amphibian management in the Northeast
Brand, Adrianne
Adrianne Brand
NE Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative
USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
Conte Anadromous Fish Laboratory
Ross, Angelena M (DEC)
Hi Adrianne,
The following is our SWG project descriptions for amphibian and reptile work in NY. This is pretty much all of the herp work taking place in NY by DEC.
Let me know if you have any questions or need further clarification on anything.
Cheers,
Angie
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources
Bureau of Fish and Wildlife Services
State Wildlife Grants Program (SWG)
August 01, 2011 – July 31, 2015
State Wildlife Grant F11AF00512 (T2-2-R-1)
Project 3: Support for Inventory and Management of Reptile and Amphibian Species of Greatest Conservation Need
Need:
New York State is home to a wide variety of reptile and amphibian species, many of which were identified in the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN). New York has no dedicated funding source to plan, research or manage many of these species.
Objective:
Support the planning, research and management actions identified in the CWCS that can be implemented by the newly formed reptile and amphibian diversity team.
Expected result and Benefits:
This work will result in the stabilization of amphibian and reptile SGCN and prevent them from becoming federally listed. For those species identified that are already federally listed, the project will protect and restore the species and their habitat in New York State.
Approach:
The Bureau of Wildlife’s Herpetology Diversity Team has identified actions in the CWCS that can be accomplished in the short term to benefit the following species: eastern hellbender, tiger salamander, northern cricket frog, chorus frog, bog turtle, Blanding’s turtle, wood turtle, timber rattlesnake, eastern massasauga rattlesnake, and northern diamond back terrapin.
The following actions will be undertaken to benefit all SGCN herpetological species.
· Attend inter and intra state planning meetings (CWCS, p. 79)
· Verify and maintain observations of herpetological SGCN, including the development of a database and atlas (CWCS, p. 73)
· Assess threat of disease to amphibian populations (CWCS, p. 74)
· Review and monitor compliance of projects that impact SGCN either through the state endangered species and state environmental quality review. (e.g., CWCS Appendix A4, p. 4, 17, 29, 63)
· Review and issue special licenses that affect herpetological SGCN (e.g., CWCS Appendix A4, p. 63)
CWCS actions that will be undertaken to benefit specific species are listed below.
Job 1: Eastern hellbender
Continue head-starting program in Alleghany Watershed (CWCS, p. 110)
Survey eastern hellbenders in suitable habitat (CWCS, p. 73; CWCS Appendix A4, p. 22)
Job 2: Eastern tiger salamander
Survey historically occupied breeding ponds (CWCS, p. 303; CWCS Appendix A4, p. 70)
Job 3: Northern cricket frog
Identify terrestrial habitat requirements (CWCS, p. 522; CWCS Appendix A4, p. 17)
Job 4: Chorus frog
Determine distribution of western and boreal chorus frogs in NYS (CWCS, p. 18)
Determine detection probability and model occupancy (CWCS, p. 18)
Job 5: Bog turtle
Survey Fall Creek and other suitable habitat to determine presence or probable absence (CWCS Appendix A4, p. 64; CWCS, p. 522)
Manage bog turtle habitat on state lands (CWCS, p. 269, 312, 490; CWCS Appendix A4, p. 63)
Job 6: Blanding’s turtle
Evaluate mitigation strategies and develop recovery plan (CWCS Appendix A4, p. 62-63)
Participate in rapid assessments (CWCS Appendix A4, p. 64)
Job 7: Timber rattlesnakes
Re-survey historically occupied dens to identify extant populations and test den survey protocols (e.g., CWCS, p. 102, 522).
Conduct radio telemetry at sites where information den openings, basking areas, or travel corridor information is needed for regulatory or management purposes (e.g., CWCS, p. 161).
Job 8: Eastern massasauga rattlesnake
Manage habitat by removing vegetation within gestation plots at Cicero created in 2011 (CWCS Appendix A4, p. 39).
Job 9: Review Special Licenses for Herpetological Data
Use data collected for SGCN through the SWG funding stream to update appropriate New York Natural Heritage Program records (CWCS, p. 81)
Incorporate tabular and spatial data collected for SGCN and their habitats into
DEC’s Master Habitat Data Bank and the Natural Heritage Program Database, as appropriate (CWCS, p. 81).
Future Job: Wood turtle
Participate in rapid assessments (CWCS Appendix A4, p. 30)
Future Job: Queen snake
Conduct surveys to determine distribution in NYS (CWCS Appendix A4, p. 30)
Future Job: Diamondback terrapin
Determine status of diamondback terrapin in NYS (CWCS, p. 305).
Assess threats to the species in NYS (CWCS Appendix A4, p. 8).
To reduce the risk of introducing or spreading disease to reptile and amphibian populations we will follow a biosafety protocol for sampling herpetological species, developed by the Bureau’s Herpetological Diversity Team (2012 Amendment T-19 Project 3 Biosafety Protocol). See the following job descriptions for specific details concerning each activity.
Key Personnel:
Bureau of Wildlife Herpetological Diversity Team (Lance Clark, Angelena Ross, Nancy Heaslip, Sandy VanVranken, Joe Racette, Ken Roblee, Kelly Hamilton, Scott Smith, Gregg Kenney, Lisa Masi, Bill Hoffman, Ted Kerpez)
John Ozard, Wildlife Diversity Unit Leader
Estimated Cost:
Federal Contribution: $600,000
Match:
State Contribution: $323,000
Match will be provided through state-funded staff time tracked with a time and activity code specific to the task outlined in this project. Additional sources of match will include volunteer time tracked on signed time cards and in-kind match as identified in each job description under estimated costs.
Total Cost: $923,000
Job 1: Eastern Hellbender Surveys and Disease Monitoring in the Alleghany and Susquehanna River Watersheds
Need:
It is believed that hellbenders (eastern and Ozark) are drastically declining. In the Allegheny River watershed of NY estimates of decline are 40% since the 1980’s. In the only other drainage that contains the species in NY, the Susquehanna, only 3 individual hellbenders have been found alive since 2007 (one individual was found dead). As a result NYS has developed a recovery plan for the species. One primary objective of the recovery plan is to undertake additional surveys to assess the condition of the population in the Alleghany and Susquehanna drainages (CWCS p. 100, 480, 482; CWCS Appendix A4, p. 21, 23).
Building on past superficial surveys in the drainage that were conducted by SUNY ESF from 2008-2010, we suggest more in-depth surveys be conducted at sites previously known to support hellbenders. In the summer of 2011, an in-depth survey of the Unadilla River and Butternut Creek watersheds were conducted by Dr. Peter Petokas, an expert in hellbender survey techniques. These surveys were conducted at no expense to NY State and were the result of an Environmental Benefits Project due to a violation in the Unadilla River. Dr. Petokas found only one hellbender despite extensive surveying at what was previously described as the best site in the Susquehanna drainage.
In the Allegheny River watershed population monitoring was completed at selected sites in 2003-2007. Population monitoring at the previously surveyed hellbender sites needs to be repeated to determine if populations there are still declining.
Disease monitoring for the Chytrid fungus Batrachocytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) in the Allegheny watershed has indicated the presence of this potential hellbender pathogen in this river and two of its tributaries. Assessment of threats to hellbenders is identified as a priority in the Alleghany Watershed (CWCS, p. 102). Monitoring for Bd in the Susquehanna watershed has been limited to one found dead hellbender. Monitoring for other disease causing agents in the Allegheny again has been limited to one found dead hellbender. Broader surveillance for disease in hellbenders is needed in both watersheds.
Proposed Activities:
NYSDEC R7 and R4 BOW staff would conduct surveys of two watersheds of the Susquehanna Drainage. Priority watersheds are the Chenango River and the upper Susquehanna watershed. Disease monitoring would be done for any hellbenders encountered on surveys.
Region 9 BOW staff would resurvey hellbender population monitoring sites surveyed in the Allegheny watershed in 2003-2007. Disease monitoring would be conducted on all hellbenders captured at these sites.
Approach:
In the Susquehanna watershed surveys would be conducted in areas of suitable habitat as no monitoring sites with extant hellbender populations exist. Habitat suitability will be assessed by floating stretches of river with canoes. Areas with large, flat rocks ~1m in diameter will be searched. All suitable rocks will be lifted, with a peavey, and searched under with the aid of mask and snorkel. Captured hellbenders will be PIT tagged, sampled for disease (Bd, ranavirus) and have a tissue sample taken for genetic analysis.
In the Allegheny watershed three established hellbender monitoring sites will be surveyed and populations estimated through mark-recapture methods. Captured hellbenders will be PIT tagged for identification for mark-recapture work and for future health monitoring. PIT tags will be implanted sub-dermal near the base of the tail while animals are restrained in a PVC pipe trough without the use of anesthesia. This method of PIT tag implant was used for Foster et al. (2009) and is being used for tagging juvenile hellbenders reared under New York DEC’s Hellbender Head-starting Project at the Buffalo Zoo funded under State Wildlife Grant Program Grant T-14. This method has resulted in 99% tag retention after one month’s time with minimal stress on the animals during a recent tagging event. Ranavirus will be sampled in hellbender tissue through the removal of 0.5-1.0 cm of the tip of the tail in captured hellbenders again without the use of anesthesia. Tail tips will be removed using EOH disinfected scissors while the animals are restrained in the PVC trough. Ranavirus if present will be detected through PCR amplification of a ranavirus genetic marker. Tail clips have been taken from over 150 hellbenders in the Allegheny Watershed for genotyping studies with no observed detrimental effect on the animals (Foster et al., 2009). . Recapture of tail clipped animals has indicated that hellbenders soon regenerate the clipped tail portion. All captured hellbenders will be sampled for Bd through swabbing dorsal, ventral and toe surfaces during restraint. To provide a baseline health status assessment for hellbenders at monitoring sites, and possibly identify any disease compromised animals .5 cc. of blood will be collected from each captured hellbender 100g or heavier to obtain a complete blood count and blood chemistry. Procedures used for blood collection will be those described in guidelines for collection of blood samples from adult amphibians provided by the USGS National Wildlife Health Center in ARMI SOP No. 101. Blood will be drawn from the ventral caudal vein while hellbenders are restrained after being wrapped with a cloth towel. Anesthesia will not be used for this procedure and animals will not be removed from the stream location. The total time required for processing each animal is expected to be no more than 10 minutes based on previous sampling completed in the Allegheny Watershed by DEC staff which employed all of the above procedures other than the blood draw. Blood draws using this method are reported as requiring approximately 2 minutes by Kimberly Terrell of the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park who is routinely drawing blood from hellbenders for her research there. During capture and sampling hellbenders will be kept moist and contained within a plastic tub containing 3-6 cm of stream water. All equipment and hellbender holding tubs, troughs, and towels will be disinfected or replaced between monitoring sites.
In both drainages any found dead hellbenders will be submitted for necropsy and screened for viral, bacterial and fungal disease agents.
Timeline:
Surveys should be conducted during low water, preferably July-September, 2012-2015
Location:
Allegheny and Susquehanna River Watersheds (NYSDEC Regions 9 and 7).
Costs:
Susquehanna
Travel = $1,500
Seasonal Technicians – 4 staff (2/sub-watershed or region) for 20 days = $18,500
Supplies – PIT Tags = $2,500
Total: $22,500
Match:
Biologist time – 1 staff for 20 days = $9,000
Allegheny and Disease Monitoring for both Watersheds
Travel = $1,500
Tech time – 1 staff for 20 days = $4,625
Ranavirus testing and Complete Blood Count (~50 individuals) = $9,000
Supplies – PIT tags, nets, vials, syringes, etc. = $1,000
Total: $16,125
Match:
Volunteer time - 320 hrs. @ $14.80/hr. (match) = $4,736
Biologist time - 1 staff for 20 days = $9,000
Bd testing (~50 individuals x $35 no charge match) by Yale University Student = $1,750
Total Federal Share: $38,625
Total Match: $24,486
Key Staff:
Tom Bell, Ken Roblee
Job Manager:
Tom Bell, Biologist 1
NYSDEC Region 7
Cortland, NY
References:
Foster, R., A. M. McMillan, and K. J. Roblee. 2009. Population Status of Hellbender Salamanders (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) in the Allegheny River Drainage in New York State. Journal of Herpetology. 43(4): 579-588
USGS National Wildlife Health Center in ARMI SOP No. 101 (http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/publications/amphibian_research_procedures/blood_samples.jsp)
Job 2: Eastern Tiger Salamander Status and Distribution
Need:
Successful management of the Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) in New York requires a better understanding of their distribution (CWCS Appendix 4, p. 68-70) and the characteristics of suitable breeding ponds surrounded by adequate upland habitat CWCS, p. 303-304). This information is needed to support the development of restoration guidelines and the development of more effective management practices to secure the status of the species. Current information on the distribution of the species also aids in the review of project proposals.
Proposed Activities:
Complete surveys of all historical breeding ponds documented since 1981 using standard protocol.
Expected Result or Benefit:
A report summarizing the findings including number of adults, egg masses and larval counts by location will be prepared. The data will be entered into an already existing database of locations/occurrences and enhance the Department’s ability to develop appropriate management recommendations for this species.
Approach:
Daytime and nighttime visual counts of adults and egg masses as well as dip netting and seining for adults and larvae will be used at all historical breeding ponds on Long Island. Results will be used to provide crucial up to date information needed to properly manage for Tiger Salamanders on Long Island. All surveys will be conducted following the Department’s Tiger Salamander Breeding Survey Protocol (included below). Seasonal technicians will be hired to conduct the surveys and they will be supervised by existing Department biologists.
TIGER SALAMANDER BREEDING POND PROTOCOL
OBJECTIVE: To determine population status of all tiger salamander breeding ponds in New York.
BACKGROUND: In New York, tiger salamanders (Ambystoma tigrinum) have been found in approximately 90 of the 600+ potential breeding ponds on Long Island since 1980. Beginning in 1994, we will begin a three year effort, using standardized procedures, to resurvey every known breeding pond and to locate additional breeding ponds.
Effort required to survey a pond will vary depending on size of pond, weather conditions, season and time of day, and survey methods. The observation of one adult tiger salamander, one egg mass or one larva in a pond will be evidence that the pond is a confirmed breeding pond. However, additional information is necessary in order to assess the population size or quality of the breeding population. For these reasons, it is important that each survey team complete the standardized survey report as completely as possible. Each team will have a list of specific ponds to survey. If, during the initial effort to locate breeding adults, your team finds that it cannot confirm as many ponds as you expected please let us know. If necessary we will reassign these ponds so that they will be surveyed during the larval survey period. Larval surveys should be conducted after June 1 and may continue until mid August. A careful evaluation of the 1994 results will enable us to further refine the search protocol in order to improve efficiency.
PROTOCOL: Surveys could involve four different time periods:
1. Search for adults and/or egg masses during the breeding season at night.
2. Search for egg masses during the breeding season during the day.
3. Search for larvae in late spring or summer during the day. 4. Search for larvae in late spring and summer during the night.
Depending on the condition of the pond and water clarity, surveys could involve:
1. Visual searches for adults or egg masses. This is by far the easiest method to confirm presence of animals in a breeding pond and to estimate population size.
2. Seining for adults or larvae. Seining for adults should not be used in a situation in which disturbance to egg masses could occur. If seining is attempted and an egg mass is found, seining should stop immediately. Seining for larvae should not be used if a large amount of vegetation or detritus is caught in the seine which could cause abrasion to the larvae. Everyone assisting with these surveys must either be an employee or volunteer with DEC or have an endangered species permit if they attempt to hand capture, use a dip net or seine to capture adults or larvae.
EQUIPMENT: Hip boots are essential for visual searches for egg masses during the daylight hours. Additional equipment is necessary for any nighttime searches or daytime searches for adults or larvae. Chest waders are often more desirable than hip boots because of possibility of stepping into deep holes. A dip net or a 10' to 20' two-person seine with 1/4" mesh is required for some circumstances. For nocturnal surveys a light source (e.g. Wheat Lamp, Nite Lite, or Q-Beam) with an output of 50,000 to 400,000 candlepower is essential. Copies of maps, showing ponds your team is to survey, will be provided. We will also list ESU site #, town, topographic quadrangle and directions to the site. A thermometer, measuring stick, pH meter, seiche disk, and dip net will be provided by ESU if needed.
SURVEYS: Surveys should begin after the first significant thaw, which varies year to year but usually begins in late January or February. Breeding could continue until early May. A quick check of a known pond, such as the Sand Pit Ponds in Manorville, can be used to gauge whether it is worthwhile to put effort elsewhere. Note: breeding season on the South Fork or Nassau County may be substantially different than the breeding season in the Riverhead area.
Swimming adults are the easiest to find. Tiger salamanders emerge from hiding around dusk, but peak of breeding activity and congregations occurs around midnight. Egg masses are obvious when present if water is clear, but caution must be taken not to confuse egg masses of spotted or blue spotted salamanders (see Figure 1). Larvae are harder to find and can be confused with spotted, blue spotted, and marbled larvae. Larvae should be 50 mm long or more before attempting to seine in order to minimize injury to larvae while making positive identification simpler (see Figure 2). Larval searches would usually occur between June and late July, but may continue until mid August in some cases.
The shoreline of each pond (look under cover objects) and all areas of the pond less than 3' deep should be searched. Efforts should be made to minimize disturbance to habitat both within and outside the pond. Do not enter ponds if ice cover is too thick or obscures visibility into the pond or turbidity is so high that it obscures pond visibility as these conditions may obscure egg masses which could be inadvertently disturbed. In addition, if movement of observers through the ponds raises bottom sediment to the point that visibility is obscured, movement should cease until visibility improves. If single animals are observed, you may capture them with a dip net to determine sex (see Figure 3). Males usually precede females to the breeding ponds, often by several days to several weeks depending on weather conditions. Do not attempt to capture salamanders engaged in courting, mating or egg-laying.
Nocturnal searches to confirm known ponds should be conducted when air temperature is above freezing; there is little wind and light or no rain. Wind and rain create difficulty for underwater visibility and can obscure egg masses. However, damp rainy nights are good for breeding activities. We strongly recommend that for nocturnal searches, you be familiar with access into and out of pond.
NOTES ON COMPLETING DATA SHEETS:
Two data sheets are used for each site. The "Site Characterization Record" is to be filled out only once unless significant changes are noted between visits (e.g. change in habitat quality or new threats). The "Site Visit Record" should be filled out for every visit whether or not tiger salamanders, egg masses or larvae are observed. Data sheets should be filled out as completely as possible. It is better to do a complete job on fewer sites than to do a marginal job on a large number of sites, but any data you can provide is better than none at all. If we collect detailed information this year, in future years, we should be able to streamline the data collection efforts.
A. Site Characterization Record:
Many parts of this form can be completed prior to going into the field (e.g. elevation and pond size can often best be determined from a topographic map). One of the most important pieces of information on this data sheet is to accurately record directions to the site, which could save future investigators a lot of time. If you find a way to enter the site that you think is better than the description we provided, be sure to record it.
Pond substrate should be classified as organic or mineral. These categories can be further subdivided into leaf litter, muck, sand, clay, etc. Use the back of the data sheet to draw a sketch map to further explain site conditions (see Figure 4). Indicate area less than 3' deep; areas with aquatic vegetation; prominent features (e.g. a large tree near shore, adjacent roadways, abandoned car, etc). Also indicate distance from a permanent marker (a large tree, building or road) to the edge of the pond. It will provide a quick reference to change in water level between visits.
B. Site Visit Record
Most of the information requested on this sheet needs no explanation. ESU Site # and name should conform with list provided to you. A space for "REF. #" has been provided for you to use your own numbering system if you have one.
Time should be recorded for the actual time spent searching the pond and shoreline, not counting the time it takes to get from your vehicle to the pond and back. This will enable us to calculate "catch per unit effort" so that we can compare different trips, years, and ponds.
Record number of adults, egg masses and larvae in the appropriate spaces. It is not necessary to measure the length of adults or larvae. In ponds that are confirmed only by the presence of egg masses, count as accurately as you can without disturbing the egg masses, the number of masses and the number of eggs in each mass and record it in the space for "specimen notes". This will enable us to make a rough estimate of the number of females that laid eggs. On the back of the data sheet, draw a sketch of the pond and indicate the location of salamanders (egg mass, larvae, adults) within the pond.
For "OTHER SPECIES NOTED" list other amphibian and reptile species observed and fish species present with an estimate of population size (e.g. one pickerel, pumpkinseeds abundant, etc.).
Under "POND CONDITIONS" record surface water temperature at a location a few feet off shore. "Water depth" should be recorded as maximum depth of pond if less than one meter. If water depth is more than one meter you may record it simply as "1 m+". Record conditions that hinder visibility under "Surface condition" (e.g. ice, wind, heavy rain). A seiche disk is used to measure turbidity and can only be used during daylight hours. Record whether disk is visible at 30 cm and at 100 cm.
Film will be provided to surveyors to document quality of pond and surrounding habitat. Photos should be taken during the daytime reconnaissance. Be sure to record when and where the photos were taken. It is often useful to include an identifying card in the foreground that can be read on the photo.
CONFIDENTIALITY: The site specific information provided to you and collected by you should be considered confidential information. Please do not distribute this information without permission.
FINAL CAUTION: Participating in a project sponsored by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation does NOT give you authority to trespass on private land or to collect amphibians and reptiles on public or private land. Respect the rights of the landowner. Also please do not unduly disrupt the habitat or behavior of the animals we are trying to study. Habitat degradation and illegal collecting have both played a significant role in the decline of many species of herpetofauna. We don't want to contribute to the problem. Leave the habitat the same way that you found it.
Timeline:
Review DEC files/coordinate: January
Conduct surveys: Egg mass and adult counts: Late January-May
Seining for larvae: June-August
Location:
Suffolk and Nassau Counties
Costs:
Seasonal Technician time – 32 weeks of staff time = $37,000
Match:
Biologist Time – 1 staff for 20 days = $9,000
Seasonal Technician time – 1 staff for 45 days = $10,400
Total Federal Share: $37,000
Total Match: $19,400
Job Manager:
Kelly Hamilton
NYSDEC Biologist
Stony Brook, NY
Job 3: Northern cricket frog - Identification of Terrestrial Wintering Habitat
Background:
The northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans) is New York’s only State Listed “Endangered” frog. The distribution of cricket frogs in New York is limited to the southeastern portion of the state. As a NYS endangered species it is the responsibility of the DEC to protect the essential habitat of this species. Unfortunately, the wintering habitat of this species is poorly understood. .
Proposed Activities:
In the fall of the 2010, DEC staff used a novel technique (fluorescent powder tracking) to follow cricket frogs to their wintering habitat. In the spring of 2011, the use of these habitats as overwintering areas was confirmed (see attached summary).
Approach:
Repeat the work conducted in 2010 which identified two wintering areas. Migrating cricket frogs will be captured by hand during the fall and coated with fluorescent tracking powder, following the attached protocol (2012 Amendment T-19 Job 3.3 Appendix A). Animals will be released at point of capture and their trails will be followed the subsequent night to identify habitat use and ultimately identify locations selected as hibernacula. Increased sample size will allow a better understanding of the variety of habitats used and the variation in the distance of these wintering areas from breeding habitat.
Timeline:
September – November. Capture, powder, and track cricket frogs to winter habitat.
March – April. Capture emerging cricket frogs at wintering areas.
Location:
Orange County, New York
Final Product:
Report summarizing the variety of habitats utilized by northern cricket frogs. This information is critical to better understand which habitats support essential behaviors of northern cricket frogs.
Cost:
Seasonal Technicians – 16 weeks seasonal time = $18,500
Supplies – Tracking powder, head lamps, etc. = $2,500
Total: $21,000
Match:
Biologist time – 1 staff for 30 days = $13,500
Job Manager:
Gregg Kenney
NYSDEC Biologist
New Paltz, NY
Job 4: Re-evaluating Western Chorus Frog (Boreal Chorus Frog) Distributions in the St. Lawrence and Lake Champlain Watersheds
Need:
With the revisions to the New York State Wildlife Action Plan and Endangered and Threatened Species List imminent, current information on distributions and population status of lesser known species will be necessary to work through the listing process and make revisions. Since the writing of the CWCS, studies in New York indicate that two distinct species of chorus frogs are now suspected to occur in the St. Lawrence and Lake Champlain watersheds of northern New York: the western chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata) and the boreal chorus frog (Pseudacris maculata) based on molecular DNA work by E. Moriarty-Lemmon (pers. comm.). Gibbs et al. (2005) found that populations of chorus frogs have declined since studies conducted in the 1970s and early 1980s by F. Schueler. Even more recently, more limited surveys by both G. Johnson (pers. comm.) and J. Corser (pers. comm.) have indicated that the boreal chorus frog may have (1) declined from the St. Lawrence River area and (2) become absent from the Lake Champlain area. Making inferences about the population status of the boreal chorus frog based on these more recent surveys may be difficult, as the surveys were conducted for only a short period of time during the survey window (e.g., mid-April to early May). Even more importantly, the majority of sites were not surveyed more than once, making estimates of occupancy and detection probabilities difficult or impossible to develop. The purpose of the present study is to resurvey sites identified by Gibbs et al. (2005) (Figure 1) in the St. Lawrence and Lake Champlain areas to determine if and to what extent these populations may have changed. Good data on distribution will allow for informed recommendations on whether to list the boreal chorus frog as a threatened or endangered species, or a species of greatest conservation need (CWCS Appendix A4, p. 16, 18)
Objectives:
(1) Determine the extent of the western chorus frog (boreal chorus frog) distribution in the St. Lawrence and Lake Champlain areas, and infer whether the population is stable, increasing or decreasing.
(2) Estimate percent occupancy and detection probabilities of surveyed locations for boreal chorus frogs.
(3) Find new locations of chorus frogs.
Expected Results or Benefits:
Survey results will allow for a better understanding of the current distribution and status of the species in New York State and can be used to inform land protection and conservation easement acquisition to conserve the species. Results of surveys will guide decision making by agency personnel whether to list the chorus frog as a threatened, endangered or a species of greatest conservation need in the state. A report summarizing the current distribution with detection probabilities and percent occupancies of chorus frogs in northern New York will be generated. Maps and data (ESRI shapefiles) generated from the project will be provided to the New York State Herpetology Database.
Approach:
The project leader will coordinate surveys of 161 sites identified by F. Schueler and Gibbs et al. (2005) in the St. Lawrence and Lake Champlain areas from mid-April to early May for boreal chorus frogs. Surveys will be conducted at least four times during the survey period, so that estimates of detection probability and occupancy can be made using methods established by (MacKenzie 2002). Roadside surveys will be conducted using methodology identified by Gibbs et al. (2005) and summarized here. Stops will be five minutes in length and all species will be recorded that are detected in each one-minute time interval. All species of calling anurans will be recorded in each interval. Any new chorus frog locations identified will also be recorded. New survey routes containing an additional 40 sites that are not known to have populations of chorus frogs that contain good habitat, as noted from the National Land Cover Database and on-the-ground reconnaissance surveys, will also be surveyed using the same methods outlined above. Preference will be given to unidentified sites at the periphery of the known distribution to expand our knowledge of the species’ range extent.
Location:
NYSDEC staff and partners throughout New York State will conduct surveys in Oswego, Jefferson, Lewis, Oneida, St. Lawrence, Franklin, Clinton and Essex Counties.
Schedule:
Survey work will be conducted from 7 April – 15 May 2013-2014. Two years of surveys will improve estimates of detection and occupancy.
Key Personnel:
Angelena Ross, NYSDEC Region 6, Project Leader; Prospective Team
members: Alvin Breisch, NYSDEC; Glenn Johnson, SUNY Potsdam; Ken Roblee, NYSDEC Region 9.
Literature Cited:
Gibbs, J.P., K.K. Whiteleather, and F.W. Schueler. 2005. Changes in frog and toad populations over 30 years in New York State. Ecological Applications 15(4):1148-1157.
MacKenzie, D.I., J.D. Nichols, G.B. Lachman, S. Droege, J.A. Royale, and C.A. Mangtimm. 2002. Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83(8):2248-2255.
Figure 1. Chorus frog sites in northern New York identified by Gibbs et al. (2005).
Green circles are presumed western chorus frog locations, dark red lines are major roads and pink lines are CWCS watersheds.
|
Total Budget - Boreal Chorus Frog Surveys 2012-2013 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Object Class Categories |
State Costs |
Federal Costs |
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personal Services |
|||
|
Biologist 1 |
$12,000.00 |
$12,000.00 |
|
|
(30 days/yr @ $200/day = $6,000/year) |
|||
|
Non-personal Service |
|||
|
Travel – 16 survey routes of varying length |
|||
|
(2,500 miles x 4 replicates = 10,000 miles x $0.56/mile)/year |
$11,100.00 |
$11,100.00 |
|
|
($1000 overnight travel) |
$1,000.00 |
$1,000.00 |
|
|
Contractual Service |
|||
|
2 Personal Service Contracts (two surveyors = $5,000.00/year) |
$10,000.00 |
$10,000.00 |
|
|
Supplies (GPS, thermometers, notebooks, etc.) |
$1,500.00 |
$1,500.00 |
|
|
Fringe |
$5,463.60 |
$5,463.60 |
|
|
Indirect Overhead |
$6,003.99 |
|
$6,003.99 |
|
Total: |
$23,467.59 |
$23,600.00 |
$47,067.59 |
|
Match Rate |
49.86% |
|
|
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Northeast Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (NEPARC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
ne-parc+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
deMaynadier, Phillip
Hi Adrianne,
In reflecting on New York’s response to your request, I just wanted to clarify that ours from Maine only pertained to your question of management; we have several other amphibian projects related to survey and research that we didn’t share.
Best,
Phillip
Phillip deMaynadier, Ph.D.
Wildlife Biologist, Research Assessment Section
Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
Office: 207-941-4239 / Cell: 207-356-2530
From: deMaynadier, Phillip
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 1:54 PM
To: 'Brand, Adrianne'
Cc: Yorks, Derek; Swartz, Beth; Haskell, Shawn; Shearin, Amanda F; Atkins, Bethany; Camuso, Judy
Subject: RE: [NEPARC] amphibian management in the Northeast
Hi Adrianne,
Here are three forms of management that our agency regularly engages in to benefit amphibians.
Note, I have an inclusive definition of “management”, which includes environmental review and outreach because very often both these conservation tools lead to on the ground changes in habitat status as much, or more, than traditional (boots on the ground) concepts of management.
1) Forestry Best Management Practices for Vernal Pools – see attached; we regularly recommend these forest management standards when operating in close proximity to high value vernal pools (those hosting significant diversity or abundance of breeding amphibians). They have been generally well received by the private forest management community because they are science based, targeted to a subset of high value pools, and realistic to implement.
2) Environmental Review Standards for Spring Salamanders (State Special Concern) – we have specific riparian management set-back and performance standards that are required for permitting larger development projects (Wind Development, large subdivisions, etc.) in close proximity to documented Spring Salamander streams.
3) Maine’s “Beginning with Habitat” program – see http://www.beginningwithhabitat.org/; this is our Department’s primary vehicle for distributing spatially explicit data to Towns and Land Trusts on species (including 2 amphibians) and habitats of conservation concern (including vernal pools and emergent wetlands). Thousands of acres in Maine are conserved today that would not have otherwise been targeted for protection without the information and leverage afforded by Beginning with Habitat.
Hope this helps,
Phillip
Phillip deMaynadier, Ph.D.
Wildlife Biologist, Research Assessment Section
Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
Office: 207-941-4239 / Cell: 207-356-2530
From:
ne-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ne-...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Brand, Adrianne
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 1:21 PM
To: ne-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [NEPARC] amphibian management in the Northeast
Hi all,
--
Nancy Karraker
Nancy E. Karraker, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Wetland Ecology
Department of Natural Resources Science
University of Rhode Island
105 Coastal Institute at Kingston
Kingston, Rhode Island 02881 USA
Email: nkar...@uri.edu
Phone: 401-874-2916
Webpage: http://karraker.weebly.com
Brand, Adrianne
Adrianne Brand
NE Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative
USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
Conte Anadromous Fish Laboratory