes at TL less than those at SKWT3. No adults or eggs seen.

2 July SKWT2 >6 20 to 50 larvae Water murky, at least 6 larvae seen.

18 Sept SKWT2 >10 50 to 70 larvae

Duckweed layer thin, water level is lower than other guzzlers and not very clean. At least 10 larvae seen, 1 dead at bottom. All are approx. same age. One of the larger larvae has almost all gills absorbed.

17 April SKWT3 ~ 15 9 to 10 eggs

Guzzler located in sink, so trough is full. Eggs seem to range in size between 9 – 10 mm in diameter, suggesting more than one oviposition event. Balancers are evident through egg casing, confirming them as Long-toed. More than 15 eggs probable, but due to the higher water depth than most, visibility is difficult.

19 May SKWT3 ~ 50

15 to 40,

various stages hatchlings

Duckweed layer thin in shallow end. Lots of algae, debris, tons of daphnia, invertebrates; water is clean. At least 50 hatchlings seen, but no adults or eggs. We had had few eggs of different developmental stages last visit, so the larger hatchlings are older. Largest hatchlings have front and rear limbs at this stage; the smallest not even buds.

2 July SKWT3 >20 20 to 60 larvae Duckweed layer thin, water clean. At least 20 larvae seen.

18 Sept SKWT3 >2 50 to 70 larvae

Duckweed layer thin, Raised algal mat obstructed clear view of bottom, water relatively clean. At least 2 larvae seen, probably more are present but out of view.

30 June SKWT4 0 No duckweed, some debris, some invertebrates, no sign salamanders

2 July SKWT5 0 Nothing visible- water opaque and green. Water visibility to 1" deep, even with spotlight. No sign salamanders.

2 July SKWT6 0 Nothing visible- water opaque and green with thick algal growth. No sign salamanders.



Woodhouse’s Toad Woodhouse’s Toad, or the Rocky Mountain Toad is a native species whose distribution in Washington state is limited to the Snake and Columbia Rivers within the Columbia basin. This and the population along the upper Snake River floodplain in Idaho represent isolated and disjunct populations from the rest of the Midwest. Woodhouse’s Toads adults and newly morphed toadlets are terrestrial, spending most of their time away from water except to breed. Mature Woodhouse’s Toads are among the largest toads in North America, and can be gray, light brown and olive colors with dark splotches with splotched bellies and a white dorsal stripe running from snout to vent. Their paratoid glands are elongated and oval-shaped; this trait along with the “L”-shaped cranial crests and voice distinguish them from the Western Toad. Western and Woodhouse’s Toads overlap in distribution where Western Toads range north into the lower Snake River canyon in extreme north Garfield, Asotin and southern Whitman counties (WA Herp Atlas 2005). Woodhouse’s Toads occupy a variety of habitats; in the Snake River canyon, they can be found near sagebrush, riparian and grassland habitats or crossing roads and other habitats as they migrate to water to breed. Aquatic breeding habitat includes still-water ponds, ephemeral pools and ditches. As an adaptation to explosive breeding in arid habitats, egg to tadpole development is rapid, and metamorphism to adult occurs approximately in 2 months. Woodhouse’s Toads were found by MWFB researchers in high numbers along the shoreline of Dalton Lake at Big Flat HMU, wetland habitat at Villard Ponds and Big Flat HMUs and a variety of other habitats depicted in Figure 14.

Figure 14. Woodhouse's Toad Habitats

19%

2%

4%

1%

18%

35%

21% Pond

Restoration

Road

Sagebrush/ pond edge

Shoreline inlet

Shoreline lake

Wetland

Occurrences on HMUs Woodhouse’s Toads were not detected at 55-Mile or Skookum HMUs by any survey method. This may be due to the lack of breeding habitat for this species at these sites. Villard Ponds HMU Two Woodhouse’s Toads were heard calling from out of the HMU from a residential backyard on 18 May. None were heard calling from within the HMU until 27 June, when a single individual was detected calling from the ponds on the southern end of the HMU, just north of the railroad tracks (detection VPBUWO1, 5116566.2N 345053.2E: zone 11N, WGS 84 datum).



Big Flat HMU Woodhouse’s Toads were detected at Big Flat by several survey methods (Table 9). They were first detected on 13 May 2008, calling from the wetland comprising the east end of Dalton Lake and were heard during surveys through June. The drawn-out “waaaaaah” calls of the Woodhouse’s Toad can carry fairly long distances; at Big Flat, calls from approximately 5 toads were heard 1.1 kilometers away from the source (pers. obs.). Four toads were seen on the gravel road along the west shore of Dalton Lake during an anuran call survey on 14 May 2008; these toads may have been arriving to breed at the lake and North pond (detections BFBUWO2, 3, 4, Figure 16). Tadpoles were found along the south shore of Dalton Lake on 24 June 2008, where approximately 20 were seen in low density; 3 individuals were captured, measured and photographed (detection BFBUWOtads1, Figure 15). These tadpoles ranged in size from 16 to 28mm total length. Approximately 30 Woodhouse’s toad tadpoles were seen in the boat launch shallows during a late morning VES on 27 June 2008 (detection BFBUWOtads2). On 25 June 2008, 2 dead adult Woodhouse’s Toads were spotted in the vicinity of BFRACT5 during a VES along the north shoreline of the North Pond in wetland habitat.

Table 9. Detections of Woodhouse’s Toad at Big Flat HMU. Detection Date detected Method Habitat

BFBUWO1 13 May 2008 Anuran call/ eyeshine survey Wetland BFBUWO2 14 May 2008 Anuran call/ eyeshine survey Road BFBUWO3 14 May 2008 Anuran call/ eyeshine survey Road BFBUWO4 14 May 2008 Anuran call/ eyeshine survey Road not marked 14 May 2008 Incidental detection Road BFBUWO5 24 June 2008 Anuran call/ eyeshine survey Pond BFBUWO6 24 June 2008 Anuran call/ eyeshine survey Shoreline lake BFBUWO7 24 June 2008 Anuran call/ eyeshine survey Pond *BFRACT5 25 June 2008 VES Pond/ Wetland BFBUWO8 11 Sept 2008 Incidental detection Pond

BFBUWOtads1 24 June 2008 Dipnet/ water survey Shoreline lake BFBUWOtads2 24 June 2008 VES Shoreline lake/ boat launch

* denotes same coordinates as this previous detection

Figure 15. Left: Woodhouse’s Toad adult, Hollebeke HMU. Left: Woodhouse’s Toad tadpole, Big Flat HMU.



Lost Island HMU Woodhouse’s Toads were the most frequently detected herptile at Lost Island (Table 10, Figure 17). We first detected them at least two individuals calling from the pond within the main HMU on 15 May 2008 (detection LIBUWO1, Table 10). On 26 June 2008, 6 toads were heard calling from the pond outside the main HMU (detection LIBUWO2). Toads were also detected calling from within the inlet area in June and September. The water level of the river was higher in September than in previous months, causing the inlet area of the HMU to flood. A VES in these flooded areas of the inlet yielded detections of 3 small toads in the flooded inlet area (detection LIBUWO3, 4, 5, Table 10). On 12 Sept, 2 adult toads were found underneath a “bare” coverboard at LI2E, within the restored riparian strip (detection LIBUWO6). A VES along the sagebrush habitat surrounding the point outside the main unit yielded a detection of a Woodhouse’s Toad (detection LIBUWO7). It was spotted emerging from a burrow approximately 3 meters away from the edge of the pond.

Table 10. Detections of Woodhouse’s Toad at Lost Island HMU. Detection Date detected Method Habitat

LIBUWO1 15 May 2008 Anuran call/ eyeshine survey Pond LIBUWO2 26 June 2008 Anuran call/ eyeshine survey Pond LIBUWO3 12 Sept 2008 VES Wetland LIBUWO4 12 Sept 2008 VES Wetland LIBUWO5 12 Sept 2008 VES Wetland

LIBUWO6 (2 toads) 12 Sept 2008 Coverboard survey Restoration LIBUWO7 12 Sept 2008 VES Sagebrush/ pond edge

Figure 16. GPS detection points of Woodhouse’s Toad, Big Flat HMU.

North Pond

Dalton Lake

Wetland

Boat launch



Hollebeke HMU Woodhouse’s Toads were seen and heard in the inlet area of Hollebeke. On 17 May, MWFB researchers listened for anurans calling at the inlet within the HMU. On the small peninsula “beach” just east of the pump house, 6 toads were spotted along the sandy shore, not calling at detection point HOBUWO1 located at 5127003.2N, 370297.4E (zone 11N, WGS 84 datum). Five of the toads were captured and photographed (Figure 15). On 28 June, 4 toads were heard calling from within the inlet area, and two were captured and were photographed on the “beach”, possibly the same or different individuals than the month before.

Figure 17. GPS detection points of Woodhouse’s Toads, Lost Island HMU.

Pond outside main HMU Pond inside

main HMU



Pacific Treefrog The Pacific Treefrog is native to the Pacific states, along with parts of Idaho, Montana and Nevada. It is the most commonly heard frog in the state of Washington. Adult frogs can be solid, spotted and blotched in a range of colors from red to green to grey. Its most conspicuous field mark is the black “mask” that extends from the nostrils, widening at the eye and tympanum through to the shoulder. In Eastern Washington males can start calling weeks before onset of breeding, starting around April. Breeding can be prolonged, lasting 3 to 4 months; at the peak of breeding season, males even chorus during daylight hours. Tadpoles are dark brown to olive, oftentimes with black speckling on the dorsum and iridescent white on the ventral side. Tadpole eyes are offset to the margins of the head, such that if viewed from above, the eyes would protrude from the outline of the head. In Washington state, this is the only anuran with eyes offset in this manner; this character along with toepads distinguish Pacific Treefrogs from all other anurans in the state. In the Columbia basin, transformed Pacific Treefrogs are terrestrial, using damp forests, riparian, shrubland, grassland and other habitats near a source of water. They can breed in disturbed and urban areas with any sort of standing water - wetland, pond edges, stillwaters of rivers, puddles, ditches, deep tire ruts. The majority of the Pacific Treefrogs were detected in pond habitat at Villard Ponds HMU - single individuals were found in Russian Olive and riparian habitat at 55-Mile and Skookum HMUs, respectively (Figure 18). Our findings of Pacific Treefrog at the confluence of the Snake and Columbia Rivers, as well as upstream at 55-Mile and Skookum HMUs represent new records for the Snake River region (WA Herp Atlas, 2005).

Figure 18. Pacific Treefrog Habitats11%

11%

78%

Russian Olive

Riparian

Pond

Occurrences on HMUs Sign of Pacific Treefrog was not detected at Big Flat, Lost Island, Hollebeke HMUs by any search method. Breeding habitat appears to be sufficient in the waters of Dalton Lake and the adjacent wetland at Big Flat HMU, but they were not heard or seen in these habitats. Villard Ponds HMU Pacific Treefrogs were one of three anuran species detected at Villard Ponds. They were first heard chorusing on 16 May from the middle ponds of the HMU (Table 11, Figure 19). We detected these frogs in close proximity to American Bullfrogs in at least one location within the HMU (detection points VPRACT4, VPPSRE4, Table 11). No Pacific Treefrogs were heard downstream of the railroad tracks, where Bullfrogs were also present.



55-Mile HMU A single male Pacific Treefrog was heard incidentally on 16 Sept calling approximately 15 meters north of our campsite; 6 to 7 single calls were heard in two repetitions (detection FFPSRE1 5161791.4N, 400940.3E: zone 11N, WGS 84 datum). It did not call after that, and despite camping in the same spot on 3 previous visits, we had not heard any frogs calling from that area before. The frog was heard from a dense Russian Olive thicket, with thick Himalayan Blackberry understory. Skookum HMU A single male Pacific Treefrog was heard incidentally from the campsite an hour and a half after sunrise on 21 May (detection SKPSRE1, 5160970.5N, 390302.6E: zone 11N, WGS 84 datum). We heard the frog from the managed riparian portion of the HMU: 2 to 3 rapid "krakeck" calls followed by long pause. The frog was not heard again when we reached the stand of trees to listen. We believe the frog was calling from a stand of black cottonwoods.

Table 11. Detections of Pacific Treefrogs at Villard Ponds HMU. Detection Date detected Method Habitat VPPSRE1 16 May 2008 Anuran call/ eyeshine survey Pond VPPSRE2 16 May 2008 Anuran call/ eyeshine survey Pond VPPSRE3 18 May 2008 Anuran call/ eyeshine survey Pond VPPSRE4 23 June 2008 Anuran call/ eyeshine survey Pond

Figure 19. GPS detection points of Pacific Treefrog, Villard Ponds HMU.



American Bullfrog The American Bullfrog is an invasive but naturalized species in Washington state and most western states, where it was probably introduced in the 1920’s as a source of food for their large meaty legs. The Bullfrog has since exploded in range, out competing local amphibians (Nafis 2009). They are mostly aquatic even in the transformed phase, and can almost always be found near water (Nafis 2009). Bullfrogs emerge in late spring to breed, lay eggs in giant masses. Bullfrog tadpoles often take 2 to 3 years to mature before metamorphosing; because of this, they require permanent or semi-permanent water bodies to breed. In Washington, Bullfrogs are known from Puget Sound and along a great extent of the Columbia River, parts of the Pend Oreille River as well as scattered populations in Okanogan, Klickitat and other western counties. In the Columbia Basin, Bullfrogs are known from the Columbia/ Snake River confluence and further upstream in extreme north Garfield and Asotin counties with scattered populations in Spokane, Adams and Yakima counties (WA Herp Atlas, 2005). We confirmed these records with our findings of Bullfrog at Big Flat HMU, where they were found in wetland and pond habitat as well along the shoreline of Dalton Lake, as well as at Villard Ponds HMU, where they were abundant throughout pond habitat (Figure 20).

Figure 20. American Bullfrog Habitats

74%

5%

14%

7%

Pond

Shoreline inlet

Shoreline lake

Wetland

Occurrences on HMUs Sign of American Bullfrog was not detected at Lost Island, Hollebeke, 55-Mile, and Skookum HMUs by any search method. Villard Ponds HMU American Bullfrog was first detected at Villard Ponds by anuran call survey on 18 May 2009 (Table 12). They were heard in much higher numbers in June, when 88% of the detections occurred. Over 50 bullfrogs were detected by sight in a single, small pond just north of the railroad tracks (located at detection VPRACT3 in Figure 21). We would expect to see more frogs in bodies of water isolated from the main river, where there are less fish.



Table 12. Detections of American Bullfrog, Villard Ponds HMU.

Detection name Date detected Method Habitat VPRACT1 18 May 2008 Anuran call/ eyeshine survey Pond VPRACT2 23 June 2008 Incidental detection Pond VPRACT3 23 June 2008 VES Pond VPRACT4 23 June 2008 Anuran call/ eyeshine survey Pond VPRACT5 23 June 2008 Anuran call/ eyeshine survey Shoreline inlet VPRACT6 27 June 2008 Anuran call/ eyeshine survey Shoreline inlet VPRACT7 27 June 2008 Anuran call/ eyeshine survey Pond VPRACT8 27 June 2008 Anuran call/ eyeshine survey Shoreline inlet

Big Flat HMU American Bullfrogs were detected at Big Flat by four survey methods (Table 13, Figure 22). None were heard calling in April, where the over night temperatures were in the forties (Fahrenheit). However, tadpoles were found in abundance by dipnet survey in the North Pond in April, probably second or third year tadpoles that had over wintered (Figure 23). Tadpoles appear to be higher in densities where the vegetation is thick on very east end of the pond (to about 1.5 meters from end) (Figure 24). Small fish were found in this area, but more fish and fewer tadpoles about 3 to 5 meters out from the east shore (where there is less vegetation and the water is deeper). All tadpoles had a pale or dark iris, bodies speckled gold with black dots, and they ranged in size from 38mm to 102mm (1.5 to 4 inches) total length. In May, dipnetting in the west end of the North pond yielded tadpoles as well, and we returned to the east end of the pond to sample tail clips to confirm species through genetic analyses. Three tadpoles with the least resemblance to American Bullfrog tadpoles were tail clipped

Figure 21. GPS detection points of Bullfrog, Villard Ponds HMU.



and sent to the Shaffer Lab (Dept. of Evolution and Ecology, UC Davis). Robert Thomson extracted DNA and ran a 600 base pair region of the cytochrome oxidase I mitochondrial genome. He found all three tadpoles to have a 99% match with American Bullfrog to archived sequences in the National Center for Biotechnology Information database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/, last accessed 15 November 2008).

American Bullfrogs were easily detected by call starting in May, when one was heard calling during a dipnet survey in the North Pond in the evening hours. Anuran call surveys in June detected bullfrogs in the wetland habitat in the eastern corner of Dalton Lake. Bullfrogs were easily seen during daytime visual encounter surveys in the North Pond and heard calling from the south shore of Dalton Lake in June (Figure 23). Bullfrog detections seemed to jump in September, when temperatures stayed warm. Twenty were heard or seen during a visual encounter survey along the south shore of Dalton Lake on 10 Sept 2008 (detection BFRACT7, Table 13).

Table 13. Detections of American Bullfrog at Big Flat HMU. Detection Date detected Method Habitat BFRACT1 14 May 2008 Dipnet/ water survey Wetland BFRACT2 24 June 2008 Dipnet/ water survey Shoreline lake BFRACT3 24 June 2008 Anuran call/ eyeshine survey Pond BFRACT4 25 June 2008 VES Wetland BFRACT5 25 June 2008 VES Pond BFRACT6 25 June 2008 VES Shoreline lake BFRACT7 10 Sept 2008 VES Shoreline lake

BFRACTtads1 11 April 2008 Dipnet/ water survey Pond BFRACTtads2 16 May 2008 Dipnet/ water survey Pond

Figure 22. GPS detection points of Bullfrog, Big Flat HMU (Dalton Lake).

North Pond Dalton Lake

Wetland



Figure 24. Photographs of the east end of the North Pond, showing dense vegetation a few feet from the edge (left), where majority of American Bullfrog tadpoles were found and more open water, less vegetation further from the east end (right).

Figure 23. Left: 2nd year Bullfrog tadpole. Right: juvenile Bullfrog seen during dipnetting survey, Big Flat HMU.



Western Skink The Skilton’s Skink is the subspecies of Western Skink in our study area. It occurs primarily in the eastern and northeastern part of the state, in parts of the Columbia basin, eastern Cascades, and in the Blue Mountains. It is a smooth-scaled, relatively small lizard (5 to 9 centimeters, snout-vent length) with a dark brown mid-dorsal stripe running from the snout to the tail lined with alternating cream-white and black stripes down the sides. Juvenile lizards have an almost-fluorescent blue tail and bold striping; as the lizard ages, the blue fades to a blue-grey or brownish-gray. This is the only lizard in Washington state with a bright blue tail, mid-dorsal stripe and shiny, smooth scales. During breeding season males may develop orange to reddish coloring along the chin and sides of the face.

In the Columbia basin, they can exploit semi-arid and moist environments, ranging from shrub-steppe, basalt rock outcroppings, dry forests and grasslands to edges of creeks and ponds with lots of vegetation (pers. obs., Nafis 2009). They can be found sifting through leaf litter and other woody debris and turning rocks and other cover objects. Occurrence on HMUs Out of the possible 4 species of lizard for the study area, we found only a single individual of this species. Due to their secretive nature, they can be difficult to detect; oftentimes, the flash of the blue tail as they disappear beneath a rock is the only way to know they’re present. Our one detection of Western Skink for the survey period occurred at 55-Mile HMU in such a manner. During a VES along the base of basalt bluffs on 1 July 2008, a Western Skink was identified by its blue tail darting across the grassy slope before it took shelter in a rock pile (detection point FFEUSK1 5162161.8N, 400986.2 E: zone 11N, WGS 84 datum). Historical records prior to 1984 for Western Skink are known from upstream the Snake River, and it has been detected by MWFB researchers during small mammal surveys at Nisqually John and Kelly Bar HMUs (Lower Granite pool) in August 2008. Our finding of Western Skink along this stretch of the Columbia River (Lower Monumental pool) represents a new record for the Snake River region (WA Herp Atlas, 2005).

Figure 25. Left: Photo of adult Western Skink, Klickitat county (Photo: L. Hallock, WA Herp Atlas). Right: habitat at base of basalt bluffs where the single Western Skink was seen.



Rubber Boa The Rubber Boa is a thick-bodied, small-scaled and robust-looking snake. Adults can range in size from 35 to 85 cm, though they are typically within the smaller end of this spectrum (Nafis 2009). The end of its tail is blunt and can be confused with its head. The scales are smooth and it ranges in color from pink, tan, olive, brown or dark grey with a pale belly with mottling; juveniles can be brighter in color, even rosy pink (Nafis 2009). It can be distinguished from the Racer with its small eyes, thick body, small dorsal scales, vertical pupils and rather sluggish, non-aggressive behavior. Rubber Boas can be active in temperatures that may be too cool for some other species – at surface temperatures in the fifties Fahrenheit (Nafis 2009).

Though Rubber Boas have not been studied in detail in Washington state, they are thought to start emerging from wintering sites around March, with breeding occurring around April and May. Distribution of Rubber Boas in the state is patchy, but they have been found to occupy forest, grasslands and prairie habitats but have also been found in wet forests of the Pacific Northwest ecoregion, as well as in arid shrub-steppe in the Columbia basin. Rubber Boas are nocturnal and fossorial, spending much of their time underground or moving in interstitial spaces throughout habitat, which makes them difficult to detect. It may be possible to return to a site year and year and detect them or find shed skins. Occurrence on HMUs Due to their nocturnal and sometimes crepuscular behavior, their presence may be difficult to detect. Rubber Boa was detected at only one HMU, 55-Mile, through the positive identification of a snake molt collected during a nocturnal VES on 16 Sept 2008 (detection FFMOLT2, 5162166.9N, 400950.3E: zone 11N WGS 84 datum). It was found protruding from a space between rocks at the base of basalt bluffs bordering shrub-steppe and grassland habitat. Historical records prior to 1984 for Rubber Boa are known from upstream the Snake River, in the hills to the west of Pullman (WA Herp Atlas 2005). Our finding of Rubber Boa sign along this stretch of the Columbia River (Lower Monumental pool) represents a new record for the Snake River region (WA Herp Atlas, 2005).

Figure 26. Left: Adult Rubber Boa, Benton Co. (Photo: Gary Nafis, CalHerps). Right: Habitat where molted snake skin was found at 55-Mile, between rocks at the base of basalt bluffs.



Western Yellow-bellied Racer The Western Yellow-bellied Racer is the subspecies of the Racer which occurs in our study area. Racers are known for their speed on the ground and the visual tracking of prey, which they accomplish by stalking prey with their heads elevated off the ground. Racers can grow to lengths of 51 to 190 centimeters but are typically under 91 cm in length on the west coast (Stebbins 2003). They have seemingly large eyes for their long, skinny bodies, which consist of smooth scales. Adults are long and smooth in appearance, often olive green, pale blue-gray or brownish above with cream or yellow bellies below. Juvenile snakes are blotched or patterned on the dorsum, with the pattern fading on the tail (Nafis 2009, Stebbins 2003).

Racers favor semi-arid and moist habitats including meadows, wetland edges, grassland, sagebrush, and woodlands. They are absent from extremely dry habitats and high mountains (Stebbins 2003). In Washington state, the Western Yellow-bellied Racer occurs primarily east of the Cascades throughout the Columbia basin, with records from the Snake/ Columbia River confluence and upstream in southern Whitman county (WDFW 2009). We found Racers in a variety habitats, with the majority of detections occurring by snakeskin molt in shrub-steppe habitat, followed by visual detections of snakes in bunchgrass habitat (predominately Intermediate wheatgrass (Figure 27).

Figure 27. Western Yellow-bellied Racer Habitats

28%

4%

4%

4%8%4%8%

4%

36%

Bunchgrass

Grass/ blackberry edge

Grassland with forbs

Pond edge

Rock outcrop

Rock pile

Russian Olive grassland

Sagebrush

Shrub-steppe

Occurrences on HMUs Villard Ponds HMU No Racers were detected by any search method at Villard Ponds. However, their presence was confirmed through the positive identification of a snakeskin molt, which was found and collected in sagebrush, rip-rap habitat (pond edge) on 23 June 2008 (detection LIMOLT1, 5136258.6N, 367859.0 E: zone 11N, WGS 84 datum). They undoubtedly exist on the HMU but may do so in lower numbers such that our survey methods did not detect them. Big Flat HMU Western Yellow-bellied Racers were only detected incidentally at Big Flat (Table 14, Figure 28). The Racer found at detection point BFCOCA1 was likely a road kill, found dead along the gravel road to the pump house. The Racer at BFCOCA2 was a young snake, with juvenile patterning, that eluded us while we were checking coverboards, along Russian Olive/ grassland habitat. It was approximately 30 centimeters (one foot) in length. The Racer found at BFCOCA3 was glimpsed sliding underneath a blackberry patch, also during board checks.



Lost Island HMU No Racers were detected by any search method at Lost Island. However, their presence was confirmed through the positive identification of a snakeskin molt, which was found and collected in shrub-steppe habitat on 12 Sept 2008 (detection LIMOLT1 at 5136258.6 N, 367859.0 E: zone 11N, WGS84 datum). Hollebeke HMU No Racers were detected by any search method at Hollebeke. However, they have been detected on the HMU by previous research, either by VES or drift fence/ pitfall array, occupying both upland and riparian habitats (Loper & Lohman 1998). 55-Mile HMU Racers were detected at 55-Mile by three survey methods (Table 15, Figure 29). On 21 May 2008, a VES was conducted following rain earlier in the day in Intermediate wheatgrass habitat along the shoreline of the Snake River, when the sunshine emerged in the afternoon and temperatures climbed to 74º Fahrenheit. The relative abundance of animals (animals per hour) found during this VES exceeded that of any VES conducted for the entire 2008 season, at 6 individuals per hour. Two Northern Pacific Rattlesnakes and a Gopher Snake were also seen during this survey. FFCOCA1 was a detection of 2 snakes, one of them a confirmed Racer, olive in color and the second a probable Racer, tan in color (MWFB researchers could not catch it). FFCOCA2 was captured and photographed (Figure 30). FFCOCA3 was our only detection of a young snake, as it still possessed the juvenile markings. It was found under a coverboard on the same day, when the rain returned in the late afternoon (Figure 30). A dead Racer was found along the gravel path from the cow corridor into the HMU (detection FFCOCA4). The Racer at FFCOCA5 was found in the same bunchgrass vicinity as FFCOCA1 and 2, though on 1 July. Additionally, 4 of the 5 collected snake molts from 55-Mile were molts from Racers.

Table 14. Detections of Western Yellow-bellied Racer, Big Flat HMU. Detection Date detected Method Habitat

BFCOCA1 24 June 2008 Incidental detection (dead) Shrub-steppe BFCOCA2 24 June 2008 Incidental detection Grassland BFCOCA3 24 June 2008 Incidental detection Grass/ blackberry edge

Figure 28. GPS detection points of Racer, Big Flat HMU.



Table 15. Detections of Western Yellow-bellied Racer, 55-Mile HMU. Detection name Date detected Method Habitat

FFCOCA1(2 snakes) 21 May 2008 VES Bunchgrass FFCOCA2 21 May 2008 VES Bunchgrass FFCOCA3 21 May 2008 Coverboard Shrub-steppe FFCOCA4 30 June 2008 Incidental detection (dead) Russian Olive grassland FFCOCA5 1 July 2008 VES Bunchgrass

Skookum HMU Racers were detected at Skookum in high numbers by snakeskin molt identification, coverboard and VES. SKCOCA1 was of a Racer found on 19 May under a vegetated coverboard at SK6C in a draw with large boulders at 5160496.5 N, 390758.4 E (zone 11N WGS 84 datum). SKCOCA2 was a Racer detected by VES in shrub-steppe habitat with rock outcroppings on 3 at 5161115.6 N, 390270.0 E (zone 11N WGS 84 datum). Of the 20 snakeskin molts collected at Skookum, 8 were identified to be from Racers (Appendix B).

Figure 29. GPS detection points of Racer, 55-Mile HMU.



Figure 30. Above: juvenile Racer found under coverboard FF8E. Below: Adult Racer captured during VES (both at 55-Mile HMU, found 21 May 2008).



Gopher Snake The subspecies of Gopher Snake in our study area is known as the Great Basin Gopher Snake. In Washington state, Gopher Snakes are only found east of the Cascades where their distribution spans the Columbia basin (WA Herp Atlas, 2005). Known by locals as the “bullsnake”, it is one of the most widespread and commonly occurring herptile species in the Columbia basin. They are often mistaken for rattlesnakes, which differ in that rattlesnakes have vertical pupils, possess vertical “sensing” pits and a rattle (which Gopher Snakes will often mimic by shaking their rattle-less tails and hissing). Gopher Snakes have keeled dorsal scales, and are usually a beige or tan color overall with dark, squarish blotchings along the dorsal side and smaller dark markings along their sides. Gopher Snakes specialize in small mammals for prey, though they will take birds, bird eggs, lizards and insects (Nafis 2009). While active day or night depending on temperatures, they commonly bask, fully extended, on paved or gravel roads in the evening or early morning hours. In Washington state, they can be found in shrub-steppe, white oak and ponderosa forests and often spend the majority of hot days underground in small mammal burrows. We found them in bunchgrass and grassland communities, dominated by Intermediate wheatgrass, Russian Olive thickets, in brush piles and in sagebrush habitat (Figure 31).

Figure 31. Gopher Snake Habitats13%

27%

13%7%

7%

13%

13%

7% Brushpile

Bunchgrass


Grassland with forbs

Riparian


Sagebrush

Shrub-steppe

Occurrences on HMUs Villard Ponds HMU Gopher Snakes were not detected during any survey at Villard Ponds. One was seen incidentally crossing a trail during small mammal surveys on 9 June 2008 at 5117709.8 N, 344366.5 E (zone 11N WGS 84 datum). It was heading from riprap and sagebrush towards a cattail-lined pond, crossing a sandy path. A Gopher Snake was also detected at the Cummins Property during small mammal surveys (I. Engilis, pers. comm.). Big Flat HMU Two Gopher Snakes were detected at Big Flat by VES. BFPICA1 was found at 5128707.0 N, 363183.9 E and BFPICA2 at 51285553.5 N, 363088.8 E (zone 11N, WGS 84 datum). Both were seen in and among brush piles in grassland habitat and adjacent to irrigated Russian Olive thickets on 14 May 2008.



Lost Island HMU No Gopher Snakes were detected by any search method at Lost Island. They probably occur in the HMU but were not detected by any of our search methods. Hollebeke HMU A Gopher Snake was incidentally observed crossing a gravel road within shrub-steppe habitat near the HMU entrance on 18 May 2008. This snake had one good eye and part of its tail was missing (detection HOPICA1 at 5136486.4N, 370292.5E: zone 11N, WGS84 datum). A second Gopher Snake was found under the “vegetated” coverboard at HO7D on 28 June 2008, looking ready to molt with a milky eye and overall dull appearance (detection HOPICA2 at 5137328.1 N, 370541.3 E: zone 11N, WGS84 datum). 55-Mile HMU Gopher Snakes were detected by three methods at 55-Mile (Table 16, Figure 33). The snake at detection FFPICA1 was found under the “bare” coverboard at FF9E on 21 May 2008 and may have eaten a rodent, for there looked to be remains of a rodent nest under the board and large snake droppings. When handled, it exhibited the tail shaking and hissing behavior reminiscent of rattlesnakes. Among the Gopher Snakes found by VES, one was spotted in bunchgrass/shrub-steppe edge habitat, the other in bunchgrass habitat along the shoreline (detections FFPICA2, 5). Two Gopher Snakes seen incidentally were along Russian Olive and irrigated grassland edge (detections FFPICA3, 4).

Table 16. Detections of Gopher Snakes, 55-Mile HMU. Detection name Date detected Method Habitat

FFPICA1 21 May 2008 Coverboard survey Sagebrush FFPICA2 21 May 2008 VES Bunchgrass FFPICA3 30 June 2008 Incidental detection Russian Olive grassland FFPICA4 16 Sept 2008 Incidental detection Russian Olive grassland FFPICA5 17 Sept 2008 VES Bunchgrass

Figure 32. MWFB researcher handling a Gopher Snake for measurement, Hollebeke HMU.



Skookum HMU Gopher Snakes were detected by VES and coverboards at Skookum (Table 17, Figure 34). A coverboard transect (SK1) laid out in bunchgrass/blackberry edge produced the majority of detections of Gopher Snakes. The first was on 19 May 2008 at SK1E (detection SKPICA1), the second was found under the same “vegetated” board on 2 July 2008 (detection SKPICA2). Two snakes were found under a single board at SK1C on 2 July 2008 (detection SKPICA3). The board at SK1C was covering a rodent nest as well as a very deep mammal burrow and one of the snakes attempted to escape down it before MWFB researchers captured it (Figure 35). This observation reinforces the concept that Gopher Snakes target rodent nests and use their burrows as a means of escape or hiding. The snake at SKPICA4 was detected during a VES, basking in grasses within the native riparian and irrigated section of the HMU.

Table 17. Detections of Gopher Snakes, Skookum HMU. Detection name Date detected Method Habitat

SKPICA1 19 May 2008 Coverboard survey Grass/ blackberry edge SKPICA2 2 July 2008 Coverboard survey Grass/ blackberry edge

SKPICA3 (2 snakes) 2 July 2008 Coverboard survey Bunchgrass SKPICA4 19 Sept 2008 VES Riparian

Figure 33. GPS detection points of Gopher Snake, 55-Mile HMU.



Figure 34. GPS detection points of Gopher Snake, Skookum HMU.

Figure 35. One of two adult Gopher Snake found under a single coverboard at SKPICA3, 2 July 2008.



Wandering Garter Snake The Wandering Garter Snake is the subspecies of Western Terrestrial Garter Snake that occurs in our study area. It is a relatively slender snake of medium length, head just barely wider than body. They are variable in color, but like most other garter snake species, exhibit a lateral striping pattern along the body. They usually have a green, grey or brownish background with yellow, brownish, orange, dorsal and lateral stripes from the head that fade into the tail (Nafis 2009).

Wandering Garter Snakes are typically diurnal, and in arid climates like the Columbia basin, are likely to be found near a water source, though they are chiefly terrestrial (Stebbins 2003, Nafis 2009). They can occupy a variety of habitats, including shrub-steppe, grassy meadows, forests and riparian areas (Nafis 2009). Our one detection occurred bordering wetland habitat. Occurrences on HMUs Only one garter snake was detected during the 2008 season, and this was a Wandering Garter Snake at Big Flat HMU. It was seen emerging to bask with 8 Northern Pacific Rattlesnakes on 25 June at a possible hibernacula site located at 5129227.3 N, 361947.4 E (zone 11N, WGS 84 datum). Again at this spot on 13 Sept, 9 rattlesnakes were seen. The habitat consisted of rip-rap rock piles at the base of the gravel state road within the sandbar willow edge of the wetland (the east end of Dalton Lake). The Wandering Garter Snake had cloudy eyes, an overall dull appearance with a faint dorsal stripe, with a tan and green background color and was approximately 3 feet in length (Figure 36). We could not catch it due to the rocky habitat and close proximity to rattlesnakes. Photos taken reveal 8 upper labial scales, confirming it as a Wandering Garter Snake. A Wandering Garter Snake was also detected at the Walla Walla River Delta HMU during summer bird surveys on 3 June 2008 (J. Trochet, pers. comm.). We believe that garter snakes are more widespread than detections indicate. Despite targeted attempts to locate this species and the Valley Garter Snake in riparian, wetland and shoreline habitat, we did not detect any other garter snakes at any HMU. They can be elusive and move quickly when disturbed through thick vegetation, possibly explaining our few detections.

Figure 36. Wandering Garter Snake (center) in close proximity to two Northern Pacific Rattlesnakes (bottom right). Note milky eye and dull appearance, evidence of it about to molt.



Northern Pacific Rattlesnake The Northern Pacific Rattlesnake is the subspecies of Western Rattlesnake that occurs in our study area. It is the only venomous snake within our study area. One of the most widely known characters is the rattle, which grows by one “button” at a time, each time the snake sheds its skin. The cryptic coloration depends on the substrate where they can be found – from brown to olive with dark spots 2/3 of the way along the dorsum lined with black and white that change to dark bars which appear like rings closer to the tail (Nafis 2009). Dorsal scales are strongly keeled, and the scale above the eye is enlarged. Pupils are vertical, and along the snout, small holes or “pits” are capable of detecting infrared heat. Gopher Snakes have round pupils, smaller dorsal spots in more of a checkered pattern, a dark band over the eyes and the top of the head, more weakly keeled scales, and lack pits and a rattle. Night Snake can be distinguished from juvenile Western Rattlesnakes by the smooth scales, smaller, denser dark markings, and lack of pits and a rattle.

The distribution of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake in Washington state spans the Columbia basin, and is only found east of the Cascades (WA Herp Atlas, 2005, WDFW 2009). They begin to emerge from winter hibernacula in the Columbia Basin around April, when temperatures begin to warm up. Mating will take place in the vicinity of the hibernacula, before adults disperse to summer wintering grounds. They occupy a variety of habitats, from open forest to shrub steppe, and are known to over winter in rock outcropping, talus and burrows (Nafis 2009). Our numerous findings of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake demonstrate that this species is truly a habitat generalist, and was found in the greatest variety of habitats of all species detected (Figure 37).

Figure 37. Northern Pacific Rattlesnake Habitats

3%

15%

2%

2%

5%

5%

12%

5%

41%

3%

2%

2%

3%

Brush pile

Bunchgrass


Grassland

Quarry

Rock outcrop

Rock pile/ base of bluffs

Rock pile/ grassland

Rock pile/ wetland edge


Russian Olive/ blackberry edge

Sagebrush

Shrub-steppe

Occurrences on HMUs Villard Ponds HMU No Northern Pacific Rattlesnakes were detected by any search method at Villard Ponds. There are no records of rattlesnakes from this part of the Columbia/ Snake River confluence (WA Herp Atlas, 2005).



Big Flat HMU Northern Pacific Rattlesnakes were detected by VES at Big Flat HMU (Table 18, Figure 39). We discovered a possible hibernacula, where on two occasions, multiple rattlesnakes were seen. On 25 June at detection BFCRVI1, 8 rattlesnakes were seen within a 10 meter stretch of rip-rap at the base of the gravel state road within the sandbar willow (Salix exigua) edge of the wetland (the east end of Dalton Lake). Sharing in their company was also a Wandering Garter Snake, as described in that species account. According to the Washington Herp Atlas (2005) most adults snakes found within Washington are around 2 feet in length (60 centimeters) with the largest at 151 centimeters. We found snakes along Snake River HMUs much larger than the estimated 2 feet – some up to four feet in length. One of the 8 snakes was also engaged in physical intertwining with another rattlesnake, and molted simultaneously as we watched. The two rattlesnakes observed in this manner were exhibiting male-male combat, a competition strategy for mates; this observation reinforces the possibility that this observation was at a probable hibernacula site, as rattlesnakes will often breed not far from hibernacula sites (R. C. Thomson, pers. comm.). We collected the freshly molted skin from the rattlesnake from this “hotspot” and measured it to be 125 cm (49 inches). All 8 snakes ranged in size from 2 feet to just over 4 feet. On 11 Sept, 9 rattlesnakes were detected in this same area, emerging from the rocks to bask as the morning sun emerged (detection BFCRVI2). Detection point BFCRVI2 was of a rattlesnake found during an evening VES among bluffs and shrub-steppe. It was coiled up at the base of the bluffs and was spooked by our approach and flashlights; it retreated vertically through a crack in the rock face.

Table 18. Detections of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, Big Flat HMU. Detection name Date detected Method Habitat

BFCRVI1 25 June 2008 VES Rock pile/ wetland edge BFCRVI2 25 June 2008 Nocturnal VES Rock pile/ base of bluffs BFCRVI3 11 Sept 2008 VES Rock pile/ wetland edge

Figure 38. A nocturnal detection of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake found in sagebrush habitat, 55-Mile HMU (note strike position).



Lost Island HMU Northern Pacific Rattlesnakes were detected by VES and were seen incidentally at Lost Island (Table 19, Figure 40). One was found along the rip-rap and grassy base of the gravel state road on 16 May 2008 (detection LICRVI1). They were detected at a higher rate in bunchgrass habitat than in the quarry, with 88% of the detections occurring in the southeast end of the HMU. Workers from De Ruwe’s crew had seen rattlesnakes on more than one occasion in the vicinity of the pump house (pers. comm.). It is possible that the exposed basalt columns in the quarry support a population of over wintering rattlesnakes and serve as a hibernacula.

Figure 39. GPS detection points of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, Big Flat HMU.

Figure 40. GPS detection points of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, Lost Island HMU.



Hollebeke HMU Northern Pacific Rattlesnakes were detected by VES at Hollebeke (Table 20, Figure 41). On 13 April 2008, two rattlesnakes were disturbed in their hibernacula at the east end of the HMU at the base of tall basalt cliffs (Figure 42). MWFB researchers were climbing among the rock piles at the base of the cliffs, provoking them to emerge (detection HOCRVI1). A night-time VES on 28 June in the same area yielded a rattlesnake detection among the rock piles at the base of the bluffs (detection HOCRVI2). The third detection was of a snake coiled up under a log in grassland/forb habitat surrounded by Russian Olive thickets (detection HOCRVI3). Rattlesnakes were also detected by positive identification of snakeskin molt (Appendix B).

Table 19. Detections of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, Lost Island HMU. Detection name Date detected Method Habitat

LICRVI1 16 May 2008 VES Rock pile/ grassland LICRVI2 26 June 2008 Incidental detection Bunchgrass LICRVI3 26 June 2008 VES Bunchgrass LICRVI4 26 June 2008 VES Bunchgrass LICRVI5 26 June 2008 Nocturnal VES Quarry LICRVI6 26 June 2008 Nocturnal VES Quarry LICRVI7 12 Sept 2008 VES Quarry LICRVI8 12 Sept 2008 Incidental detection Bunchgrass

Table 20. Detections of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, Hollebeke HMU. Detection name Date detected Method Habitat

HOCRVI1 (2 snakes) 13 April 2008 VES Rock pile/ base of bluffs HOCRVI2 28 June 2008 Nocturnal VES Rock pile/ base of bluffs HOCRVI3 14 Sept 2008 VES Brush pile

Figure 41. GPS detection points of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, Hollebeke HMU.



55-Mile HMU Northern Pacific Rattlesnakes were most commonly detected by VES and found in a variety of habitats at 55-Mile (Table 21, Figure 43). On 21 May 2008, a VES was conducted following rain earlier in the day in Intermediate wheatgrass habitat along the shoreline of the Snake River, when the sunshine emerged in the afternoon and temperatures climbed to 74º Fahrenheit. The relative abundance of animals (animals per hour) found during this VES exceeded that of any VES conducted for the entire 2008 season, at 6 individuals per hour. During this survey, two rattlesnakes were seen (detections FFCRVI1, 2), three Racers as well as a Gopher Snake. The rattlesnakes were coiled up just near a wash filled with wood debris, with the other snakes found within about 200 meters.

Table 21. Detections of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, 55-Mile HMU. Detection name Date detected Method Habitat

FFCRVI1 21 May 2008 VES Bunchgrass FFCRVI2 21 May 2008 VES Bunchgrass FFCRVI3 30 June 2008 Nocturnal VES Rock outcrop FFCRVI4 1 July 2008 VES Bunchgrass FFCRVI5 1 July 2008 VES Grassland FFCRVI6 17 Sept 2008 VES Shrub-steppe FFCRVI7 17 Sept 2008 Incidental detection Russian Olive grassland FFCRVI8 17 Sept 2008 Incidental detection Sagebrush

Figure 42. Rock pile and grassland habitat possibly serving as a hibernacula at the east end of Hollebeke HMU, where 3 rattlesnakes had been detected over the course of the season.



Skookum HMU Northern Pacific Rattlesnakes at Skookum were detected primarily incidentally, during VES and by positive snakeskin identification, with 63% of the detections associated with bluff, rock outcrop or rock pile habitat (Table 22, Figure 44 and Appendix B). On 16 April, two snakes were disturbed among the rock piles bordering the bluffs while researchers were setting up coverboards, and with the cool temperatures early in the season, we suggest that these detections occurred in vicinity of hibernacula (detections SKCRVI1 and 2). Two of the incidental findings occurred in close proximity to our campsite (SKCRVI7, SKCRVI8).

Table 22. Detections of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, Skookum HMU. Detection name Date detected Method Habitat

SKCRVI1 16 April 2008 Incidental detection Rock pile/ base of bluffs SKCRVI2 16 April 2008 Incidental detection Rock pile/ base of bluffs SKCRVI3 19 May 2008 VES Rock outcrop SKCRVI4 19 May 2008 VES Rock pile/ grassland SKCRVI5 2 July 2008 Incidental detection Rock pile/ grassland SKCRVI6 3 July 2008 VES Grass/ blackberry edge SKCRVI7 18 Sept 2008 Incidental detection Russian Olive/ blackberry edge SKCRVI8 19 Sept 2008 Incidental detection Russian Olive grassland

Figure 43. GPS detection points of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, 55-Mile



Figure 44. GPS detection points of Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, Skookum HMU.



Literature Cited Asherin, D. A. and J. J. Claar. 1976. Inventory of riparian habitats and associated wildlife along the

Columbia and Snake Rivers. Volume IIIA. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division.

Brem, F., J. R. Mendelson III, and K. R. Lips. 2007. Field-Sampling Protocol for Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis from Living Amphibians, using Alcohol Preserved Swabs. Version 1.0 (18 July 2007). Electronic document accessible at http://www.amphibians.org Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

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

Corn, P.S.; Bury, R.B. 1990. Sampling methods for terrestrial amphibians and reptiles. General technical report PNW no. GTR-256. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station Portland, OR. 34 pp.

Crother, B. I., Boundy J., Campbell, J. A., de Quieroz, K., Frost, D., Green, D. M. and R. Highton. 2003. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico: Update. Herpetological Review, Vol. 34 (3): 196 – 203.

Davidson, C. 1995. Audio field guide to frog and toad calls of the Pacific Coast- Vanishing Voices. CD/Cassette and booklet. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

Frost, D.R., T. Grant, J. Faivovich, R.H. Bain, A. Haas, C.F.B. Haddad, R.O de Sa, A. Channing, M. Wilkinson, S.C. Donnellan, C. Raxworthy, J.A. Campbell., B.L. Blotto, P. Moler, R.C. Drewes, R.A. Nussbaum, J.D. Lynch, D.M. Green, and W.C. Wheeler. 2006. The amphibian tree of life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 297: 1 – 370.

Green, G.A., Livezy, K. B., and R. L. Morgan. 2001. Habitat Selection by Northern Sagebrush Lizards (Sceloporous graciosus graciosus) in the Columbia Basin, Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist 82: 111 – 115.

Guilfoyle, M. G. 2006. Seasonal Small Mammal Communities in Russian Olive Habitats on Corps of Engineers Habitat Management Units Along the Snake and Columbia Rivers, WA. Progress Report prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. 50 pp.

Kinkead, K. 2006. Iowa multiple species inventory and monitoring program technical manual: Chapter 10: Amphibian and Reptile Monitoring Protocol (p 47 – 55) Wildlife Diversity Program, Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 131 pp.

Lawler, J. J., White, D., Sifneos, J. C., and L. L. Master. 2003. Rare species and the use of indicator groups for conservation planning. Conservation Biology Vol 17 (3) 875 – 882.

Loper, S. and K. Lohman. 1998. Distribution and Abundance of Amphibians and Reptiles in Riparian and Upland Habitats Along the Lower Snake River. Report prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, Walla Walla, Washington. February, 1998. 46 pp.

Lowe, Jason. Personal Communication. 19 May 2009 (Bureau of Land Management). Manley, P. M., Van Horne, B., Roth, J. K., Zielinski, W. J., McKenzie, M. M., Weller, T. J., Weckerly,

F. W., Vojta, C. 2006. Multiple species inventory and monitoring technical guide. Chapter 8, Terrestrial Amphibian and Reptile Monitoring. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-73. Washington D. C.: US Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington office. 204pp.

Mitchell, J. C. Sept 2004. Inventory of amphibians and reptiles of Colonial National Historical Park. National Park Service, Northeast Region Philadelphia, PA. Natural Resources Report NPS/NER/NRTR-2005/006 http://www.nps.gov/ner/science

Nafis, G. (2009). California Reptiles and Amphibians. Available from www.californiaherps.com. Date last accessed: 23 Feb 2009.

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

Olson, Dede. Personal Communication. 26 February 2009 (USDA Forest Service).



Padgett-Flohr, Gretchen. Personal Communication. 23 February 2009 (University of Illinois, Carbondale).

Pittman S. E and M. E. Dorcas. 2006. Catawba River Corridor Coverboard Program: A citizen science approach to amphibian and reptile inventory. Journal of the North Carolina Academy of Sciences, 122 (4): 142 – 151.

Ryan, T. J., Philippi, T., Leiden, Y. A., Dorcas, M. E., Wigley, T. B., and J. W. Gibbons. 2002. Monitoring herpetofauna in a managed forest landscape: effects of habitat types and census techniques. Forest Ecology and Management, Vol 167 (1 to 3): 83 – 90.

Salzer, Lori. Personal Communication. 23 July 2008, 23 February; 19 May 2009 (Washington Dept of Fish and Wildlife).

Skerratt, L. F., Berger, L. Hines, H. B., McDonald, K. R., Mendez, D. and R. Speare. 2008. Survey protocol for detecting chytridiomycosis in all Australian frog populations. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms Vol. 80: 85 – 94.

Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. 533 pp.

Thomson, Robert C. Personal Communication. 7, 30 July; 25 August; 23 September; 19 November; 9, 29 December 2008; 24 February; 19 March 2009 (Shaffer Lab, UC Davis Dept. of Evolution and Ecology).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1996. Project Operations - Environmental Stewardship Operations and Maintenance Guidance and Procedures, EP 1130-2-540; Chapter 2-4, Natural Resources Stewardship: Natural Resources Management Activities. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Walla Walla District, 2002 (February). Final Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Report/ Environmental Impact Statement (FR/EIS) Appendix S, Snake River Maps: Annex B: Pre and Post Dam Comparison Displays.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1991). Lower Snake River Fish and Wildlife Compensation Plan. Boise Field Office. Boise, Idaho. 59pp.

Wagner, Steve. Personal Communication. 26 February 2009 (Central Washington University). Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife 2008. Species of Concern in Washington State. Available

from http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm Date last accessed: 15 Dec 2008 Washington Dept of Fish and Wildlife (last accessed 2009). Washington Gap Analysis Project,

Vertebrate distribution models. Available from http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/gap/vdm.htm Date last accessed: 10 March 2009.

Washington Herp Atlas, 2005. Washington Natural Heritage Program, Washington Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management and US Forest Service. Available from http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/herp/ Date last accessed: 20 March 2009

Weaver, R. E. 2008. Distribution, abundance and habitat associations of Night Snake (Hypsiglena torquata) in Washington state. Northwestern Naturalist 89: 164 – 170.



Appendix A. Species list for Walla Walla District HMUs, entire study area (lower Snake River). Species

code Scientific Name Vernacular Name Status

AMTI Ambystoma tigrinum Tiger Salamander PO AMMA Ambystoma macrodactylum columbianus Long-toed Salamander CO SPIN Spea intermontana Great Basin Spadefoot PR BUBO Bufo boreas boreas Western Toad * PO BUWO Bufo woodhousii woodhousii Woodhouse's Toad a CO PSRE Pseudacris regilla Pacific Treefrog b CO RALU Rana luteiventris Columbia Spotted Frog * PO RAPI Rana pipiens Northern Leopard Frog PO RACT Rana catesbeiana American Bullfrog CO CHPI Chrysemys picta Painted Turtle CO SCOC Sceloporus occidentalis Western Fence Lizard * PO SCGR Sceloporus graciosus graciosus Sagebrush Lizard PO UTST Uta stansburiana Common Side-blotched Lizard PO PHDO Phrynosoma douglasii Pigmy Short-horned Lizard PO EUSK Plestiodon skiltonianus skiltonianus Western Skink c CO CHBO Charina bottae Rubber Boa CO DIPU Diadophis punctatus Ring-necked Snake PO COCA Coluber constrictor mormon Racer CO MATA Masticophis taeniatus Striped Whipsnake PO PICA Pituophis catenifer deserticola Gopher Snake CO THSI Thamnophis sirtalis fitchi Common Garter Snake PR THEL Thamnophis elegans vagrans Western Terrestrial Garter Snake CO HYTO Hypsiglena chlorophaea Night Snake d PO CRVI Crotalus oreganus oreganus Western Rattlesnake e CO

PO: Possibly occurring; PR: Probably occurring; CO: Confirmed along study area * Species out of distributional range for HMUs surveyed in 2008 (Walla Walla and Franklin counties) Literature consulted for species list: Stebbins (2003), Washington Gap Analysis, WDFW Herp Atlas, R.C. Thomson, UC Davis.

Nomenclature follows Stebbins (2003) with the following name adjustments: a Crother, B. I., Boundy J., Campbell, J. A., de Quieroz, K., Frost, D., Green, D. M. and R. Highton. 2003. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico: Update. Herpetological Review, vol. 34, no. 3. 196-203. b Faivovich, J., Systematic review of the frog family Hylidae, with special reference to the Hylinae: phylogenetic analysis and taxonomic revision. 2005 Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 294: 1-240 c Smith Hobart M. 2005. Plestiodon: a Replacement Name for Most Members of the Genus Eumeces in North America. Journal of Kansas Herpetology. Number 14 d Mulcahy, D. G. 2008. Phylogeography and species boundaries of the western North American Nightsnake (Hypsiglena torquata): Revisiting the subspecies concept. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 46: 1095 – 1115. e Ashton, K.G. & A. de Queiroz. 2001. Molecular Systematics of the western rattlesnake, Crotalus viridis (Viperidae), with comments on the utility of the D-Loop in phylogenetic studies of snakes. Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution 21:176-189.



Appendix B. Snakeskin molt identifications. HMU Detection name Habitat Date found Identification (common name) 55-Mile FFMOLT1 Sagebrush 16 Sept 2008 Western Yellow-bellied Racer

55-Mile FFMOLT2 Base of bluffs/ shrub-steppe 16 Sept 2008 Rubber Boa

55-Mile FFMOLT3 shrub-steppe 17 Sept 2008 Western Yellow-bellied Racer 55-Mile FFMOLT4 Bunchgrass 17 Sept 2008 Western Yellow-bellied Racer 55-Mile FFMOLT5 Bunchgrass 18 Sept 2008 Western Yellow-bellied Racer

Hollebeke HOMOLT1 Shrub-steppe 15 Sept 2008 un identifiable Hollebeke HOMOLT2 Rock outcrop 15 Sept 2008 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake

Hollebeke HOMOLT3 Rockpile, base of bluffs 15 Sept 2008 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake

Lost Island LIMOLT1 Shrub-steppe 12 Sept 2008 Western Yellow-bellied Racer

Skookum SKMOLT01A found under coverboard 2 July 2008 Inconclusive - Thamnophis sp.

Skookum SKMOLT02 shrub-steppe 2 July 2008 Inconclusive - Thamnophis sp., Pituophis sp.

Skookum SKMOLT03 shrub-steppe 2 July 2008 un identifiable

Skookum SKMOLT04 shrub-steppe 2 July 2008 Inconclusive - Thamnophis sp.,

Pituophis sp. Skookum SKMOLT06 shrub-steppe 3 July 2008 un identifiable Skookum SKMOLT07 shrub-steppe 3 July 2008 Western Yellow-bellied Racer Skookum SKMOLT08 Bunchgrass 3 July 2008 un identifiable Skookum SKMOLT09 Brush pile 18 Sept 2008 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake Skookum SKMOLT10 Grassland 18 Sept 2008 Western Yellow-bellied Racer Skookum SKMOLT11 Shrub-steppe 18 Sept 2008 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake Skookum SKMOLT12 Shrub-steppe 19 Sept 2008 Western Yellow-bellied Racer Skookum SKMOLT13 Shrub-steppe 19 Sept 2008 Western Yellow-bellied Racer Skookum SKMOLT14,15 Rock outcrop 19 Sept 2008 Western Yellow-bellied Racer Skookum SKMOLT16 Shrub-steppe 19 Sept 2008 Western Yellow-bellied Racer Skookum SKMOLT17 Bunchgrass 19 Sept 2008 un identifiable Skookum SKMOLT18 Bunchgrass 19 Sept 2008 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake Skookum SKMOLT19 Bunchgrass 19 Sept 2008 Western Yellow-bellied Racer Skookum SKMOLT20 Bunchgrass 19 Sept 2008 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake Skookum SKMOLT21 Shrub-steppe 19 Sept 2008 Western Yellow-bellied Racer Villard Ponds VPMOLT1 Pond edge 23 June 2008 Western Yellow-bellied Racer Villard Ponds VPcarapace1 Riparian 9 Sept 2008 Painted Turtle See Appendices C through H for UTM coordinates.



Appendix C. Big Flat HMU detection coordinates (WGS84 datum, zone 11N). Detection name Description Northing Easting BFBUWO1 Woodhouse's Toad detection 5129181.6 361904.8 BFBUWO2 Woodhouse's Toad detection 5128493.7 360720.2 BFBUWO3 Woodhouse's Toad detection 5128815.8 361415.7 BFBUWO4 Woodhouse's Toad detection 5128761.6 361305.0 BFBUWO5 Woodhouse's Toad detection 5128649.2 360921.8 BFBUWO6 Woodhouse's Toad detection 5128453.8 360863.4 BFBUWO7 Woodhouse's Toad detection 5128679.4 361059.7 BFBUWO8 Woodhouse's Toad detection 5128654.4 360937.4 BFBUWOtads1 Woodhouse's Toad tadpole detection 5128392.0 360842.8 BFBUWOtads2 Woodhouse's Toad tadpole detection 5128449.5 360757.0 BFCOCA1 Racer detection 5128269.2 361547.4 BFCOCA2 Racer detection 5128437.2 363169.4 BFCOCA3 Racer detection 5128567.3 363217.0 BFCRVI1 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection 5129227.3 361946.6 BFCRVI2 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection 5129070.9 362228.9 BFCRVI3 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection 5129216.3 361944.1 BFPICA1 Gopher Snake detection 5128707.0 363183.9 BFPICA2 Gopher Snake detection 5128553.5 363088.8 BFRACT1 Bullfrog detection 5129188.6 361936.5 BFRACT2 Bullfrog detection 5128449.4 360809.4 BFRACT3 Bullfrog detection 5128648.6 360947.2 BFRACT4 Bullfrog detection 5129105.2 361839.1 BFRACT5 Bullfrog detection 5128684.7 361069.0 BFRACT6 Bullfrog detection 5128673.7 361553.5 BFRACT7 Bullfrog detection 5128571.8 361295.3 BFRACTtads1 Bullfrog tadpole detection 5128682.1 361089.0 BFRACTtads2 Bullfrog tadpole detection 5128598.7 360891.4 BFRANA1 Rana sp. detection 5129203.3 361976.1 BFSNAKE Unknown snake sp. detection 5129274.4 362027.1 BFTHEL1 Wandering Garter Snake detection 5129227.3 361947.4 BFTurtle1 Unknown turtle sp. Detection 5128684.4 361086.0 BFRTHA Red-tailed Hawk nest 5129739.1 363408.9 BFTATA1 Badger detection 5128988.4 362187.8 BFWT1 Guzzler location 5128573.5 362099.8 BFWT2 Guzzler location 5129378.9 362619.6 BFWT3 Guzzler location 5128252.8 362715.2 BFWT4 Guzzler location 5130019.4 362758.0 BFWT5 Guzzler location 5128767.9 362647.4



Appendix D. Lost Island HMU detection coordinates (WGS84 datum, zone 11N). Detection name Description Northing Easting LIBUWO1 Woodhouse's Toad detection 5136277.2 367513.9 LIBUWO2 Woodhouse's Toad detection 5136460.9 366585.3 LIBUWO3 Woodhouse's Toad detection 5136183.6 368240.6 LIBUWO4 Woodhouse's Toad detection 5136214.9 368235.9 LIBUWO5 Woodhouse's Toad detection 5136236.8 368299.5 LIBUWO6 Woodhouse's Toad detection 5136229.0 368097.7 LIBUWO7 Woodhouse's Toad detection 5136485.2 366541.2 LICRVI1 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection 5136417.0 368554.3 LICRVI2 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection 5136018.8 368769.6 LICRVI3 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection 5136162.5 368910.5 LICRVI4 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection 5136176.0 368904.6 LICRVI5 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection 5136220.6 369053.3 LICRVI6 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection 5136224.9 369004.9 LICRVI7 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection 5136200.5 369002.9 LICRVI8 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection 5136046.4 368828.7 LIMOLT1 Snakeskin molt detection 5136258.6 367859.0 LIPOND1 Pond outside main HMU 5136403.7 366559.4 LIWT1 Guzzler location 5136331.4 367937.6 LIWT2 Guzzler location 5136363.5 368608.5

Appendix E. Hollebeke HMU detection coordinates (WGS84 datum, zone 11N). Detection name Description Northing Easting HOBUWO1 Woodhouse's Toad detection 5137003.2 370297.4 HOCRVI1 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection 5137944.7 371134.4 HOCRVI2 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection 5137941.2 371141.3 HOCRVI3 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection 5137574.0 370740.4 HOMOLT1 Snakeskin molt detection 5136341.2 370220.2 HOMOLT2 Snakeskin molt detection 5137855.0 371064.1 HOMOLT3 Snakeskin molt detection 5137940.3 371134.3 HOPICA1 Gopher Snake detection 5136486.4 370292.5 HOPICA2 Gopher Snake detection 5137328.1 370541.3

HOSPINOUT Great Basin Spadefoot tadpole detection (out of HMU) 5134962.7 370013.8

HOWT1 Guzzler location 5137392.2 370194.9 HOWT2 Guzzler location 5136651.0 370337.6 HOWT3 Guzzler location 5137542.7 370642.8

HOLLWT Great Basin Spadefoot tadpole detection (out of HMU) 5135320.2 371395.9

HOPICAOUT Gopher Snaked detection, out of HMU 5135232.4 370975.4 HOSnake1 Unknown snake sp. detection 5137707.9 370560.1



Appendix F. Skookum HMU detection coordinates (WGS84 datum, zone 11N). Detection name Description Northing Easting SKbeaverskull1 Beaver skull detection 5160854.0 390110.4 SKCOCA1 Racer detection 5160496.5 390758.4 SKCOCA2 Racer detection 5161115.6 390270.0 SKCRVI1 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection 5161241.9 390169.6 SKCRVI2 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection 5161211.8 390175.2 SKCRVI3 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection 5161091.0 390278.0 SKCRVI4 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection 5160542.1 390819.7 SKCRVI5 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection 5160498.8 390756.1 SKCRVI6 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection 5161032.6 390065.4 SKCRVI7 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection 5160945.6 390390.2 SKCRVI8 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection 5160935.7 390446.0 SKPSRE1 Pacific Treefrog detection 5160970.5 390302.6 SKMOLT01 Snakeskin molt detection 5160443.4 390680.8 SKMOLT10 Snakeskin molt detection 5161165.5 390031.1 SKMOLT11 Snakeskin molt detection 5161114.7 390320.5 SKMOLT12 Snakeskin molt detection 5161123.5 390204.2 SKMOLT13 Snakeskin molt detection 5161103.0 390104.2 SKMOLT14,15 Snakeskin molt detection 5161085.9 390251.0 SKMOLT16 Snakeskin molt detection 5161109.8 390038.5 SKMOLT17 Snakeskin molt detection 5160750.5 390175.2 SKMOLT18 Snakeskin molt detection 5160647.8 390263.0 SKMOLT19 Snakeskin molt detection 5160593.1 390396.9 SKMOLT02 Snakeskin molt detection 5160430.8 391194.0 SKMOLT20 Snakeskin molt detection 5160588.3 390416.0 SKMOLT21 Snakeskin molt detection 5160567.4 390467.7 SKMOLT03 Snakeskin molt detection 5161165.4 390096.9 SKMOLT04 Snakeskin molt detection 5161143.0 390047.5 SKMOLT06 Snakeskin molt detection 5161135.7 390019.8 SKMOLT07 Snakeskin molt detection 5161156.7 390029.4 SKMOLT08 Snakeskin molt detection 5160744.8 390183.5 SKMOLT09 Snakeskin molt detection 5160595.3 390891.2 SKPICA1 Gopher Snake detection 5161069.6 390170.3 SKPICA2 Gopher Snake detection 5161065.2 390170.2 SKPICA3 Gopher Snake detection (2 snakes) 5161082.4 390078.6 SKPICA4 Gopher Snake detection 5160981.2 390205.5 SKsnake1 Unknown snake sp. detection 5160539.9 390818.9 SKWT1 Guzzler location 5161004.6 390320.8 SKWT2 Guzzler location 5160847.0 390615.3 SKWT3 Guzzler location 5160579.5 390838.8 SKWT4 Guzzler location 5160306.4 392557.3 SKWT5 Guzzler location 5160392.1 391491.4 SKWT6 Guzzler location 5160216.2 393253.8



Appendix G. 55-Mile HMU detection coordinates (WGS84 datum, Zone 11N). Detection name Description Northing Easting FFCOCA1 Racer detection 5161100.8 402120.4 FFCOCA2 Racer detection 5161089.1 402087.2 FFCOCA3 Racer detection 5161991.8 401664.5 FFCOCA4 Racer detection 5161855.2 401184.2 FFCOCA5 Racer detection 5161095.4 402108.8 FFCRVI1 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection 5161110.5 402205.6 FFCRVI2 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection 5161112.7 402211.0 FFCRVI3 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection 5162456.9 400615.7 FFCRVI4 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection 5161096.7 402167.8 FFCRVI5 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection 5161143.3 402169.3 FFCRVI6 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection 5162088.8 400897.7 FFCRVI7 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection 5161530.7 401789.5 FFCRVI8 Northern Pacific Rattlesnake detection 5162048.4 401059.4 FFEUSK1 Western Skink detection 5162161.8 400986.2 FFMOLT1 Snakeskin molt detection 5161855.3 400971.2 FFMOLT2 Snakeskin molt detection 5162166.9 400950.3 FFMOLT3 Snakeskin molt detection 5161986.8 400814.8 FFMOLT4 Snakeskin molt detection 5161098.2 402143.3 FFMOLT5 Snakeskin molt detection 5161525.9 401269.2 FFPICA1 Gopher Snake detection 5161977.4 401183.1 FFPICA2 Gopher Snake detection 5161099.6 402127.2 FFPICA3 Gopher Snake detection 5161855.9 401073.9 FFPICA4 Gopher Snake detection 5161411.1 401903.2 FFPICA5 Gopher Snake detection 5161910.1 400746.2 FFPSRE1 Pacific Treefrog detection 5161791.4 400940.3 FFWT1 Guzzler location 5161647.1 401608.3 FFWT2 Guzzler location 5161859.0 401355.1 FFWT3 Guzzler location 5161416.4 402125.5



Appendix H. Villard Ponds HMU detection coordinates (WGS84 datum, zone 11N). Detection name Description Northing Easting VPBUWO1 Woodhouse's Toad detection 5116566.2 345053.2 VPCHPIcarapace Turtle carapace detection 5117071.2 344822.0 VPDIP Dipnet survey location 5116986.4 344704.0 VPFROG1 Unknown sp. frog detection 5117438.5 344454.5 VPFROG2 Unknown sp. frog detection 5117416.3 344542.8 VPPSRE1 Pacific Treefrog detection 5116881.2 344860.4 VPPSRE2 Pacific Treefrog detection 5116939.8 344787.8 VPPSRE3 Pacific Treefrog detection 5117427.6 344577.0 VPPSRE4 Pacific Treefrog detection 5117994.0 344122.8 VPMOLT1 Snakeskin molt detection 5117508.8 344535.1 VPPICA1 Gopher Snake detection 5117709.8 344366.5 VPRACT1 Bullfrog detection 5117441.3 344477.0 VPRACT2 Bullfrog detection 5117676.2 344289.9 VPRACT3 Bullfrog detection 5116275.0 344829.6 VPRACT4 Bullfrog detection 5117992.8 344125.8 VPRACT5 Bullfrog detection 5116308.5 345131.7 VPRACT6 Bullfrog detection 5116637.4 345093.7 VPRACT7 Bullfrog detection 5116500.4 345280.9 VPRACT8 Bullfrog detection 5116425.7 345333.1 VPSOREX1 Dead Sorex sp. detection 5116894.1 344658.5 VPTURTLE1 Unknown turtle sp. detection 5116949.1 344815.8 VP PNDCCS1 Anuran call survey location 5116794.9 345106.9 VP1 ACCESS Anuran call survey location 5117019.8 344921.9



Appendix I. Big Flat HMU coverboard descriptions and coordinates (WGS84 datum, zone 11N). Dominant species

HMU Transect

name Node Northing Easting Habitat

characterization (I) (II) (III) Big Flat BF1 A 5128298.9 361316.1 Shrub-steppe Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass unknown forb Big Flat BF1 B 5128311.2 361362.6 Shrub-steppe Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass Mustard Big Flat BF1 C 5128299.0 361411.6 Shrub-steppe Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass mustard Big Flat BF1 D 5128284.6 361456.8 Shrub-steppe Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass Russian thistle Big Flat BF1 E 5128309.2 361499.7 Shrub-steppe Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass Big Flat BF1 F 5128269.9 361568.2 Shrub-steppe Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass yarrow Big Flat BF2 A 5128346.4 362015.3 Irrigated tree patch Locust sp. wild rose annual grasses Big Flat BF2 B 5128327.6 362062.7 Irrigated tree patch Locust sp. wild rose annual grasses Big Flat BF2 C 5128305.5 362106.1 Irrigated tree patch Locust sp. Hawthorne sp. annual grasses Big Flat BF2 D 5128285.4 362157.3 Irrigated tree patch Locust sp. wild rose annual grasses Big Flat BF2 E 5128263.4 362198.4 Irrigated tree patch Locust sp. wild rose annual grasses Big Flat BF2 F 5128272.4 362243.3 Irrigated tree patch Locust sp. Him. blackberry annual grasses Big Flat BF3 A 5128056.7 362196.0 Shoreline river Maple sp. Russian olive unknown grass sp. Big Flat BF3 B 5128056.7 362291.6 Shoreline river Alder sp. Prickly lettuce Unknown annual grass sp. Big Flat BF3 C 5128045.9 362327.6 Shoreline river Alder sp. cheatgrass false indigo Big Flat BF3 D 5128024.1 362408.0 Shoreline river Elderberry sp. Alder sp. Rubber rabbitbrush Big Flat BF3 E 5128013.1 362451.7 Shoreline river Alder sp. Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass Big Flat BF3 F 5128004.6 362483.1 Shoreline river False indigo Rubber rabbitbrush prickly lettuce Big Flat BF4 A 5129426.6 363215.4 Shoreline inlet Japanese honeysuckle unknown grass sp. Russian olive Big Flat BF4 B 5129430.5 363193.2 Shoreline inlet Him. blackberry Russian olive unknown grass sp. Big Flat BF4 C 5129433.3 363166.3 Shoreline inlet Russian olive Japanese honeysuckle unknown grass sp. Big Flat BF4 D 5129452.6 363146.7 Shoreline inlet Russian olive Him. blackberry unknown grass sp. Big Flat BF4 E 5129480.4 363097.2 Shoreline inlet Russian olive Japanese honeysuckle Mint sp. Big Flat BF4 F 5129510.8 363080.2 Shoreline inlet Russian olive Hawthorne sp. Japanese honeysuckle Big Flat BF5 A 5129223.4 363108.4 Shrub-steppe Rubber rabbitbrush Unknown bunchgrass sp. Yarrow Big Flat BF5 B 5129266.6 363064.7 Shrub-steppe Big sagebrush Rubber rabbitbrush unknown grass sp. Big Flat BF5 C 5129273.3 363014.8 Shrub-steppe Yellow rabbitbrush Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass Big Flat BF5 D 5129255.4 362969.7 Shrub-steppe Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass unknown forb sp. Big Flat BF5 E 5129220.5 362938.1 Shrub-steppe Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass Yarrow Big Flat BF5 F 5129176.5 362919.4 Shrub-steppe Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass Yarrow



Appendix I, continued Dominant species

HMU Transect


characterization (I) (II) (III) Big Flat BF6 A 5129103.8 363088.0 Shoreline inlet unknown tree sp Russian Olive Him. blackberry Big Flat BF6 B 5129099.9 363110.3 Shoreline inlet Sandbar willow Him. blackberry mustard Big Flat BF6 C 5129109.2 363144.4 Shoreline inlet Sandbar willow Him. blackberry unknown bunchgrass Big Flat BF6 D 5129160.0 363157.1 Shoreline inlet Sandbar willow Russian thistle unknown thistle sp. Big Flat BF6 E 5129202.7 363185.8 Shoreline inlet Unknown grass sp. Sandbar willow Thistle sp. Big Flat BF6 F 5129249.9 363213.8 Shoreline inlet Russian olive Sandbar willow unknown grass sp. Big Flat BF7 A 5128581.2 363241.2 Shoreline river Russian thistle sunflower sp. common reed grass Big Flat BF7 B 5128552.0 363205.1 Shoreline river Tree of heaven Him. blackberry unknown grasses Big Flat BF7 C 5128523.6 363183.6 Shoreline river Maple sp. unknown sedge sp. Russian thistle Big Flat BF7 D 5128485.9 363178.9 Shoreline river Cheatgrass Rubber rabbitbrush Locust sp. Big Flat BF7 E 5128437.1 363173.2 Shoreline river Him. blackberry Russian olive cheatgrass Big Flat BF7 F 5128389.3 363173.7 Shoreline river Common reed grass Rubber rabbitbrush mustard Big Flat BF8 A 5128599.3 360916.8 Pond edge Sandbar willow Rubber rabbitbrush Unknown forb sp. Big Flat BF8 B 5128633.7 360869.8 Pond edge Sandbar willow Russian thistle Unknown bunchgrass sp. Big Flat BF8 C 5128661.5 360919.8 Pond edge Sandbar willow Unknown forb sp. Unknown annual grass sp. Big Flat BF8 D 5128666.3 360952.3 Pond edge Sandbar willow Unknown forb sp. Russian thistle Big Flat BF8 E 5128670.7 361003.2 Pond edge Sandbar willow Russian thistle Unknown annual grass sp. Big Flat BF8 F 5128702.6 361116.4 Pond edge Sandbar willow sunflower sp. Unknown forb sp. Big Flat BF9 A 5129347.0 362160.4 Wetland edge Russian olive unknown annual grass sp. Him. blackberry Big Flat BF9 B 5129346.4 362139.6 Wetland edge Russian olive unknown annual grass sp. wild rose Big Flat BF9 C 5129322.0 362086.7 Wetland edge Russian olive unknown forb sp. Unknown annual grass sp. Big Flat BF9 D 5129303.8 362053.9 Wetland edge Sandbar willow unknown sedge sp. Him. blackberry Big Flat BF9 E 5129277.7 362027.9 Wetland edge Russian olive unknown sedge sp. unknown forb sp. Big Flat BF9 F 5129241.8 361996.3 Wetland edge Sandbar willow unknown bunchgrass sp. cattail Big Flat BF10 A 5129004.7 362206.6 Rock pile Russian thistle cheatgrass sunflower sp. Big Flat BF10 B 5128994.4 362219.5 Bluffs cheatgrass Rubber rabbitbrush rock/lichen Big Flat BF10 C 5129024.8 362251.0 Bluffs Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass rock/lichen Big Flat BF10 D 5129082.7 362244.6 Bluffs Rubber rabbitbrush Unknown bunchgrass sp. cheatgrass Big Flat BF10 E 5129097.3 362241.1 Bluffs cheatgrass Rubber rabbitbrush lichen Big Flat BF10 F 5129022.8 362240.2 Bluffs cheatgrass sunflower sp. Rubber rabbitbrush Big Flat BF11 A 5129204.3 362225.8 Russian olive edge Russian olive mint sp. Him. blackberry



Appendix I, continued Dominant species

HMU Transect


characterization (I) (II) (III) Big Flat BF11 B 5129198.7 362178.7 Russian olive edge Russian olive unknown annual grass sp. Hawthorne sp. Big Flat BF11 C 5129237.2 362148.7 Russian olive edge Russian olive Him. blackberry unknown grass sp. Big Flat BF11 D 5129255.7 362117.5 Russian olive edge Russian olive cheatgrass unknown bunchgrass sp. Big Flat BF11 E 5129258.9 362072.9 Russian olive edge Russian olive unknown annual grass sp. unknown vine sp.

Big Flat BF11 F 5129212.8 362048.0 Blackberry/ grass edge Him. blackberry unknown annual grass sp. prickly lettuce

Big Flat BF12 A 5129536.0 363297.2 Shoreline inlet Russian olive Sandbar willow unknown herb sp. Big Flat BF12 B 5129515.1 363237.5 Shoreline inlet unknown herb sp. Russian olive Currant sp. Big Flat BF12 C 5129538.6 363179.4 Shoreline inlet Russian olive unknown herb sp. cheatgrass Big Flat BF12 D 5129536.5 363124.7 Shoreline inlet common reed grass Russian thistle Sandbar willow Big Flat BF12 E 5129545.0 363092.5 Shoreline inlet Russian olive unknown grass sp. unknown vine sp. Big Flat BF12 F 5129561.6 363048.2 Shoreline inlet Russian olive wild rose mustard sp. Big Flat BF13 A 5129692.7 363397.1 Restoration Aspen Currant sp. Him. blackberry Big Flat BF13 B 5129711.7 363342.8 Restoration Aspen Pine sp. Him. blackberry Big Flat BF13 C 5129724.8 363301.5 Restoration Aspen Him. blackberry Unknown annual grass sp. Big Flat BF13 D 5129742.8 363245.6 Restoration Aspen pine sp. Unknown annual grass sp. Big Flat BF13 E 5129764.7 363210.7 Restoration Aspen Japanese honeysuckle Him. blackberry Big Flat BF13 F 5129805.5 363173.9 Restoration Aspen Russian olive Unknown annual grass sp. Big Flat BF14 A 5128343.7 362628.6 Sagebrush Big sagebrush Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass Big Flat BF14 B 5128328.1 362580.5 Sagebrush Big sagebrush Rubber rabbitbrush unknown grass sp. Big Flat BF14 C 5128290.6 362518.0 Sagebrush Big sagebrush Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass Big Flat BF14 D 5128264.0 362565.2 Sagebrush Rubber rabbitbrush Yellow rabbitbrush cheatgrass Big Flat BF14 E 5128242.9 362611.7 Sagebrush Rubber rabbitbrush Arrow-leaf balsamroot cheatgrass Big Flat BF14 F 5128290.3 362632.8 Sagebrush Big sagebrush native annual grass sp. Arrow-leaf balsamroot Big Flat BF15 A 5128177.0 360665.2 Shrub-steppe Locust sp. Prickly lettuce unknown bunchgrass sp. Big Flat BF15 B 5128108.5 360551.2 Shrub-steppe Yellow rabbitbrush Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass Big Flat BF15 C 5128200.8 360647.3 Non-irrigated trees Russian olive Russian thistle Black cottonwood Big Flat BF15 D 5128316.4 360599.8 Non-irrigated trees Black cottonwood Russian olive Juniper sp. Big Flat BF15 E 5128294.5 360581.6 Non-irrigated trees Black cottonwood Russian olive unknown annual grass sp. Big Flat BF15 F 5128271.8 360555.7 Non-irrigated trees Black cottonwood Russian olive Juniper sp.



Appendix J. Lost Island HMU coverboard descriptions and coordinates (WGS84 datum, zone 11N). Dominant species

HMU Transect


characterization (I) (II) (III) Lost Island LI1 A 5136269.0 367635.3 Shrub-steppe Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass Yarrow Lost Island LI1 B 5136261.3 367684.4 Shrub-steppe Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass Unknown forb sp. Lost Island LI1 C 5136202.7 367720.1 Sagebrush Big sagebrush Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass Lost Island LI1 D 5136225.9 367777.5 Shrub-steppe Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass Unknown forb sp. Lost Island LI1 E 5136243.8 367821.8 Shrub-steppe Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass Unknown forb sp. Lost Island LI1 F 5136269.7 367858.5 Shrub-steppe cheatgrass Rubber rabbitbrush Yarrow Lost Island LI2 A 5136116.8 367938.3 Restoration wild rose black cottonwood native blackberry sp. Lost Island LI2 B 5136138.3 367974.9 Restoration wild rose native blackberry sp. unknown annual grass sp. Lost Island LI2 C 5136173.0 368011.9 Restoration Locust sp. wild rose unknown annual grass sp. Lost Island LI2 D 5136211.0 368053.5 Restoration Black cottonwood unknown annual grass sp. native blackberry sp. Lost Island LI2 E 5136229.0 368096.2 Restoration Juniper sp. wild rose unknown annual grass sp. Lost Island LI2 F 5136264.0 368124.6 Restoration Unknown tree sp. Juniper sp. wild rose Lost Island LI3 A 5136009.5 368220.7 Shoreline inlet Alder unknown reed sp. unknown vine sp. Lost Island LI3 B 5136052.5 368237.0 Shoreline inlet Maple sp. Sandbar willow unknown sedge sp. Lost Island LI3 C 5136086.7 368248.6 Shoreline inlet Tree of heaven Him. blackberry unknown tree sp. Lost Island LI3 D 5136117.5 368263.8 Shoreline inlet Maple sp. Locust sp. Him. blackberry Lost Island LI3 E 5136140.9 368264.3 Shoreline inlet Maple sp. unknown sedge sp. wild rose Lost Island LI3 F 5136171.4 368239.6 Shoreline inlet wild rose Horsetail false indigo Lost Island LI4 A 5136498.4 369109.3 Rock pile cheatgrass fiddleneck Rubber rabbitbrush

Lost Island LI4 B 5136457.9 369076.9 degraded shrub-

steppe cheatgrass unknown shrub sp. Yarrow

Lost Island LI4 C 5136452.3 369029.0 degraded shrub-

steppe cheatgrass Rubber rabbitbrush unknown shrub sp.

Lost Island LI4 D 5136411.9 368996.6 degraded shrub-

steppe Russian thistle cheatgrass prickly lettuce

Lost Island LI4 E 5136393.0 368944.7 degraded shrub-

steppe cheatgrass unknown annual grass sp. Rubber rabbitbrush

Lost Island LI4 F 5136362.8 368898.6 degraded shrub-

steppe Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass fiddleneck

Lost Island LI4 G 5136338.6 368838.1 degraded shrub-

steppe Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass vetch



Appendix J., continued Dominant species

HMU Transect


characterization (I) (II) (III)

Lost Island LI4 H 5136321.5 368804.6 degraded shrub-steppe Yarrow Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass

Lost Island LI4 I 5136322.3 368766.2 degraded shrub-steppe Rubber rabbitbrush Yellow rabbitbrush cheatgrass

Lost Island LI5 A 5136227.9 369023.5 Quarry cheatgrass unknown shrub sp. Russian thistle Lost Island LI5 B 5136250.6 369054.0 Quarry Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass unknown shrub sp. Lost Island LI5 C 5136285.8 369119.3 Quarry Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass sunflower sp. Lost Island LI6 A 5136110.3 368957.8 Shoreline river Alder unknown maple sp. unknown forb sp. Lost Island LI6 B 5136093.6 368910.5 Shoreline river unknown tree sp. unknown annual grass sp. unknown forb sp.

Lost Island LI6 C 5136063.4 368866.8 Shoreline river Intermediate wheatgrass unknown tree sp. Him. blackberry

Lost Island LI6 D 5136035.3 368830.0 Shoreline river Sandbar willow Intermediate wheatgrass wild rose Lost Island LI6 E 5136013.9 368791.1 Shoreline river False indigo Intermediate wheatgrass Alder

Lost Island LI6 F 5136001.3 368753.8 Shoreline river Common reed grass Intermediate wheatgrass false indigo

Lost Island LI7 A 5136345.1 368331.9 Russian olive edge Russian olive wild rose native blackberry sp. Lost Island LI7 B 5136347.6 368370.4 Russian olive edge Russian olive unknown annual grass sp. unknown vine sp. Lost Island LI7 C 5136348.0 368400.4 Russian olive edge Unknown tree sp. Russian olive unknown annual grass sp. Lost Island LI7 D 5136333.4 368458.6 Irrigated tree patch Plum sp. wild rose mint sp. Lost Island LI7 E 5136337.8 368511.8 Russian olive edge Russian olive unknown annual grass sp. unknown annual grass sp. Lost Island LI7 F 5136343.5 368560.4 Russian olive edge Russian olive unknown annual grass sp. downed woody debris



Appendix K. Hollebeke HMU coverboard descriptions and coordinates (WGS84 datum, zone 11N). Dominant species

HMU Transect


characterization (I) (II) (III) Hollebeke HO1 A 5137398.5 370318.9 Sagebrush Big sagebrush cheatgrass unknown forb sp. Hollebeke HO1 B 5137370.0 370296.0 Sagebrush Big sagebrush cheatgrass fiddleneck Hollebeke HO1 C 5137338.6 370258.4 Sagebrush cheatgrass Big sagebrush native annual grass sp. Hollebeke HO1 D 5137285.4 370251.1 Sagebrush Big sagebrush cheatgrass Rubber rabbitbrush Hollebeke HO1 E 5137249.0 370238.0 Sagebrush Big sagebrush cheatgrass downded woody debris Hollebeke HO1 F 5137249.3 370277.2 Sagebrush Big sagebrush cheatgrass Rubber rabbitbrush Hollebeke HO2 A 5137600.3 370236.2 degraded shrub-steppe cheatgrass unknown shrub sp. native annual grass sp. Hollebeke HO2 B 5137560.6 370220.0 degraded shrub-steppe cheatgrass fiddleneck Yellow rabbitbrush Hollebeke HO2 C 5137503.5 370188.0 degraded shrub-steppe cheatgrass Big sagebrush native annual grass sp. Hollebeke HO2 D 5137432.0 370206.5 Irrigated tree plot Japanese honeysuckle unknown forb sp. Russian olive

Hollebeke HO2 E 5137390.0 370192.5 Irrigated tree plot unknown forb sp. unknown forb sp. Juniper sp. Hollebeke HO2 F 5137351.5 370228.6 Irrigated tree plot cheatgrass unknown forb sp. Big sagebrush Hollebeke HO3 A 5137177.2 370165.7 Russian olive edge wild rose cheatgrass mullein Hollebeke HO3 B 5137212.3 370188.7 Russian olive edge Russian olive unknown annual grass sp. Japanese honeysuckle Hollebeke HO3 C 5137201.2 370134.6 Russian olive edge Hawthorne sp. Russian olive Him. blackberry Hollebeke HO3 D 5137152.1 370088.2 Russian olive edge Japanese honeysuckle Plum sp. unknown forb sp. Hollebeke HO3 E 5137120.4 370063.7 Russian olive edge Plum sp. unknown bunchgrass sp.

Hollebeke HO3 F 5137086.4 370044.5 Russian olive edge Intermediate wheatgrass Russian Olive cheatgrass

Hollebeke HO4 A 5136872.0 370089.9 Russian olive/shoreline inlet Russian olive unknown annual grass sp.

Hollebeke HO4 B 5136897.7 370136.6 Russian olive/shoreline inlet Russian olive unknown annual grass sp. Him. blackberry

Hollebeke HO4 C 5136939.7 370199.8 Russian olive/shoreline inlet Russian olive unknown annual grass sp. Him. blackberry

Hollebeke HO4 D 5136903.4 370231.4 Riparian/ shoreline inlet Alder sp. unknown annual grass sp. Him. blackberry

Hollebeke HO4 E 5136886.0 370267.2 Riparian/ shoreline inlet unknown forb sp. Russian olive poison hemlock

Hollebeke HO4 F 5136873.2 370294.6 Riparian/ shoreline inlet

unknown annual grass sp. Russian olive poison hemlock

Hollebeke HO5 A 5136385.3 370288.8 Shrub-steppe Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass mustard sp.



Appendix K. continued Dominant species

HMU Transect


characterization (I) (II) (III) Hollebeke HO5 B 5136357.9 370269.8 Shrub-steppe cheatgrass Rubber rabbitbrush sunflower sp. Hollebeke HO5 C 5136310.5 370251.1 Shrub-steppe Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass unknown forb sp. Hollebeke HO5 D 5136274.6 370216.4 Shrub-steppe cheatgrass Rubber rabbitbrush prickly lettuce Hollebeke HO5 E 5136236.2 370188.7 Shrub-steppe cheatgrass Rubber rabbitbrush native annual grass sp. Hollebeke HO5 F 5136209.1 370156.6 Shrub-steppe Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass Yellow rabbitbrush

Hollebeke HO6 A 5137905.9 371182.9 Grassland/ rock outcrop cheatgrass native bunchgrass sp. Rubber rabbitbrush

Hollebeke HO6 B 5137886.3 371164.7 Grassland/ rock outcrop native bunchgrass sp. cheatgrass Yarrow

Hollebeke HO6 C 5137872.7 371121.4 Grassland/ rock outcrop native bunchgrass sp. cheatgrass lichen

Hollebeke HO6 D 5137852.7 371068.6 Grassland/ rock outcrop cheatgrass lichen vetch

Hollebeke HO6 E 5137882.5 371080.8 Grassland/ rock outcrop cheatgrass vetch

Hollebeke HO6 F 5137852.9 371007.1 Grassland/ rock outcrop unknown grass sp. vetch prickly lettuce

Hollebeke HO7 A 5137231.8 370418.4 Sagebrush Big sagebrush Rubber rabbitbrush unknown grass sp. Hollebeke HO7 B 5137234.2 370464.6 Russian olive edge Russian olive unknown grass sp. Hollebeke HO7 C 5137317.0 370490.3 Russian olive edge Russian olive Him. blackberry mint sp. Hollebeke HO7 D 5137330.2 370548.2 Grassland with forbs Prairie goldenrod mullein Russian thistle Hollebeke HO7 E 5137330.1 370605.9 Irrigated tree plot Japanese honeysuckle Locust sp. unknown grass sp.

Hollebeke HO7 F 5137405.3 370622.2 Irrigated tree plot unknown annual grass sp. Locust sp. Serviceberry

Hollebeke HO8 A 5137754.6 370609.6 Shrub-steppe cheatgrass Big sagebrush unknown bunchgrass sp. Hollebeke HO8 B 5137725.5 370567.4 Shrub-steppe cheatgrass native bunchgrass sp. sunflower sp. Hollebeke HO8 C 5137661.7 370536.1 Shrub-steppe Russian thistle Yellow rabbitbrush cheatgrass Hollebeke HO8 D 5137777.7 370467.0 Sagebrush Big sagebrush cheatgrass Yarrow Hollebeke HO8 E 5137754.0 370429.5 Shrub-steppe cheatgrass Yellow rabbitbrush Rubber rabbitbrush Hollebeke HO8 F 5137740.8 370374.6 Shrub-steppe cheatgrass native bunchgrass sp. Russian thistle



Appendix L. Skookum HMU coverboard descriptions and coordinates (WGS84 datum, zone 11N). Dominant species

HMU Transect

name Node Northing Easting Habitat characterization (I) (II) (III) Skookum SK1 A 5161126.2 389993.6 Shrub-steppe Rubber rabbitbrush bluebunch wheatgrass cheatgrass Skookum SK1 B 5161099.9 390035.2 Grass/ blackberry edge unknown grass sp. Him. blackberry unknown tree sp. Skookum SK1 C 5161083.5 390080.9 Bunchgrass Intermediate wheatgrass mint sp. teasel sp.

Skookum SK1 D 5161072.7 390120.5 Bunchgrass/ blackberry

edge Him. blackberry Intermediate wheatgrass unknown tree sp.

Skookum SK1 E 5161072.9 390171.9 Bunchgrass/ blackberry

edge Him. blackberry Intermediate wheatgrass unknown grass sp.

Skookum SK1 F 5161052.1 390217.5 Bunchgrass/ blackberry

edge Him. blackberry Intermediate wheatgrass Russian olive

Skookum SK2 A 5161156.7 390086.8 Rock outcrop/ shrub-steppe unknown grass sp. cheatgrass rock Skookum SK2 B 5161154.7 390137.4 Rock outcrop/ shrub-steppe unknown grass sp. bluebunch wheatgrass rock Skookum SK2 C 5161143.1 390162.4 Rock outcrop/ shrub-steppe cheatgrass bluebunch wheatgrass rock Skookum SK2 D 5161114.9 390186.4 Rock outcrop/ shrub-steppe cheatgrass bluebunch wheatgrass rock Skookum SK2 E 5161117.7 390217.9 Rock outcrop/ shrub-steppe cheatgrass rock sunflower sp. Skookum SK2 F 5161091.6 390247.3 Rock outcrop/ shrub-steppe cheatgrass Rubber rabbitbrush rock Skookum SK3 A 5161244.1 390171.2 Rock outcrop bluebunch wheatgrass cheatgrass rock/lichen Skookum SK3 B 5161210.7 390176.7 Bluffs cheatgrass yarrow Rubber rabbitbrush Skookum SK3 C 5161180.4 390192.2 Bluffs bluebunch wheatgrass cheatgrass fiddleneck Skookum SK3 D 5161156.1 390242.4 Rock outcrop/ shrub-steppe cheatgrass Rubber rabbitbrush sunflower sp. Skookum SK3 E 5161143.3 390275.1 Rock outcrop/ shrub-steppe Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass mustard sp. Skookum SK3 F 5161114.7 390320.5 Rock outcrop/ shrub-steppe cheatgrass unknown grass sp. Rubber rabbitbrush

Skookum SK4 A 5161013.7 390003.8 Shrub-steppe cheatgrass Rubber rabbitbrush unknown bunchgrass sp.

Skookum SK4 B 5161030.2 389954.3 Bunchgrass Intermediate wheatgrass cheatgrass unknown shrub sp. Skookum SK4 C 5160987.5 389978.0 Shrub-steppe with forbs Rubber rabbitbrush Perennial pepperweed cheatgrass Skookum SK4 D 5160984.2 390039.2 Russian Olive grassland unknown grass sp. Russian olive Him. blackberry

Skookum SK4 E 5160942.8 390056.1 Russian olive blackberry

edge Him. blackberry Russian olive unknown grass sp. Skookum SK4 F 5160962.1 390094.8 Grass/ blackberry edge unknown grass sp. Black cottonwood unknown sedge sp.

Skookum SK5 A 5160875.1 390109.3 Russian olive/ grass edge Russian olive Intermediate wheatgrass unknown grass sp.



Appendix L, continued Dominant species

HMU Transect

name Node Northing Easting Habitat characterization (I) (II) (III) Skookum SK5 B 5160921.7 390110.9 Riparian Russian olive unknown grass sp. Black cottonwood Skookum SK5 C 5160921.0 390154.6 Riparian Juniper sp. Him. blackberry unknown grass sp. Skookum SK5 D 5160916.9 390192.8 Riparian Black cottonwood unknown grass sp. Him. blackberry Skookum SK5 E 5160971.2 390262.0 Riparian Him. blackberry Black cottonwood unknown grass sp. Skookum SK5 F 5160971.3 390319.5 Riparian Juniper sp. Him. blackberry unknown grass sp. Skookum SK6 A 5160447.8 390684.7 Shrub-steppe medusahead Buckwheat cheatgrass

Skookum SK6 B 5160476.2 390714.3 Russian olive grassland/ draw Russian olive cheatgrass unknown forb sp.

Skookum SK6 C 5160494.3 390758.3 Rock pile/ draw buckwheat cheatgrass unknown forb sp.

Skookum SK6 D 5160513.7 390788.6 Russian olive grassland/ draw Russian olive unknown grass sp. unknown forb sp.

Skookum SK6 E 5160538.8 390816.6 Rock pile/ draw cheatgrass wild rose Russian olive Skookum SK6 F 5160548.3 390847.4 Russian Olive grassland Russian olive unknown grass sp. Him. blackberry Skookum SK7 A 5160446.5 390756.7 Shrub-steppe/ grassland unknown grass sp. Bluebunch wheatgrass Rubber rabbitbrush Skookum SK7 B 5160465.9 390793.1 Shrub-steppe/ grassland Bluebunch wheatgrass unknown grass sp. Buckwheat Skookum SK7 C 5160482.8 390842.4 Shrub-steppe/ grassland unknown grass sp. Bluebunch wheatgrass Buckwheat Skookum SK7 D 5160521.0 390878.3 Shrub-steppe/ grassland unknown grass sp. Rubber rabbitbrush medusahead Skookum SK7 E 5160530.3 390920.7 Shrub-steppe/ grassland Buckwheat native bunchgrass sp. cheatgrass Skookum SK7 F 5160556.1 390967.1 Shrub-steppe/ grassland Buckwheat native bunchgrass sp. cheatgrass Skookum SK8 A 5160642.0 390334.9 Shrub-steppe/ tree plot Alder sp. cheatgrass Rubber rabbitbrush Skookum SK8 B 5160681.1 390324.1 Russian olive grassland Russian olive Him. blackberry unknown grass sp. Skookum SK8 C 5160713.7 390365.4 Russian olive grassland Russian olive cheatgrass Him. blackberry Skookum SK8 D 5160726.3 390407.0 Russian olive grassland Russian olive cheatgrass unknown grass sp. Skookum SK8 E 5160758.8 390452.0 Russian olive grassland cheatgrass Russian olive medusahead

Skookum SK8 F 5160794.8 390489.4 Russian olive grassland Intermediate wheatgrass Russian olive Perennial pepperweed



Appendix M. 55-Mile HMU coverboard descriptions and coordinates (WGS84 datum, zone 11N). Dominant species

HMU Transect

name Node Northing Easting Habitat characterization (I) (II) (III)

55-Mile FF1 A 5162505.4 400304.8 Shrub-steppe cheatgrass unknown bunchgrass sp. Rubber rabbitbrush

55-Mile FF1 B 5162526.7 400360.3 Rock outcrop/ shrub-steppe cheatgrass rock

Bluebunch wheatgrass

55-Mile FF1 C 5162503.9 400395.1 Rock outcrop/ shrub-steppe rock bluebunch wheatgrass Rubber rabbitbrush

55-Mile FF1 D 5162459.8 400374.5 Rock outcrop/ shrub-steppe bluebunch wheatgrass unknown grass sp. rock

55-Mile FF1 E 5162427.5 400378.6 Bluff/ shrub-steppe cheatgrass rock prickly lettuce

55-Mile FF1 F 5162453.9 400327.7 Rock outcrop/ shrub-steppe cheatgrass rock

Bluebunch wheatgrass

55-Mile FF2 A 5162447.0 400609.4 Rock outcrop/ draw bluebunch wheatgrass buckwheat cheatgrass 55-Mile FF2 B 5162335.1 400590.8 Shrub-steppe/ draw bluebunch wheatgrass yarrow Rubber rabbitbrush 55-Mile FF2 C 5162291.5 400538.7 Shrub-steppe/ draw Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass Yarrow 55-Mile FF2 D 5162214.5 400487.7 Shrub-steppe/ draw unknown grass sp. unknown forb sp. Rubber rabbitbrush 55-Mile FF2 E 5162182.5 400542.3 Russian olive Russian olive Horsetail Rubber rabbitbrush 55-Mile FF2 F 5162130.6 400589.7 Shrub-steppe with forbs Horsetail Rubber rabbitbrush cheatgrass 55-Mile FF3 A 5162228.7 400638.0 Shrub-steppe/ sand dune Rubber rabbitbrush unknown forb sp. Rush skeletonweed 55-Mile FF3 B 5162178.7 400639.5 Shrub-steppe/ sand dune Rubber rabbitbrush unknown forb sp. cheatgrass 55-Mile FF3 C 5162195.8 400679.6 Shrub-steppe/ sand dune Rubber rabbitbrush Primrose sp. cheatgrass 55-Mile FF3 D 5162136.4 400705.5 Shrub-steppe with forbs cheatgrass Rubber rabbitbrush prickly lettuce 55-Mile FF3 E 5162072.9 400715.1 Shrub-steppe with forbs cheatgrass Yellow rabbitbrush Rubber rabbitbrush 55-Mile FF3 F 5162030.2 400745.1 Shrub-steppe with forbs cheatgrass Yellow rabbitbrush Rubber rabbitbrush 55-Mile FF4 A 5161467.6 401298.9 Russian olive grassland wild rose unknown grass sp. Russian olive 55-Mile FF4 B 5161504.7 401341.7 Blackberry/ grass edge Him. blackberry unknown grass sp. Sumac sp. 55-Mile FF4 C 5161544.4 401359.9 Russian olive grassland wild rose Russian olive unknown grass sp.

55-Mile FF4 D 5161555.9 401407.6 Blackberry/ grass edge Him. blackberry unknown bunchgrass sp. unknown grass sp.

55-Mile FF4 E 5161577.6 401434.8 Blackberry/ grass edge wild rose thistle sp. unknown grass sp. 55-Mile FF4 F 5161556.9 401479.6 Blackberry/ grass edge Him. blackberry Sumac sp. unknown grass sp. 55-Mile FF5 A 5161567.4 401040.8 Riparian/ grass edge unknown grass sp. unknown forb sp. Sandbar willow



Appendix M, continued Dominant species

HMU Transect

name Node Northing Easting Habitat characterization (I) (II) (III)

55-Mile FF5 B 5161605.6 401086.7 Russian olive/ blackberry edge Him. blackberry Russian olive unknown grass sp.

55-Mile FF5 C 5161637.7 401160.7 Blackberry/ grass edge Him. blackberry unknown grass sp. Black cottonwood

55-Mile FF5 D 5161729.1 401144.6 Russian olive/ agriculture edge unknown grass sp. wild rose serviceberry

55-Mile FF5 E 5161748.6 401178.6 Russian olive/ agriculture edge Him. blackberry unknown grass sp.

55-Mile FF5 F 5161772.0 401239.5 Russian olive/ agriculture edge Russian olive wild rose

unknown bunchgrass sp.

55-Mile FF6 A 5161114.9 402211.8 Bunchgrass Intermediate wheatgrass Russian olive Yellow rabbitbrush 55-Mile FF6 B 5161099.9 402177.0 Bunchgrass Intermediate wheatgrass Sandbar willow unknown forb sp. 55-Mile FF6 C 5161099.6 402122.6 Bunchgrass Intermediate wheatgrass cheatgrass teasel sp. 55-Mile FF6 D 5161082.6 402078.7 Shoreline river unknown forb sp. false indigo common reed grass 55-Mile FF6 E 5161076.7 402028.0 Bunchgrass Intermediate wheatgrass false indigo Broom snakeweed 55-Mile FF6 F 5161082.0 401976.0 Shoreline river unknown forb sp. false indigo Broom snakeweed 55-Mile FF7 A 5161164.6 401821.1 Russian olive grassland unknown bunchgrass sp. Russian olive Him. blackberry

55-Mile FF7 B 5161208.7 401842.5 Russian olive grassland Russian olive unknown bunchgrass sp. Him. blackberry

55-Mile FF7 C 5161261.9 401851.8 Russian olive grassland unknown bunchgrass sp. Russian olive Him. blackberry 55-Mile FF7 D 5161296.2 401857.7 Russian olive grassland Russian olive unknown grass sp. Him. blackberry

55-Mile FF7 E 5161346.0 401875.4 Russian olive grassland unknown grass sp. Russian olive unknown bunchgrass sp.

55-Mile FF7 F 5161386.8 401891.3 Russian olive grassland Russian olive unknown grass sp. unknown grass sp. 55-Mile FF8 A 5161855.8 401758.8 Grassland slope cheatgrass buckwheat sunflower sp. 55-Mile FF8 B 5161903.4 401699.0 Grassland slope cheatgrass Rubber rabbitbrush sunflower sp. 55-Mile FF8 C 5161971.2 401700.1 Grassland slope bluebunch wheatgrass cheatgrass Yarrow

55-Mile FF8 D 5161996.4 401722.0 Grassland slope bluebunch wheatgrass unknown bunchgrass sp. sunflower sp.

55-Mile FF8 E 5161992.9 401665.2 Shrub-steppe/ grassland mustard sp. cheatgrass Rubber rabbitbrush 55-Mile FF8 F 5161969.1 401623.5 Shrub-steppe/ grassland Buckwheat cheatgrass Rubber rabbitbrush

55-Mile FF9 A 5162162.3 401095.0 Sagebrush unknown Poa sp. Big sagebrush unknown bunchgrass sp.

55-Mile FF9 B 5162073.5 401085.1 Sagebrush unknown grass sp. Big sagebrush unk. bunchgrass sp.



Appendix M, continued Dominant species

HMU Transect

name Node Northing Easting Habitat characterization (I) (II) (III) 55-Mile FF9 C 5162010.2 401081.8 Sagebrush/ riparian edge Sandbar willow Salix sp. Big sagebrush 55-Mile FF9 D 5161965.8 401078.8 Sagebrush Big sagebrush cheatgrass false indigo 55-Mile FF9 E 5161974.1 401181.6 Sagebrush Big sagebrush unknown Poa sp. cheatgrass

55-Mile FF9 F 5161852.3 400954.3 Sagebrush Big sagebrush cheatgrass bluebunch wheatgrass

55-Mile FFWT1 5161647.1 401608.3 Riparian/ grass edge Unknown grass sp. Wild rose Russian olive



Appendix N. Villard Ponds HMU coverboard descriptions and coordinates (WGS84 datum, zone 11N). Dominant species

HMU Transect

name Node Northing Easting Habitat characterization (I) (II) (III) Villard Ponds VP1 A 5116878.7 344608.7 Riparian unknown maple sp. common reed grass sandbar willow

Villard Ponds VP1 B 5116898.7 344653.2 Russian olive/ riparian edge Russian olive unknown shrub sp. horsetail

Villard Ponds VP1 C 5116954.7 344680.8 Russian olive/ riparian edge Black cottonwood Russian Olive unknown forb sp.

Villard Ponds VP1 D 5116937.7 344736.8 Riparian Unknown tree sp. unknown grass sp. unknown forb sp.

Villard Ponds VP1 E 5116923.0 344790.5 Riparian Common reed grass Black cottonwood horsetail

Villard Ponds VP1 F 5116939.6 344837.2 Riparian unknown grass sp. unknown shrub sp. Russian olive

Villard Ponds VP2 A 5117699.4 344296.7 Riparian Russian olive Currant sp. unknown tree sp.

Villard Ponds VP2 B 5117750.7 344332.0 Sagebrush Big sagebrush unknown grass sp. unknown forb sp.

Villard Ponds VP2 C 5117732.2 344362.4 Russian olive/ riparian edge Russian olive mulberry sp. currant sp.

Villard Ponds VP2 D 5117684.6 344398.2 Sagebrush Big sagebrush mulberry sp. unknown grass sp. Villard Ponds VP2 E 5117620.2 344394.3 Sagebrush Big sagebrush Rubber rabbitbrush unknown grass sp. Villard Ponds VP2 F 5117654.0 344334.2 Sagebrush Big sagebrush unknown sedge sp. sandbar willow

Villard Ponds VP3 A 5117436.1 344419.0 Russian olive/ riparian edge

unknown bunchgrass sp. Russian Olive sandbar willow

Villard Ponds VP3 B 5117456.4 344451.9 Russian olive/ riparian edge unknown grass sp. Russian olive false indigo

Villard Ponds VP3 C 5117478.9 344484.1 Russian olive/ riparian edge Russian olive Black cottonwood currant sp.

Villard Ponds VP3 D 5117500.4 344514.0 Russian olive/ riparian edge Black cottonwood common reed grass horsetail

Villard Ponds VP3 E 5117572.4 344479.6 Russian olive/ riparian edge horsetail false indigo Russian olive

Villard Ponds VP3 F 5117550.2 344437.3 Russian olive/ riparian edge Russian olive false indigo unknown forb sp.



Appendix O. List of scientific names for plant species used in this report. Common name Genus Species Common name Genus Species Alder sp. Alnus sp. mulberry sp. Morus alba arrow-leaf balsamroot Balsamorhiza sagittata mullein Verbascum sp. Aspen Populus tremuloides mustard sp. Brassica sp.

Big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata native blackberry sp. Rubus sp.

Black cottonwood Populus balsamifera

Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium

bluebunch wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata pine sp. Pinus sp. Broom snakeweed Gutierrezia sarothrae Plum Prunus sp. buckwheat Eriogonum sp. poison hemlock Conium maculatum cattail Typha sp. Prairie goldenrod Oligoneuron album cheatgrass Bromus tectorum prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola Common reed grass Phragmites australis Rubber rabbitbrush Ericameria nauseosa Currant sp. Ribes sp. Rush skeletonweed Chondrilla juncea Elderberry sp. Sambucus sp. Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia False indigo Amorpha fruiticosa Russian thistle Salsola sp. fiddleneck Amsinckia sp. sandbar willow Salix exigua Hawthorn Crataegus sp. serviceberry Amelanchier sp. Himalayan blackberry Rubus armeniacus Sumac sp. Rhus glabra Horsetail Equisetum sp. sunflower sp. Helianthus sp. Intermediate wheatgrass Thinopyrum intermedium teasel sp. Dipsacus fullonum Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica Tree of heaven Ailanthus altissima Juniper sp. Juniperus sp. vetch Vicia cracca Locust sp. Robinia pseudoacacia wild rose Rosa sp. Maple sp. Acer sp. Willow Salix sp. medusahead Taeniatherum caput-medusae Yarrow Achillea millefolium mint sp. Mentha requienii Yellow rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Nomenclature follows the US Dept of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Plants Database, http://plants.usda.gov/ date last accessed: 1 June 2009

herpetofauna of the lower snake river habitat management …mwfb.ucdavis.edu/assests/pdfs/2008 herp...

Documents