MONTANA AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILE STATUS ASSESSMENT, LITERATURE REVIEW, AND CONSERVATION PLAN

Last updated: 1 1 June 2009

Submitted To The Following Cooperators:

Native Species Coordinator (Kristi DuBois)

Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks

3201 Spurgin Road

Missoula, Montana 59804

Aquatic Ecologist (Ann Carlson)

Region 1 Office of the U.S. Forest Service

200 E. Broadway

Missoula, Montana 59807

Wetland Coordinator (Lynda Saul)

Montana Department of Environmental Quality

1520 East 6th Avenue

Helena, Montana 59620

Wildlife, Fisheries, and Threatened and Endangered Species Program Lead (Gayle Sitter)

Montana State Office of Bureau of Land Management

5001 Southgate Drive, P.O. Box 36800

Billings, Montana 59107

Research Zoologist (Stephen Corn)

USGS Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center

Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute

790 East Beckwith

Missoula, Montana 59801

Submitted by:

Bryce A. Maxell, Paul Hendricks, M.T. Gates, and S. Lenard

Montana Natural Heritage Program

1515 East 6th Avenue

Helena, Montana 59620

Contact: Bryce Maxell

Senior Zoologist, Montana Natural Heritage Program

(406) 444-3655 (phone)

(406) 444-0581 (fax)

bmaxell @ mt.gov

Suggested Citation:

Maxell, B.A., P. Hendricks, M.T. Gates, and S. Lenard. 2009. Montana amphibian and reptile status assessment, literature review, and conservation plan. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT and Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit and Wildlife Biology Program, University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 642 p.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The statewide amphibian inventory program, pilot reptile surveys, this and other reports, and website developments resulting from this work could not have been completed without collaborative funding from a number of cooperators. Ann Carlson, Linda Ulmer, Jim Claar, and Tom Wittinger at the Region 1 Office of the U.S. Forest Service, Kristi DuBois and Heidi Youmans at the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Lynda Saul and Randy Apfelbeck at the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Marc Whisler and Roxanne Falise at the Montana State Office of the Bureau of Land Management, Steve Corn at the Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, Don Sasse and Barb Pitman at the Custer National Forest, Scott Barndt and Marion Cherry at the Gallatin National Forest, Jim Brammer at the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, Rob Brassfield at the Bitterroot National Forest, Sandy Kratville at the Lolo National Forest, Jo Christenson and Jim Sparks at the Missoula Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management, and Henning Stabins at Plum Creek Timber Company all helped attain funding for the surveys included in this report. Many of these same individuals provided access to aerial photos and/or helped coordinate accessing sites scheduled for survey. Others providing this assistance include Jim Brammer, Buddy Drake, Glen Gill, Daniel Gomez, Chris Riley, and Jim Roscoe. Scott Spaulding and Brian Riggers at the Lolo National Forest provided use of electrofishing gear for Idaho Giant Salamander surveys. Special thanks to all of the individuals who put in long field days under sometimes difficult conditions on the Montana Amphibian Inventory Project. Through the 2006 field season they include: Steve Amish, Matthew Bell, Danielle Blanc, Mickey Bland, Anna Breuninger, Andy Brown, Peter Brown, Mark Byall, Jessica Easley, Eric Dallalio, Ashton Fink, Matt Gates, Alex Gunderson, Renee Hoadley, Grant Hokit and a number of his students from Carroll College, Phil Jellen, Ryan Killackey, Todd Leifer, Robert Lishman, Patrick Lizon, Gary Maag, Lorraine Mclnnes, Andrew Munson, Rachelle Owen, Stacy Polkowske, Thomas Schemm, Keif Storrar, Tomi Sugahara, Anatole Suttschenko, John Thayer, Allan Thompson, Brian Tomson, Ryan Zajac, and Franz Zikesch. A number of people helped review and manage data, including: Steve Amish, Danielle Blanc, Andy Brown, Beth Clarke, Teri Hamm, Ryan Killackey, Amy Puett, Allan Thompson, Lisa Wilson, Chris Welch, and Alison Zmud. Ryan Killackey and Tom Schemm mapped the vast majority of the lentic sites that were surveyed so that these sites could be easily located in the field and relocated on future surveys. Ryan Killackey and Steve Amish reviewed aerial photos across the watershed surveyed in order to identify lentic sites not mapped on 1:24,0000 scale topographic maps. Randy Gazda at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided helpful information for accessing private lands in the Dillon area and he, Teri Nail, and Jeff Marks were instrumental in tracking down breeding populations of the Plains Spadefoot (Spea bombifrons) near Dillon. Kirwin Werner, Jim Reichel, and Paul Hendricks conducted numerous baseline surveys across Montana in the 1990s and provided this information to the Point Observation Database at the Montana Natural Heritage Program for everyone's benefit. A number of agency personnel have been especially vigilant about gathering observation records for amphibians and reptiles in their area, especially Don Sasse on the Custer National Forest, Mike Enk, Stan VanSickle, and Wendy Maples on the Lewis and Clark National Forest, Rob Brassfield and Mike Jakober on the Bitterroot National Forest, Dave Wrobleski on the Lolo National Forest, Glen Gill and David Dorman on the Kootenai National Forest, and Barb Garcia, Steve Kujala, and Chris Riley on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. Randy Apfelbeck, Lynda Saul, and Courtney Frost at the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and Marc Jones, formerly at the Montana Natural Heritage Program, helped develop rapidly impacts on wetlands. This project benefited greatly from discussions on sampling design, survey methods, and data analysis with Steve Corn, Blake Hossack, Mark Lindberg, and Chuck Peterson. Steve Carson and Bob McFarland, at the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, provided a statewide database of fish stocking records used in each of the watershed reports. Many GIS layers were provided by the Montana Natural Resources Information System and I would like to specifically thank Gerry Daumiller and Duane Lund for their assistance with these. Vanetta Burton, Joe Ball, and Mike Mitchell at the Montana Wildlife Cooperative Research Unit, Darlene Patzer and Sue Crispin at the Montana Natural Heritage Program, and Cecelia Egley, Pat Bristol, and Bob Pfister at the University of Montana were instrumental in managing the contracts and accounts associated with this project.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(Report sections are hyperlinked)

Suggested Citation 1

Acknowledgements 2

Table of Contents 3

Executive Summary 6

Accessing Information in this Conservation Plan 6

Background 7

Highest Priority Issues for the Conservation of Amphibians and Reptiles 9

Checklist of Montana's Amphibian and Reptile Species 11

Taxonomy and Common and Scientific Names 11

Documented Native Amphibian Species 11

Documented Native Reptile Species 12

Potential Native Species Currently Unconfirmed in Montana 13

Exotic Species Successfully Breeding in Montana 13

Species Successfully Breeding in Montana for Which There is Uncertainty About Their

Status as Natives or Exotics 13

Exotic Species Documented in Montana for Which There is No Evidence of Successful

Breeding 14

Presence and Status Ranks for Amphibians and Reptiles in Various Land Management Regions

in Montana 15

NatureServe and Heritage Program Ranks 15

State Rank Criteria for Montana Animal Species of Concern 16

Presence and Status Ranks for Amphibians and Reptiles on National Forests in Montana 29

Presence and Status Ranks for Amphibians and Reptiles on BLM Lands in Montana 32

Presence and Status Ranks for Amphibians and Reptiles on Tribal Lands in Montana 35

Presence and Status Ranks for Amphibians and Reptiles Within Montana Fish, Wildlife,

and Parks Wildlife Regions in Montana 38

Presence and Status Ranks for Amphibians and Reptiles on USFWS Refuges in Montana .... 41

General Habitat Associations for Amphibians in Montana 44

General Habitat Associations for Reptiles in Montana 45

Laws and Regulations Applicable to Amphibians and Reptiles in Montana 46

Federal Laws and Regulations 46

Tribal Regulations 46

Portions of Montana Code Annotated Relevant to Nongame and Endangered Species 47

Portions of Montana Code Annotated Relevant to Importation, Introduction, and

Translocation of Wildlife 52

Review of Literature Relevant to the Conservation of Amphibians and Reptiles in General 60

Ecological Function and Importance of Amphibians and Reptiles 60

Amphibian and Reptile Biology and Disturbance Regimes Relevant to Management 61

Global Amphibian Declines 62

Timber Harvest 64

Livestock Grazing 67

Fire and Fire Management Activities 69

Nonindigenous Species and Their Management 71

Road and Trail Development and On- and Off-Road Vehicle Use 76

Development and Management of Water Impoundments and Recreational Facilities 79

Harvest and Commerce 82

Habitat Fragmentation and Metapopulation Impacts 83

Literature Cited 85

Introduction to Species Accounts 101

Species Accounts for Species Documented in Montana 102

Amphibians

Long-toed Salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum) 102

Tiger Salamander (Amby stoma tigrinum) 118

Idaho Giant Salamander (Dicamptodon atterimus) 139

Coeur d'Alene Salamander (Plethodon idahoensis) 145

Rocky Mountain Tailed Frog (Ascaphus montanus) 155

Plains Spadefoot (Spea bombifrons) 169

Western Toad (Bufo boreas) 181

Great Plains Toad (Bufo cogngtus) 208

Woodhouse's Toad (Bufo woodhousii) 217

Boreal Chorus Frog (Pseudacris maculatd) 231

Pacific Treefrog (Pseudacris regilla) 247

American Bullfrog (Rang catesbeiand) 262

Columbia Spotted Frog {Rang luteiventris) 281

Northern Leopard Frog {Rang pipiens) 303

Reptiles

Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpenting) 330

Painted Turtle (Chrysemys pictd) 352

Spiny Softshell (Apglone spiniferg) 385

Northern Alligator Lizard (Elggrig coeruled) 396

Greater Short-horned Lizard (Phrynosomg herngndesi) 404

Common Sagebrush Lizard {Sceloporus gmciosus) 417

Western Fence Lizard (Sceloporus occidentglis) 428

Western Skink (Eumeces skiltonignus) 434

Rubber Boa (Chgring bottge) 441

Eastern Racer {Coluber constrictor) 450

Western Hog-nosed Snake (Heterodon ngsicus) 465

Smooth Greensnake (Opheodrys vernglis) 476

Milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum) 484

Gophersnake (Pituophis catenifer) 496

Terrestrial Gartersnake (Thamnophis elegans) 516

Plains Gartersnake (Thamnophis radix) 540

Common Gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis) 553

Prairie Rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis) 587

Species Accounts for Amphibian and Reptile Species Potentially Present In Montana 618

Great Basin Spadefoot (Spea intermontana) 618

Canadian Toad (Bufo hemiophrys) 621

Wood Frog (Rang sylvatica) 625

Pigmy Short-horned Lizard (Phrynosoma douglasii) 628

Contact Information for Montana' s Amphibian and Reptile Working Group 630

Field Data Forms

Site Data Form for Lentic Breeding Amphibian and Aquatic Reptile Surveys 632

Roadside Amphibian Calling Survey Datasheet 636

Data Form for Reptile Site Surveys 638

Incidental Observation Datasheet 641

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Accessing Information in this Conservation Plan

This document summarizes a great deal of information on the distribution, status, and biology of amphibians and reptiles known or thought to potentially inhabit Montana and is intended to become a dynamic living document that can be updated on a regular basis from research conducted in Montana or elsewhere. The document will be posted on the Montana Natural Heritage Program's website at http ://nhp . nris . state .mt .us/reports . asp as well as Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks' Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy website at http://fwp.mt.gov/wildthings/cfwcs/swg/planning.html

The document begins with taxonomic checklists for amphibians and reptiles that: (1) have been documented as native species; (2) are potentially present as native species; (3) have been documented as exotic species successfully reproducing in the state; (4) have been documented as successfully reproducing in the state but for which there is uncertainty about their status as native or exotic species; and (5) have been documented in the state but for which there is no evidence of successful reproduction.

Presence and status ranks for amphibians and reptiles are then summarized for various land management regions in Montana and background information is provided as to why species were assigned these ranks and what the associated management implications are for each state, federal, or tribal agency. Status ranks are described for Global Ranks (G ranks) assigned to species by NatureServe and State Ranks (S ranks) assigned to species by the Montana Natural Heritage Program because they are often used by federal and state agencies when they are developing their own special status ranks for species they will give special protections or considerations in land use planning. Status ranks and summaries of distribution and/or site occupancy rates from recent amphibian inventory surveys are provided for: (1) Region 1 National Forests; (2) Bureau of Land Management Field Offices; (3) tribal reservations; (4) Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Regions; and (5) National Wildlife Refuges or refuge complexes.

General habitat associations are then summarized in tables listing major habitat types and all of the amphibian and reptile species that are typically found in these habitats.

Laws and regulations applicable to Montana's amphibians and reptiles are then summarized, including federal laws and regulations, tribal regulations, portions of Montana Code Annotated relevant to nongame and endangered species, and portions of Montana Code Annotated relevant to importation, introduction, and translocation of wildlife.

A review of literature relevant to conservation of amphibians and reptiles includes sections on (1) ecological function and importance of amphibians and reptiles, (2) amphibian and reptile biology and disturbance regimes relevant to management, (3) risk factors relevant to the viability of amphibian and reptile populations including: (a) global amphibian declines; (b) timber harvest; (c) grazing; (d) fire and fire management activities; (e) nonindigenous species and their management; (f) road and trail development and on- and off-road vehicle use; (g) development and management of recreational facilities and water impoundments; (h) harvest and commerce;

and (i) habitat fragmentation and metapopulation impacts. This review is currently somewhat biased toward amphibians, both because of the much higher recent concern over the status of amphibians and because this literature review drew from previous efforts focused on amphibians.

Accounts for individual species then summarize what is known about the species' distributition, taxonomy, maximum documented elevation, habitat use and natural history, and conservation status. Sections on identification of various life history stages and priority research and management issues are also included. Finally, an attempt was made to compile a complete bibliography of published and gray literature for each species in order to provide everyone easy access to this information. These accounts are intended to be updated on a regular basis in order to provide everyone access to the latest information.

A contact list for members of the Montana Amphibian and Reptile Working Group is included in order to promote communication between agency biologists, resource managers, students, researchers, and anyone interested in the conservation of amphibians and reptiles in Montana.

An overview of the statewide inventory and monitoring program for amphibians and reptiles provides background information on the sampling schemes used, methods used for surveys, and the survey forms used for a variety of amphibian inventory work- Watershed summaries for the lentic breeding amphibian and aquatic reptile surveys complete the current version of this report in order to provide resource managers easy access to this information. Georeferenced site photos associated with this inventory work have been posted on the Montana Natural Heritage Program's TRACKER website which can be accessed at: http://mtnhp.org

It is recommended that users of this document first use the tables at the beginning of the document to identify management status, likelihood of a species presence in the area of interest, and the complement of species that are typically found in each general habitat type. Users should then examine individual species accounts in order gain a more thorough understanding of a species distribution, status, resource needs, factors that may pose a threat to population viability, and management actions that may mitigate these threats. Finally, users can review results of field surveys contained in individual watershed reports or see up-to-date distribution information for each species on the Montana Natural Heritage TRACKER website at: http://mtnhp.org

Background

There are only 13 amphibian species and 17 reptile species currently documented as native to Montana. Yet these species play important ecological roles in transferrring energy up the food chain and shaping terrestrial and aquatic communities and they may serve as valuable bio indicators of the health of certain environments. This relatively low species diversity, relative to other portions of the United States and the world, highlights the need for a thorough understanding of the conservation status of these species because Montana has relatively few species to carry out these important ecological functions.

Until recently, there has been very little information available on the distribution, status, and biology of the majority of the amphibian and reptile species in Montana. As recently as the year 2000 there were only approximately 6,000 observation records for these species in the statewide Point Observation Database housed at the Montana Natural Heritage Program and a number of species were documented in the state fewer than 40 times. Much of the state lacked baseline surveys for amphibians and reptiles until the mid 1990s and some of the best information available for some regions still dates back to the Lewis and Clark expedition in 1805 and 1806 or information gathered by naturalists associated with various military, road, or railroad surveys in the 1850s through 1870s. Understanding of the status of amphibians and reptiles in Montana was greatly advanced in the 1960s and 1970s through the work of students and faculty at the University of Montana and Montana State University. Among other things, their work documented healthy populations of Western Toads (Bufo boreas) and Northern Leopard Frogs (Rana pipiens) in western Montana. Baseline surveys for amphibians and reptiles were undertaken on a number of federal and tribal lands in the mid 1990s by Kirwin Werner, Jim Reichel, and Paul Hendricks in response to evidence that these and other amphibian species had undergone declines in Montana and around the world. These surveys filled in large gaps in our understanding of the distribution and status of a number of amphibian and reptile species and compiled evidence that populations of Western Toads had undergone declines and populations of Northern Leopard Frogs had been virtually extirpated from their former range in western Montana since the late 1970s.

These findings, as well as documented declines in amphibian populations around the world, spurred the development of several documents that compiled information on the status, distribution, and biology of amphibians and reptiles in Montana. These documents include: (1) Management of Montana's Amphibians (Maxell 2000) which developed species accounts for Montana amphibians that included information on identification, distribution, taxonomy, natural history, status, and conservation; (2) Herpetology in Montana (Maxell et al. 2003) which summarized the history of herpetology in Montana and provided checklists, dichotomous keys, dot distribution maps, maximum elevation records, a summary of museum voucher records, and indexed bibliographies for all amphibian and reptile species; and (3) the first field guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of Montana (Werner et al. 2004) which provided user friendly keys, numerous photos, contact information for federal, state, and tribal agencies associated with the management of amphibians and reptiles, information on actions to be taken in case of being bitten by a Prairie Rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis), and detailed species accounts that summarize identification, taxonomy, distribution, habitat use, behavior, and development for each of Montana's amphibians and reptiles.

In addition to concerns about the status of Western Toads and Northern Leopard Frogs, the compilation of information in these summary documents also indicated reasons for concern about the status of populations of Coeur d'Alene Salamander (Plethodon idahoensis), Plains Spadefoot (Spea bombifrons), Great Plains Toad (Bufo cognatus), Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina), Spiny Softshell (Apalone spinifera), Greater Short-horned Lizards (Phrynosoma hernandesi), Common Sagebrush Lizard (Sceloporus graciosus), Northern Alligator Lizard (Elgaria coerulea), Western Skink (Eumeces skiltonianus), Western Hog-nosed Snake (Heterodon nasicus), Smooth Greensnake (Opheodrys vernalis), and Milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum). For each of these species, a lack of recent records and/or a lack of adequate

baseline inventory data raises numerous questions about their status and distribution. It was clearly beyond the power of the available information to identify whether populations of most of these species were stable or had undergone declines. However, for at least one species, Greater Short-horned Lizard, lack of records in recent decades indicate that declines have taken place in at least a portion of their range due, at least in part, to wholesale conversion of native habitats to agricultural lands.

Coupled with growing evidence for declines in numerous amphibian, and some reptile, populations around the world, the concerns raised by these documents spurred the development of a statewide inventory and monitoring program for lentic breeding amphibians collaboratively funded by the Region 1 Office of the U.S. Forest Service, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's State Wildlife Grants Program, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality's EPA wetland grants program, the Montana State Office of the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Geological Surveys' Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative. This collaborative effort was facilitated by a common statewide sampling scheme that allowed each agency to contribute to portions of the overall effort. This common statewide lentic breeding amphibian sampling scheme has also prompted inventory efforts on private lands to be performed using the same survey methodology and the same data forms so that all information is compatible. Furthermore, these efforts have lead to a number of 3-day workshops in which agency biologists have received training on: (1) the identification, status, and basic natural history of all of Montana's amphibians and reptiles; (2) methodologies used to survey for Montana's amphibians and reptiles; (3) how to record data on incidental observations or formal surveys for amphibians and reptiles; (4) transferring survey and incidental observation data to central databases at the Montana Natural Heritage Program; and (5) how to access and use incidental information or information gathered under the common sampling effort in regional and local project level planning decisions.

Highest Priorities for the Conservation of Amphibians and Reptiles in Montana

Huge holes still exist in our understanding of the status, distribution, and biology of the amphibian and reptile species that have been definitively documented in the state. There is probably no better testimony to this than the recent confirmation that populations of the Idaho Giant Salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimums) do inhabit portions of western Montana or the possibility that 3 additional amphibian species (Great Basin Spadefoot (Spea intermontana), Canadian Toad (Bufo hemiophrys), and Wood Frog (Rana sylvaticaj) and 1 additional reptile species (Pigmy Short-horned Lizard (Phrynosoma douglassi) may still be identified as native to the state.

The following priority actions for the conservation of amphibians and reptiles in Montana were deemed to be among the highest priority issues identified under the research and management sections of individual species accounts.

1 . A statewide systematic survey for terrestrial reptiles using a common sampling scheme, designed to identify proportions of habitat patches occupied as a measure of status and that allows individual agencies to contribute to portions of the overall effort.

2. Conduct systematic lentic breeding amphibian surveys on Tribal and private lands in the near future when the public land baseline surveys have been completed.

3. Complete baseline surveys for Coeur d'Alene Salamanders at springs, seeps, and waterfall spray zones in western Montana.

4. Implement control measures for introduced American Bullfrog populations, especially isolated populations, in order to reduce the risk of their spread and impacts on a variety of native wildlife.

5. Reintroductions of Northern Leopard Frogs throughout their historic range in western Montana (identify source populations and the best sites for reintroduction).

6. Focal surveys for Greater Short-horned Lizards, Pigmy Short-horned Lizards, and other reptile species in southwest Montana.

7. Focal surveys for Woodfrogs in the Bighorn Mountains on the Crow Indian Reservation.

8. Focal surveys for Plains Spadefoots and Northern Leopard Frogs in the mountain valleys of the upper Missouri River tributaries immediately east of the Continental Divide.

9. Evaluation of the frequency and intensity of disturbance associated with beaver created sites across Montana with the long-term goal of managing for a beaver population that will maintain lentic sites across Montana landscapes in order to provide habitat for amphibians, reptiles, and a variety of other wildlife.

10. Plan for fortuitous/adaptive amphibian call surveys across Montana in order to take advantage of proper weather conditions in order to better understand the status of species like the Great Plains Toad and Plains Spadefoot.

11. Focal studies on the basic natural history and population demography of a number of amphibian and reptile species in Montana.

12. Educate biologists, resource managers, and the general public about the biology and conservation of amphibians and reptiles in the state.

10

CHECKLISTS OF MONTANA'S AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILE SPECIES

Taxonomy and Common and Scientific Names

Throughout this document common and scientific names used are consistent with those in the 5th edition of Scientific and Standard English Names of the Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico (Crother 2000, Crother et al. 2001, 2003). These have been used in preference to those in the 6th edition (Crother 2008) because they currently have more of a consensus among herpetologists and because changes in the 6th edition have been questioned by several authors as not adequately reflecting a consensus among herpetologists and unnecessary to reflect evolutionary history (e.g., Smith and Chiszar 2006, Hillis 2007, Wiens 2007).

DOCUMENTED NATIVE AMPHIBIAN SPECIES

Amphibians (Class Amphibia)

Salamanders (Order Caudata)

Mole Salamanders (Family Ambystomatidae)

Long-toed Salamander {Ambystoma macrodactlyum) Tiger Salamander {Ambystoma tigrinum)

Giant Salamanders (Family Dicamptodontidae)

Idaho Giant Salamanders {Dicamptodon atterimus)

Lungless Salamanders (Family Plethodontidae)

Coeur d'Alene Salamander {Plethodon idahoensis)

Frogs and Toads (Order Anura)

Tailed Frogs (Family Ascaphidae)

Rocky Mountain Tailed Frog {Ascaphus montanus)

Spadefoot Toads (Family Pelobatidae) Plains Spadefoot {Spea bombifrons)

True Toads (Family Bufonidae) Western Toad (Bufo boreas) Great Plains Toad {Bufo cognatus) Woodhouse's Toad {Bufo woodhousii)

Treefrogs (Family Hylidae)

Boreal Chorus Frog {Pseudacris maculata) Pacific Treefrog {Pseudacris regilla)

True Frogs (Family Ranidae)

Columbia Spotted Frog {Rana luteiventris) Northern Leopard Frog {Rana pipiens)

11

DOCUMENTED NATIVE REPTILE SPECIES

Reptiles (Class Reptilia)

Turtles (Order Testudines)

Snapping Turtles (Family Chelydridae) Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina)

Pond Turtles (Family Emydidae) Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta)

Softshell Turtles (Family Trionychidae) Spiny Softshell (Apalone spinifera)

Lizards (Order Squamata, Suborder Lacertilia)

Alligator Lizards (Family Anguidae)

Northern Alligator Lizard (Elgaria coerulea)

Spiny Lizards (Family Phrynosomatidae)

Greater Short-horned Lizard (Phrynosoma hernandesi) Common Sagebrush Lizard {Sceloporus graciosus)

Skinks (Family Scincidae)

Western Skink (Eumeces skiltonianus)

Snakes (Order Squamata, Suborder Serpentes)

Boas (Family Boidae)

Rubber Boa (Charina bottae)

Colubrids (Family Colubridae)

Eastern Racer {Coluber constrictor) Western Hog-nosed Snake (Heterodon nasicus) Smooth Greensnake (Opheodrys vernalis) Milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum) Gophersnake (Pituophis catenifer) Terrestrial Gartersnake (Thamnophis elegans) Plains Gartersnake {Thamnophis radix) Common Gartersnake {Thamnophis sirtalis)

Vipers (Family Viperidae)

Prairie Rattlesnake {Crotalus viridis)

12

POTENTIAL NATIVE SPECIES CURRENTLY UNCONFIRMED IN MONTANA

Amphibians (Class Amphibia)

Frogs and Toads (Order Anura)

Spadefoot Toads (Family Pelobatidae)

Great Basin Spadefoot (Spea intermontana)

True Toads (Family Bufonidae)

Canadian Toad (Bufo hemiophrys)

True Frogs (Family Ranidae) Wood Frog (Rana sylvatica)

Reptiles (Class Reptilia)

Lizards (Order Squamata, Suborder Lacertilia)

Spiny Lizards (Family Phrynosomatidae)

Pigmy Short-horned Lizard (Phrynosoma douglasii)

EXOTIC SPECIES SUCCESSFULLY BREEDING IN MONTANA

Amphibians (Class Amphibia)

Frogs and Toads (Order Anura)

True Frogs (Family Ranidae)

American Bullfrog {Rana catesbeiana)

SPECIES SUCCESSFULLY BREEDING IN MONTANA FOR WHICH THERE IS UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THEIR STATUS AS NATIVES OR EXOTICS

Reptiles (Class Reptilia)

Lizards (Order Squamata, Suborder Lacertilia)

Spiny Lizards (Family Phrynosomatidae)

Western Fence Lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis)

13

EXOTIC SPECIES DOCUMENTED IN MONTANA FOR WHICH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF SUCCESSFUL BREEDING

Salamanders (Order Caudata)

Newts (Family Salamandridae)

Rough-skinned Newt (Taricha granulosa)

Turtles (Order Testudines)

Pond Turtles (Family Emydidae)

Mississippi Map Turtle (Graptemys pseudogeographica kohnii) Red-eared Slider (Trachemys scripta elegans)

Spiny Lizards (Family Phrynosomatidae)

Coast Horned Lizard {Phrynosoma coronatum)

14

Presence and Status Ranks for Amphibians and Reptiles in Various Land Management Regions in Montana

Current distribution and status information can be found on the Montana Natural Heritage Program's website at www.mtnhp.org

Natureserve and Heritage Program Ranks

NatureServe and the international network of Natural Heritage Programs employ a standardized ranking system to denote global and state status. These ranks are often used by federal and state agencies in assigning their own special status ranks for species they will give special protections or considerations in land use planning. Under the NatureServe and Natural Heritage Program conservation data network, each species is given a global (G) rank, denoting range-wide status, and a state (S) rank for its status in Montana. Status ranks range from 1 (greatest concern) to 5 (least concern).

Global ranks are assigned by scientists at NatureServe (the international affiliate organization for the heritage network) in consultation with biologists in the natural heritage programs and other taxonomic experts. State ranks are determined jointly by Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks biologists in consultation with the Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society, the Montana Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, and other experts (see ranking criteria below). Among other things, the combination of global and state ranks often helps describe the proportion of a species' range and/or total population occurring in Montana. For instance, a rank of G3 S3 often indicates that Montana comprises most or a very significant portion of an animal's total population. In contrast, an animal ranked G5 SI often occurs in Montana at the periphery of its much larger range; thus, the state supports a relatively small portion of its total population.

In Montana, vertebrate species assigned a state rank of SI, S2, or S3 and invertebrate species assigned a state rank of SI or S2 are included in the Montana Species of Concern report. The latest version of this report can be found at: http://nhp.nris.state.mt.us/reports.asp Designation of a species as a Montana Animal Species of Concern is not a statutory or regulatory classification. Instead, these designations provide a basis for resource managers and decision-makers to direct limited resources to priority data collection needs and address conservation needs proactively.

Definitions of NatureServe and Heritage Program Ranks

Gl / SI At high risk because of extremely limited and/or rapidly declining numbers, range,

and/or habitat, making it highly vulnerable to global extinction or extirpation in the

state. G2 / S2 At risk because of very limited and/or declining numbers, range, and/or habitat,

making it vulnerable to global extinction or extirpation in the state. G3 / S3 Potentially at risk because of limited and/or declining numbers, range, and/or

habitat, even though it may be abundant in some areas. G4 / S4 Uncommon but not rare (although it may be rare in parts of its range), and usually

widespread. Apparently not vulnerable in most of its range, but possibly cause for

long-term concern. G5 / S5 Common, widespread, and abundant (although it may be rare in parts of its range).

Not vulnerable in most of its range. SNA Currently unranked at the state level.

15

State Rank Criteria for Montana Animal Species of Concern

The ranking criteria described below were used in developing state ranks for vertebrate animal species in Montana. Detailed definitions and guidance for use are provided individually for each criterion. Information from multiple reviewers was combined by MTNHP and MFWP staff to generate "compiled" responses to each criterion. The final state rank was then derived using the process described in Appendix A, with input and review from staff and other experts.

This methodology has been adapted for Montana from a process developed and proposed by scientists at NatureServe (the international affiliate for natural heritage programs), as documented in:

Master, L. L., L. E. Morse, A. S. Weakley, G. A. Hammerson, and D. Faber-Langendoen. 2003. NatureServe Conservation Status Assessment Criteria. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, U.S.A.

Conservation Criteria

Population Size

Enter the code for the estimated current naturally occurring wild total population of the species within Montana. Count or estimate the number of individuals of reproductive age or stage (at an appropriate time of the year), including mature but currently non-reproducing individuals.

Guidance, consider the following points (from IUCN 2000) when estimating population numbers:

• Mature individuals that will never produce new recruits should not be counted (e.g., densities are too low for fertilization) [But see note below regarding long-persisting nonreproductive clones.]

• In the case of populations with biased adult or breeding sex ratios it is appropriate to use lower estimates for the number of mature individuals, which take this into account (e.g., the estimated effective population size).

• Where the population size fluctuates use a lower estimate. In most cases this will be much less than the mean.

• Reproducing units within a clone should be counted as individuals, except where such units are unable to survive alone (e.g., corals).

• In the case oftaxa that naturally lose all or a subset of mature individuals at some point in their life cycle, the estimate should be made at the appropriate time, when mature individuals are available for breeding.

• Re-introduced individuals must have produced viable offspring before they are counted as mature individuals

Also consider:

• For species that produce more than one generation per year, use the size of the smallest annual reproducing generation in estimations.

• For seed-banking plants or other intermittently obvious organisms, consider population size to be the number of mature individuals in a typical "good" year, but not a "poor" year or an

16

extraordinarily productive year. Although data will rarely be available, population size for such species should be conceptually considered the median of the population over a 10-year or 3 -generation (whichever is longer) time span. • For clone-forming organisms that persist or spread locally but rarely if ever reproduce, consider the population size to be the number of distinct, self-maintaining clonal patches (approximating the number of genets), rather than the number of physiologically separate individuals (ramets).

Select from the following values:

Z = Zero, no individuals known extant

A =1-50 individuals

B = 50-250 individuals

C =250-1,000 individuals

D = 1,000-2,500 individuals

E =2,500-10,000 individuals

F = 10,000-100,000 individuals

G =100,000-1,000,000 individuals

H = > 1,000,000 individuals

U = Unknown

Null = Rank factor not assessed

Range Extent / Area of Occupancy

Range extent is described by IUCN (2001) for taxa:

Extent of occurrence is defined as the area contained within the shortest continuous imaginary boundary that can be drawn to encompass all the known, inferred or projected sites of present occurrence of a taxon, excluding cases of vagrancy. This measure may exclude discontinuities or disjunctions within the overall distribution of a taxon (e.g. large areas of obviously unsuitable habitat) (but see 'area of occupancy').

Area of occupancy is described by IUCN (2001) for taxa as:

Area of occupancy is defined as the area within its 'extent of occurrence' (see definition), which is occupied by a taxon, excluding cases of vagrancy. The measure reflects the fact that a taxon will not usually occur throughout the area of its extent of occurrence, which may contain unsuitable or unoccupied habitats. In some cases (e.g. colonial nesting sites, feeding sites for migratory taxa) the area of occupancy is the smallest area essential at any stage to the survival of existing populations of a taxon. The size of the area of occupancy will be a function of the scale at which it is measured, and should be at a scale appropriate to relevant biological aspects of the taxon, the nature of threats and the available data.

17

Figure 1 illustrates the differences between range extent and area of occupancy.

'.V *V.

• ••

• •

• •••

•V

ul/

n /[*

/* w r/m

W * A

* & V^z

ZK fS&^Jtli

.-3E^i^

Z27«^ ¥

		r
			* <	t
			I
			•
			/m	•
			•
		,	.V
	•	H

Figure 1 . Two examples of the distinction between range extent and area of occupancy. (A) Is the spatial distribution of known, inferred or projected sites of present occurrence. (B) Shows one possible boundary to the range extent, which is the measured area within this boundary using a minimum convex polygon. [Note that Burgman and Fox (2001) strongly recommend the use of a- hulls rather than minimum convex polygons to estimate range extent as otherwise significant overestimates (e.g., right side of example B) may result.] (C) Shows one measure of area of occupancy, which can be achieved by the sum of the occupied grid squares.

(From IUCN2001)

Range Extent

Enter the code that best describes the estimated current range of the species in Montana. See below for definitions of range extent (extent of occurrence) and for contrast of this with area of occupancy.

Select from the following values:

Z = Zero (no occurrences believed extant)

A = <100 km (less than about 40 square miles)

B = 100-250 km2 (about 40-100 square miles)

C = 250-1,000 km2 (about 100-400 square miles)

D = 1,000-5,000 km2 (about 400-2,000 square miles)

E = 5,000-20,000 km2 (about 2,000-8,000 square miles)

F = 20,000-200,000 km2 (about 8,000-80,000 square miles)

G = 200,000-2,500,000 km2 (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)

U = Unknown

Null = Rank factor not assessed

18

Area of Occupancy

Determine the code for the estimated current area of occupancy of the species in Montana. See above for differences between area of occupancy and range extent.

For species in linear habitats (e.g., riverine shoreline, or cliff-edge species), enter the code for the total length of all currently occupied habitat segments. Where better information is lacking, area can be estimated from a linear dimension by assuming an appropriate average width (e.g., 100 meters) for a linear habitat. If information on both occupied area and occupied length is available, use the one that results in the more restrictive value, but provide information on both in the comments field.

For migratory species, enter the code (area or length) that reflects the current area of occupancy (or length of occupied area) at the time of the year when occupancy is most restricted.

Select from the following values: Area:

Z = Zero (no occurrences believed extant)

A = <0.4 km2 (less than about 100 acres)

B = 0.4-4 km2 (about 100-1,000 acres)

C = 4-20 km2 (about 1,000-5,000 acres)

D = 20-100 km2 (about 5,000-25,000 acres)

E = 100-500 km2 (about 25,000-125,000 acres)

F = 500-2,000 km2 (about 125,000-500,000 acres)

G = 2,000-20,000 km2 (500,000-5,000,000 acres)

H = >20,000 km2 (greater than 5,000,000 acres)

U = Unknown

Null = Rank factor not assessed

Length:

LZ = Zero (no occurrences believed extant)

LA = <4 km (less than about 2.5 miles)

LB = 4-40 km (about 2.5-25 miles)

LC = 40-200 km (about 25-125 miles)

LD = 200-1,000 km (about 125-620 miles)

LE = 1,000-5,000 km (about 620-3,000 miles)

LF = 5,000-20,000 km (about 3,000-12,500 miles)

LG = 20,000-200,000 km (about 12,500-125,000 miles)

LH = >200,000 km (greater than 125,000 miles)

LU = Unknown

Null = Rank factor not assessed

Long-term Trend

Enter the code that best describes the observed, estimated, inferred, or suspected degree of change in population size, extent of occurrence, area of occupancy, and/or number or condition of occurrences over the long term (ca. 200 years) in Montana. Specify in the comment field the time period for the change noted, as well as a longer-term view (e.g., back to European

19

exploration) if information is available. If there are data on more than one aspect, specify which aspect is most influential.

Select from the following values:

A = Very Large Decline (decline of >90%, with <10% of population size, range extent, area occupied, and/or number or condition of occurrences remaining) B = Large Decline (decline of 75-90%) C = Substantial Decline (decline of 50-75%) D = Moderate Decline (decline of 25-50%) E = Relatively Stable (±25% change) F = Increase (increase of >25%) U = Unknown. Long-term trend in population, range, area occupied, or number or

condition of occurrences unknown Null = Rank factor not assessed

Short-term Trend

Enter the code that best describes the observed, estimated, inferred, suspected, or projected short- term trend in population size, extent of occurrence, area of occupancy, whichever most significantly affects the rank in Montana. Consider short-term historical trend within 10 years or 3 generations (for long-lived species), whichever is the longer (up to a maximum of 100 years.

The trend may be recent, current, or projected (based on recent past), and the trend may or may not be known to be continuing. Trends may be smooth, irregular or sporadic. Fluctuations will not normally count as trends, but an observed change should not be considered as merely a fluctuation rather than a trend unless there is evidence for this.

Specify what is known about various pertinent trends in the comment field, including trend information for particular factors, more precise information, regional trends, etc. Also comment, if known, on whether the causes of decline, if any, are understood, reversible, and/or ceased. If the trend is known not to be continuing, specify that in comments.

Select from the following values:

A = Severely Declining. Decline of >70% in population, range, area occupied, and/or

number or condition of occurrences B = Very Rapidly Declining. Decline of 50-70% in population, range, area occupied,

and/or number or condition of occurrences C = Rapidly Declining. Decline of 30-50% in population, range, area occupied, and/or

number or condition of occurrences D = Declining. Decline of 10-30% in population, range, area occupied, and/or number

or condition of occurrences E = Stable. Population, range, area occupied, and/or number or condition of

occurrences unchanged or remaining within ±10% fluctuation F = Increasing. Increase of >10% in population, range, area occupied, and/or number or

condition of occurrences U = Unknown. Short-term trend in population, range, area occupied, and number and

condition of occurrences unknown. Null = Rank factor not assessed

20

Threats (Severity, Scope, and Immediacy)

Indicate the degree to which the species is observed, inferred, or suspected to be directly or indirectly threatened in Montana (or throughout its range if it affects persistence in Montana). Use this field to evaluate the impact of extrinsic threats, which typically are anthropogenic but may be natural. The impact of human activity may be direct (e.g., destruction of habitat) or indirect (e.g., invasive species introduction). Effects of natural phenomena (e.g., fire, hurricane, flooding) may be especially important when the species is concentrated in few locations. Characteristics of the species that make it inherently susceptible to threats should be considered under the rank factor Intrinsic Vulnerability.

Threats considerations apply to the present and the future. Effects of past threats (whether or not continuing) should be addressed instead under the short-term trend and/or long-term trend factors. For species known only historically in the area of interest, but with significant likelihood of rediscovery in identifiable areas, current or foreseeable threats in those areas may be addressed here where appropriate if they would affect any extant (but unrecorded) occurrences of the species.

Threats may be observed, inferred, or projected to occur in the near term. They should be characterized in terms of severity (how badly and irreversibly the species population is affected), scope (what proportion of it is affected), and degree of imminence (how likely the threat is and how soon is it expected). "Magnitude" is sometimes used to refer to scope and severity collectively.

Consider threats collectively, and for the foreseeable threat with the greatest magnitude (severity and scope combined), rate the severity, scope, and immediacy each as High, Moderate, Low, Insignificant, or Unknown, as briefly defined below. Identify in the comment field the threat to which severity, scope, and immediacy pertains, and discuss additional threats identified, or interactions among threats, including any high-magnitude threats considered insignificant in immediacy.

Severity

High: Loss of species population (all individuals) or destruction of species habitat in area

affected, with effects essentially irreversible or requiring long-term recovery (>100 years).

Moderate: Major reduction of species population or long-term degradation or reduction of

habitat in Montana, requiring 50-100 years for recovery.

Low: Low but nontrivial reduction of species population or reversible degradation or reduction

of habitat in area affected, with recovery expected in 10-50 years.

Insignificant: Essentially no reduction of population or degradation of habitat or ecological

community due to threats, or populations, habitats, able to recover quickly (within 10 years)

from minor temporary loss. Note that effects of locally sustainable levels of hunting, fishing,

logging, collecting, or other harvest from wild populations are generally considered Insignificant

as defined here.

21

Scope

High: > 60% of total population or area affected Moderate: 20-60% of total population or area affected Low: 5-20% of total population or area affected Insignificant: < 5% of total population or area affected

Immediacy

High: Threat is operational (happening now) or imminent (within a year).

Moderate: Threat is likely to be operational within 2-5 years.

Low: Threat is likely to be operational within 5-20 years.

Insignificant: Threat not likely to be operational within 20 years.

The system will calculate a rank factor value of A, B, C, D, E, F, or G, as shown in Table 2 below. If two of the three parameters are known, the rank factor value will be calculated by treating the unknown (or not assessed [null]) parameter as "Low." If only one of the rank factors is rated (as High, Moderate, or Low), the resulting rank factor value will be "U" (unknown). If any of the three factors are considered "Insignificant," the resulting rank factor will be "H" (unthreatened)."

Threat values, calculated from scope, severity, and immediacy, or unknown, may be considered as follows.

A = Substantial, imminent threat. Threat is moderate to severe and imminent for most (> 60%)

of the population or area. B = Moderate and imminent threat. Threat is moderate to severe and imminent for a significant

proportion (20-60%) of the population or area. C = Substantial, non-imminent threat. Threat is moderate to severe but not imminent (> 10

years) for most of the population or area. D = Moderate, non-imminent threat. Threat is moderate to severe but not imminent for a

significant portion of the population or area. E = Localized substantial threat. Threat is moderate to severe for a small but significant

proportion of the population or area. F = Widespread, low-severity threat. Threat is of low severity but affects (or would affect) most

or a significant portion of the population or area. G = Slightly threatened. Threats, while recognizable, are of low severity, or affecting only a

small portion of the population or area. H = Unthreatened. Threats if any, when considered in comparison with natural fluctuation and

change, are minimal or very localized, not leading to significant loss or degradation of

populations or area even over a few decades' time. (Severity, scope, and/or immediacy of

threat considered Insignificant.) U = Unknown. The available information is not sufficient to assign degree of threat as above.

(Severity, scope, and immediacy are all unknown, or mostly [two of three] unknown or not

assessed [null].) Null = Rank factor not assessed, including instances in which the species is extinct (or

extirpated from the area of interest).

22

Table 2. Calculation of Threats factor values from values for Severity, Scope, and Immediacy subfactors.

SEVERITY	SCOPE	IMMEDIACY	VALUE	DESCRIPTION
High High Moderate Moderate	High High High High	High Moderate High Moderate	= A	Moderate to severe, imminent threat for most (>60%) of population, occurrences, or area
High High Moderate Moderate	Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate	High Moderate High Moderate	= B	Moderate to severe, imminent threat for a significant proportion (20-60%) of population, occurrences, or area
High Moderate	High High	Low Low	= C	Moderate to severe, non-imminent threat for most of population, occurrences, or area
High Moderate	Moderate Moderate	Low Low	= D	Moderate to severe, non-imminent threat for a significant proportion of population, occurrences, or area
High High High Moderate Moderate Moderate	Low Low Low Low Low Low	High Moderate Low High Moderate Low	= E	Moderate to severe threat for small proportion of population, occurrences, or area

23

Low	High	High
Low	High	Moderate		Low severity threat for
Low	High	Low	= F	most or significant proportion of
Low	Moderate	High		population, occurrences, or area
Low	Moderate	Moderate
Low	Moderate	Low
Low	Low	High		Low severity threat for
Low	Low	Moderate	= G	a small proportion of population,
Low	Low	Low		occurrences, or area

Intrinsic Vulnerability

Enter the appropriate letter code for the observed, inferred, or suspected degree to which intrinsic or inherent factors of the species (such as life history or behavior characteristics of species) make it vulnerable or resilient to natural or anthropogenic stresses or catastrophes. Examples of such factors include reproductive rates and requirements, time to maturity, dormancy requirements, and dispersal patterns.

Since geographically or ecologically disjunct or peripheral populations may show additional vulnerabilities not generally characteristic of the species, these factors are to be assessed for the species throughout the area of interest, or at least for its better populations. Do not consider here such topics as population size, number of occurrences, area of occupancy, extent of occurrence, or environmental specificity; these are addressed as other ranking factors.

Note that the intrinsic vulnerability factors exist independent of human influence, but may make the species more susceptible to disturbance by human activities. The extent and effects of current or projected extrinsic influences themselves should be addressed in the Threat comments field.

Describe the reasons for your selection in the Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments field.

Select from the following values:

A = Highly Vulnerable. Species is slow to mature, reproduces infrequently, and/or has low

fecundity such that populations are very slow (> 20 years or 5 generations) to recover from decreases in abundance; or species has low dispersal capability such that extirpated

24

populations are unlikely to become reestablished through natural recolonization (unaided by humans).

B = Moderately Vulnerable. Species exhibits moderate age of maturity, frequency of reproduction, and/or fecundity such that populations generally tend to recover from decreases in abundance over a period of several years (on the order of 5-20 years or 2-5 generations); or species has moderate dispersal capability such that extirpated populations generally become reestablished through natural recolonization (unaided by humans).

C = Not Intrinsically Vulnerable. Species matures quickly, reproduces frequently, and/or has high fecundity such that populations recover quickly (< 5 years or 2 generations) from decreases in abundance; or species has high dispersal capability such that extirpated populations soon become reestablished through natural recolonization (unaided by humans).

U = Unknown

Null = Rank factor not assessed

Environmental Specificity

Enter the appropriate letter code for the observed, inferred, or suspected vulnerability or resilience of the species due to habitat preferences or restrictions or other environmental specificity or generality. Describe the reasons for your selection in the Environmental Specificity field. Indicate in the comment field why environmental specificity affects vulnerability. This factor is most important when the number of populations and the range extent or area of occupancy are largely unknown.

Select from the following values:

A = Very Narrow. Specialist. Specific habitat(s), substrate(s), food type(s), hosts,

breeding/nonbreeding microhabitats, or other abiotic and/or biotic factor(s) are used or required by the Element in the area of interest, with these habitat(s) and/or other requirements furthermore being scarce within the generalized range of the species within the area of interest, and, the population (or the number of breeding attempts) expected to decline significantly if any of these key requirements become unavailable.

B = Narrow. Specialist. Specific habitat(s) or other abiotic and/or biotic factors (see above) are used or required by the Element, but these key requirements are common and within the generalized range of the species within the area of interest.

C = Moderate. Generalist. Broad-scale or diverse (general) habitat(s) or other abiotic and/or biotic factors are used or required by the species but some key requirements are scarce in the generalized range of the species within the area of interest.

D = Broad. Generalist. Broad-scale or diverse (general) habitat(s) or abiotic and/or biotic factors are used or required by the species, with all key requirements common in the generalized range of the species in the area of interest. If the preferred food(s) or breeding/nonbreeding microhabitat(s) become unavailable, the species switches to an alternative with no resulting decline in numbers of individuals or number of breeding attempts.

U = Unknown

Null = Rank factor not assessed

25

Other Considerations

Provide and comment on any other information that should be considered in the assignment of a conservation status rank, especially when the status rank resulting from the overall assessment is different from the rank that the values for the formal status factors, taken alone, would suggest. This (text only) field may also be used for other general notes pertinent to multiple factors.

The following are some examples of Other Considerations:

• Preliminary rank assessment does not necessarily reflect current status, since the rank was done by inspection from review of published distribution and habitat information, or museum collection information.

• A population viability analysis may indicate that the species has x percent probability of surviving for y years (or an equivalent number of generations) in the same area of interest (globe, nation, or subnation).

26

Conservation Status For Species: A Rule- And Point-Based Process For Rank Assignment

Adopted for Montana from a draft by- L. Master & T. Regan- 17 November 2001

A Quantitative approximation to assigning Heritage Ranks

The method for determining an SRank is a hybrid of rule based approaches and point scoring techniques. The method incorporates unknown data. To determine an Srank, first determine what information is available for the species. Use the following rationale along with the Status Assessment Factors presented in this document and the method for point allocation for each of the factors presented below to determine the classification.

• Population size. If the number of mature individuals is small, it may be appropriate to raise the priority by one -half rank or more. If there are many mature individuals, the priority may be lowered. [A=-l, B=-0.75, C=-0.5, D-E=-0.25, F=0, G=+0.25, H=+0.5, U=0]

• Geographic distribution. If a species' area of occupancy or extent of occurrence (= range extent) is relatively small, it is more vulnerable to negative effects from localized events. It may be appropriate to raise priority by one-quarter rank or more for a species with a narrow distribution and lower it by one-quarter to one-half rank for a widespread species. [Area of occupancy: A=-l, B=-0.75, C=-0.5, D=-.25, E=0, F=0, G=0, H=+0.25, U=0; or (whichever is greatest) Extent of occurrence: A-B=-0.5, C-D=-0.25; E-F-G-H=0, U=0]

• Environmental specificity. If a species requires highly specific habitat(s) or other abiotic or biotic factor(s), and if the number of populations and distribution is unknown, the rank may be raised or lowered. [A=-0.5, B & C=0, D=+0.5, U=0].

• Short-term trends in population size, area of occupancy, extent of occurrence, or number or condition of occurrences. A significant short term and non-cyclic negative trend may be reason to raise priority by one-quarter rank or more, or a significant positive trend may indicate that priority should be lowered by one-half rank. [A=-l, B=-0.75, C=-0.5, D=- 0.25, E=0, F=+0.25, U=0] In the absence of short-term trend data, the rank may be raised or lowered for long-term trends. [A=-0.5, B=-0.25, C & D & E=0, F=+0.25, U=0]

• Threats. Threats include habitat destruction or degradation, introduction of exotic species, overexploitation and direct human-caused mortality, and elimination of natural disturbance regimes, such as fire or flooding. Depending on the severity, scope, and immediacy of threats, the priority may be raised or lowered by one-half to one rank. [A=- 1, B=-0.75, C=-0.5, D=-0.25, E & F=0, G=+0.75, H=+1.0, U=0]

• Intrinsic vulnerability. If a species is intrinsically vulnerable because it is slow to mature, reproduces infrequently, and/or has low fecundity such that populations are very slow to recover from decreases in abundance, or is a species has low dispersal capability such that extirpated populations are unlikely to become reestablished through natural colonization, it may be appropriate to raise its priority. [A=-0.5, B=-0.25, C & U=0]

27

Step 1: Determine the available data for the species. The following subheadings are indicative of the types of data useful for classification (Refer to Heritage Conservation Status Assessment Factors for definitions of the following factors as noted in this document.

Population size

Geographic Distribution (Extent of Occurrence [EOO] or Area of Occupancy [AOO])

Environmental Specificity

Trends (short-term and long-term trends)

Threats (scope, severity, immediacy)

Management / Protection

Intrinsic Vulnerability

Step2: Determine which of the following combinations of the first five data requirements suits the available data (only choose one combination and the first to apply).

Pop size + Geographic Distribution (greatest value from EOO or AOO)

Pop size + Environmental Specificity

Population size

Geographic Distribution (EOO only; AOO unknown) and Environmental Specificity

Geographic Distribution (greatest value from EOO or AOO)

Environmental Specificity

Step 3: Start point allocation at 3.5. Using the point allocation document below, determine a value for the combination you choose and add or subtract if appropriate. If all six factors are unknown: points = 3.5

Step 4: Once a value has been determined for the first five data requirements, incorporate remaining data.

P = points (total from step 3) + trends (short term trend otherwise use Long term trend) + threats

OR

P = points (total from step 3) + trends (short term trend if known, otherwise use Long term trend) + intrinsic vulnerability

Explanation: Only include intrinsic vulnerability if you have no information on threats.

The following Heritage Ranks correspond to the final point total.

Points (P)	SRANK
P<1.5	SI
1.5<P<2.5	S2
2.5<P<3.5	S3
3.5<P<4.5	S4
P>4.5	S5

28

Presence and Status Ranks for Amphibians and Reptiles on National Forests in Montana

U.S. Forest Service and Montana Natural Heritage Program status ranks and notations on species presence are listed in the table below for each of the National Forests in Montana. Until recently, U.S. Forest Service Manual (2670.22) defined Sensitive species on U.S. Forest Service lands as those for which population viability is a concern as evidenced by a significant downward trend in population or a significant downward trend in habitat capacity. Sensitive species receive special considerations in various planning and project level decisions. The Regional Forester for the Northern Region designates Sensitive species on National Forests in Montana. These designations were last updated in 2007 and they apply only on USFS- administered lands. However, the U.S. Forest Service is implementing new planning regulations which will lead to changes in the identification of "special status" species on National Forest lands. For the time being, species will continue to be recognized as Sensitive for Region 1 under existing agency policy, but in addition many of the newly revised Forest Plans may also identify USFS Species of Concern and USFS Species of Interest as outlined below (FSH 1909.12, 43.22b). The new USFS Species of Concern will be species for which management actions may be necessary to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) based on proposed or candidate status under the ESA, recent delisting of species from the federal Endangered Species List, or NatureServe/Heritage Ranks of G1-G3 or T1-T3. The new USFS Species of Interest will be species for which management actions may be necessary or desirable to achieve ecological or other multiple-use objectives based on criteria as diverse as NatureServe ranks of S1-S2, species identified as of conservation concern in State Comprehensive Wildlife Strategies, species that are hunted, fished, or are otherwise of public interest, or other species for which there is evidence for significant threats to populations or habitat, declining trends in populations or habitat, rarity, or restricted ranges.

29

Presence and Status Ranks for Amphibians on National Forests in Montana

Current distribution and status information can be found on the Montana Natural Heritage Program's website at www.mtnhp.org

Common and Scientific Name	Rl USFS Status	Heritage Ranks	Beaverhead- Deerlodge	Bitterroot	Custer	Flathead	Gallatin	Helena	Kootenai	Lewis & Clark	Lolo
Long-toed Salamander (Ambystoma macrodactyluni)	No Special Status	G5/S4	Present Part	Present Entire	Outside Range	Present Entire	Outside Range	Present Part	Present Entire	Present Part	Present Entire
Tiger Salamander {Ambystoma tigrinum)	No Special Status	G5/S4	Present Part	Outside Range	Present Entire	Outside Range	Present Entire	Presence Possible	Present Part	Present Entire	Outside Range
AIdaho Giant Salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus)	No Special Status	G3/S1S3	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part
Coeur d' Alene Salamander (Plethodon idahoensis)	Sensitive Species	G4/S2	Outside Range	Present Part	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part	Outside Range	Present Part
Rocky Mountain Tailed Frog (Ascaphus montanus)	No Special Status	G4/S4	Present Part	Present Entire	Outside Range	Present Entire	Outside Range	Present Part	Present Entire	Present Part	Present Entire
APlains Spadefoot (Spea bombifrons)	Sensitive Species	G5/S3	Presence Possible	Outside Range	Present Part	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Presence Possible	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Outside Range
Great Basin Spadefoot (Spea intermontana)	No Special Status	G5/SNA	Presence Possible	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
BWestern Toad (Bufo boreas)	Sensitive Species	G4/S2	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Part	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Part	Present Entire
AGreat Plains Toad (Bufo cognatus)	Sensitive Species	G5/S2	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part	Outside Range	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Outside Range
Woodhouse's Toad (Bufo woodhousei)	No Special Status	G5/S4	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Outside Range	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Outside Range
Pacific Treefrog (Pseudacris regilla)	No Special Status	G5/S4	Outside Range	Present Part	Outside Range	Present Part	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Entire	Outside Range	Present Part
Boreal Chorus Frog (Pseudacris maculata)	No Special Status	G5/S4	Present Part	Outside Range	Present Part	Outside Range	Present Part	Presence Possible	Outside Range	Present Entire	Outside Range
American Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana)	No Special Status	G5/SNA Exotic	Presence Possible	Continue to Spread	Limited Presence	Limited Presence	Presence Possible	Presence Possible	Continue to Spread	Presence Possible	Continue to Spread
Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris)	No Special Status	G4/S4	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Part	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Part	Present Entire
BNorthern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens)	Sensitive Species	G5/S1S3	Present Part	Historic Presence	Present Part	Historic Presence	Presence Possible	Presence Possible	Nearly Extirpated	Present Part	Historic Presence
Wood Frog (Rana sylvatica)	No Special Status	G5/SNA	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Outside Range	Outside Range

A relatively few records for species. B evidence that species has declined

30

Presence and Status Ranks for Reptiles on National Forests in Montana Current distribution and status information can be found on the Montana Natural Heritage Program's website at www.mtnhp.org
Common and Scientific Name	Rl USFS Status	Heritage Ranks	Beaverhead -Deerlodae	Bitterroot	Custer	Flathead	Gallatin	Helena	Kootenai	Lewis & Clark	Lolo
ASnapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentine)	No Special Status	G5/S3	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta)	No Special Status	G5/S4	Present Part	Present Part	Present Entire	Present Part	Present Part	Present Part	Present Part	Present Part	Present Part
ASpiny Softshell Turtle (Apalone spinifera)	No Special Status	G5/S3	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
ANorthern Alligator Lizard (Elgaria coeruled)	No Special Status	G5/S3	Presence Possible	Present Entire	Outside Range	Present Part	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Entire	Outside Range	Present Part
Pigmy Short-horned Lizard (Phrynosoma hernandesi)	No Special Status	G5/SNA	Presence Possible	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
BGreater Short-horned Lizard (Phrynosoma hernandesi)	Sensitive Species	G5/S3	Presence Possible	Outside Range	Present Part	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Presence Possible	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Outside Range
Common Sagebrush Lizard (Sceloporus graciosus)	No Special Status	G5S3	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part	Outside Range	Present Part	Outside Range	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Outside Range
Western Fence Lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis)	No Special Status	G5/SNA	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Presence Possible
AWestern Skink (Eumeces skiltonianus)	No Special Status	G5S3	Presence Possible	Present Entire	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Entire	Outside Range	Present Part
ARubber Boa (Charina bottae)	No Special Status	G5S4	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Part	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire
Eastern Racer (Coluber constrictor)	No Special Status	G5S5	Present Part	Present Part	Present Part	Presence Possible	Present Part	Present Entire	Present Part	Present Entire	Present Part
AWestern Hog-nosed Snake (Heterodon nasicus)	Sensitive Species	G5S2	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Outside Range
AMilksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum)	Sensitive Species	G5S2	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Presence Possible	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Outside Range
Gophersnake (Pituophis catenifer)	No Special Status	G5S5	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Part	Present Part	Present Part	Present Entire	Present Part	Present Part	Present Part
Terrestrial Gartersnake (Thamnophis elegans)	No Special Status	G5S5	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire
Plains Gartersnake (Thamnophis radix)	No Special Status	G5S4	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part	Outside Range
Common Gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis)	No Special Status	G5S4	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire
Prairie Rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis)	No Special Status	G5S4	Present Part	Present Part	Present Part	Presence Possible	Present Part	Present Part	Presence Possible	Present Part	Present Part

Vlatively few records for species. B ev.dence that species has declined c su?gle historic museum record and current presence is possible.

Presence and Status Ranks for Amphibians and Reptiles on BLM Lands in Montana

Bureau of Land Management and Heritage Program status ranks and notations on species presence are listed in the table below for each of the BLM Field Offices in Montana. BLM Manual 6840 requires the State BLM Director, usually in cooperation with State agencies and Natural Heritage programs, to designate species as Sensitive if they: (1) are federally listed, proposed, or candidate species; (2) could become endangered in or extirpated from a State, or within a significant portion of their distribution; (3) are under status review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service; (4) are undergoing significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution; (5) are undergoing significant current or predicted downward trends in population or density such that federal listed, proposed, candidate, or State listed status may become necessary; (6) typically have small and widely dispersed populations; (7) inhabit ecological refugia or other specialized or unique habitats; or (8) are State listed but which may be better conserved through application of BLM sensitive species status.

As specified in the 6840 policy, BLM Sensitive species are specially considered in budget planning, project planning, and analysis and land use planning and are given the same level of protection given to Federal candidate species in order to improve the condition of the species and their habitats so that special status recognition is no longer warranted. The Montana BLM Sensitive Species list was last updated in 2004.

32

Presence and Status Ranks for Amphibians on BLM Lands in Montana Current distribution and status information can be found on the Montana Natural Heritage Program's website at www.mtnhp.org
Common and Scientific Name	BLM Status	Heritage Ranks	Billings	Butte	Dillon	Lewistown	Malta	Miles City	Missoula
Long-toed Salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum)	No Special Status	G5/S4	Outside Range	Present Part	Present Part	Present Part	Present Part	Outside Range	Present Entire
Tiger Salamander {Ambystoma tigrinum)	No Special Status	G5/S4	Present Entire	Present Part	Present Part	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Part
AIdaho Giant Salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus)	No Special Status	G3/S1S3	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Not present on BLM
Coeur d' Alene Salamander (Plethodon idahoensis)	Sensitive Species	G4/S2	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part
Rocky Mountain Tailed Frog (Ascaphus montanus)	No Special Status	G4/S4	Outside Range	Present Part	Present Part	Present Part	Present Part	Outside Range	Present Entire
APlains Spadefoot (Spea bombifrons)	Sensitive Species	G5/S3	Present Entire	Present Part	Present Part	Present Part	Present Entire	Present Entire	Outside Range
Great Basin Spadefoot {Spea intermontana)	No Special Status	G5/SNA	Outside Range	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
BWestern Toad (Bufo boreas)	Sensitive Species	G4/S2	Present Part	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Part	Present Part	Outside Range	Present Entire
AGreat Plains Toad (Bufo cognatus)	Sensitive Species	G5/S2	Present Part	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part	Present Part	Present Entire	Outside Range
Canadian Toad (Bufo hemiophrys)	No Special Status	G4/SNA	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Presence Possible	Outside Range
Woodhouse's Toad (Bufo woodhousii)	No Special Status	G5/S4	Present Part	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part	Present Part	Present Entire	Outside Range
Pacific Treefrog (Pseudacris regilla)	No Special Status	G5/S4	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part
Boreal Chorus Frog (Pseudacris maculata)	No Special Status	G5/S4	Present Entire	Present Part	Present Part	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Outside Range
American Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana)	No Special Status	G5/SNA Exotic	Continue to Spread	Limited Presence	Limited Presence	Limited Presence	No Records	Limited Presence	Continue to Spread
Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris)	No Special Status	G4/S4	Present Part	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Part	Present Part	Outside Range	Present Entire
BNorthern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens)	Sensitive Species	G5/S1S3	Present Entire	Present Part	Apparently Extirpated	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Nearly Extirpated

1 relatively few records for species.

evidence that species has declined. 33 questionable historic observation record, but presence is possible.

Presence and Status

Current distribution and status information can

Ranks for Reptiles on BLM Lands in Montana

be found on the Montana Natural Heritage Program's website at www.mtnhp.org

Common and Scientific Name	BLM Status	Heritage Ranks	Billings	Butte	Dillon	Lewistown	Malta	Miles City	Missoula
ASnapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentine)	Sensitive Species	G5/S3	Present Part	Limited Introduction	Outside Range	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Present Part	Limited Introduction
Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta)	No Special Status	G5/S4	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire
ASpiny Softshell Turtle (Apalone spinifera)	Sensitive Species	G5/S3	Present Part	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part	Present Part	Present Part	Outside Range
Northern Alligator Lizard (Elgaria coerulea)	No Special Status	G5/S3	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Entire
Pigmy Short-horned Lizard (Phrynosoma hernandesi)	No Special Status	G5/SNA	Outside Range	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
BGreater Short-horned Lizard {Phrynosoma hernandesi)	Sensitive Species	G5/S3	Present Entire	Present Part	Presence Possible	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Outside Range
Common Sagebrush Lizard (Sceloporus graciosus)	No Special Status	G5S3	Present Entire	Present Part	Outside Range	Present Part	Present Part	Present Entire	Outside Range
AWestern Skink (Eumeces skiltonianus)	No Special Status	G5S3	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part
ARubber Boa (Charina bottae)	No Special Status	G5S4	Present Part	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Part	Presence Possible	Present Part	Present Entire
Eastern Racer (Coluber constrictor)	No Special Status	G5S5	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire
Western Hog-nosed Snake (Heterodon nasicus)	Sensitive Species	G5S2	Present Part	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part	Present Entire	Present Entire	Outside Range
Smooth Greensnake (Opheodrys vernalis)	No Special Status	G5S2	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part	Present Part	Outside Range
AMilksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum)	Sensitive Species	G5S2	Present Part	Possible Presence	Outside Range	Present Part	Present Part	Present Part	Outside Range
Gophersnake (Pituophis catenifer)	No Special Status	G5S5	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire
Terrestrial Gartersnake (Thamnophis elegans)	No Special Status	G5S5	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Part	Present Part	Present Entire
Plains Gartersnake (Thamnophis radix)	No Special Status	G5S4	Present Part	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part	Present Entire	Present Entire	Outside Range
Common Gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis)	No Special Status	G5S3	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Part	Present Part	Present Entire
Prairie Rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis)	No Special Status	G5S4	Present Entire	Present Entire 34^	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Part

v relatively few records for species.

1 evidence that species has declined.

single historic museum record and current presence is possible.

Presence and Status Ranks for Amphibians and Reptiles on Tribal Lands in Montana

Heritage Program status ranks and notations on species presence are listed in the table below for each of the Indian Reservations in Montana. Tribal fish and wildlife departments have responsibility for management of amphibians and reptiles on each reservation and as independent nations, each tribe independently decides the status designations of species on their lands. Species status designations on reservations in Montana were not identified for the current draft of this report.

35

Presence and Status Ranks for Amphibians on Tribal Lands in Montana

Current distribution and status information can be found on the Montana Natural Heritage Program's website at www.mtnhp.org

Common and Scientific Name	Tribal Status	Heritage Ranks	Blackfeet	Crow	Flathead	Fort Belknap	Fort Peck	Northern Cheyenne	Rocky Boy's
Long- toed Salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum)	?	G5/S4	Present Part	Outside Range	Present Entire	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum)	7	G5/S4	Present Entire	Present Entire	Outside Range	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire
AIdaho Giant Salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus)	?	G3/S1S3	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
Coeur d' Alene Salamander (Plethodon idahoensis)	7	G4/S2	Outside Range	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
Rocky Mountain Tailed Frog (Ascaphus montanus)	?	G4/S4	Present Part	Outside Range	Present Part	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
APlains Spadefoot (Spea bombifrons)	?	G5/S3	Present Part	Present Entire	Outside Range	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire
BWestern Toad (Bufo boreas)	?	G4/S2	Present Part	Outside Range	Present Entire	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
AGreat Plains Toad (Bufo cognatus)	?	G5/S2	Presence Possible	Present Entire	Outside Range	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire
cCanadian Toad (Bufo hemiophrys)	?	G4/SNA	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Outside Range	Outside Range
Woodhouse's Toad (Bufo woodhousii)	?	G5/S4	Outside Range	Present Entire	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Present Entire	Present Entire	Presence Possible
Pacific Treefrog (Pseudacris regilla)	7	G5/S4	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Entire	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
Boreal Chorus Frog (Pseudacris maculata)	?	G5/S4	Present Entire	Present Entire	Outside Range	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire
American Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana)	7	G5/SNA Exotic	No Records	No Records	Continuing to Spread	No Records	No Records	No Records	No Records
Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris)	7	G4/S4	Present Part	Outside Range	Present Entire	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
^Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens)	7	G5/S1S3	Present Entire	Present Entire	Ongoing Reintroduction	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire
Wood Frog (Rana sylvatica)	7	G5/SNA	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range

A relatively few records for species.

1 evidence that species has declined.

36

questionable historic observation record, but presence is possible.

Presence and Status Ranks for Reptiles on Tribal Lands in Montana

Current distribution and status information can be found on the Montana Natural Heritage Program's website at www.mtnhp.org

Common and Scientific Name	Tribal Status	Heritage Ranks	Blackfeet	Crow	Flathead	Fort Belknap	Fort Peck	Northern Cheyenne	Rocky Boy's
ASnapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina)	?	G5/S3	Outside Range	Present Entire	Limited Introduction	Presence Possible	Presence Possible	Present Entire	Outside Range
Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta)	?	G5/S4	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire
ASpiny Softshell Turtle (Apalone spinifera)	?	G5/S3	Outside Range	Present Part	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part	Outside Range
ANorthern Alligator Lizard (Elgaria coerulea)	•7	G5/S3	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Entire	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
BGreater Short-horned Lizard (Phrynosoma hernandesi)	?	G5/S3	Present Part	Present Entire	Outside Range	Present Entire	Possible Presence	Present Entire	Present Entire
Common Sagebrush Lizard (Sceloporus graciosus)	?	G5S3	Outside Range	Present Entire	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Presence Possible	Present Entire	Presence Possible
Western Fence Lizard {Sceloporus occidentalis)	?	G5/SNA	Outside Range	Outside Range	Introduced in Part	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
AWestern Skink (Eumeces skiltonianus)	?	G5S3	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Entire	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
ARubber Boa (Charina bottae)	?	G5S4	Presence Possible	Outside Range	Present Entire	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
Eastern Racer (Coluber constrictor)	?	G5S5	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire
AWestern Hog-nosed Snake (Heterodon nasicus)	?	G5S2	Presence Possible	Present Entire	Outside Range	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Presence Possible
ASmooth Greensnake (Opheodrys vernalis)	?	G5S2	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part	Outside Range	Outside Range
AMilksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum)	?	G5S2	Outside Range	Present Entire	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Presence Possible	Present Entire	Presence Possible
Gophersnake (Pituophis catenifer)	?	G5S5	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire
Terrestrial Gartersnake (Thamnophis elegans)	?	G5S5	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Part	Outside Range	Present Entire	Present Entire
Plains Gartersnake (Thamnophis radix)	?	G5S4	Present Entire	Present Part	Outside Range	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire
Common Gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis)	?	G5S3	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Presence Possible	Presence Possible	Present Entire	Presence Possible
Prairie Rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis)	?	G5S4	Present Entire	Present Entire 3?	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire

A relatively few records for species. B evidence that species has declined.

Presence and Status Ranks for Amphibians and Reptiles Within Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Wildlife Regions in Montana

Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks' conservation and inventory tiering status, Heritage Program status ranks, and notations on species presence are listed in the table below for each of the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Regions in Montana. Montana's Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CFWCS) identifies fish and wildlife species that are in greatest need of conservation using a combination of criteria used in the joint Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, and Montana Natural Heritage Program Species of Concern List (see above) as well as the input of a variety of biologists around the state. The significance of each conservation tier is defined as follows: Tier I: Greatest conservation need. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks has a clear obligation to

use its resources to implement conservation actions that provide direct benefit to these

species, communities, and focus areas. Tier II: Moderate conservation need. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks could use its resources to

implement conservation actions that provide direct benefit to these species,

communities, and focus areas. Tier III: Lower conservation need. Although important to Montana's wildlife diversity, these

species, communities, and focus areas are either abundant and widespread or are

believed to have adequate conservation already in place. Tier IV: Species that are non-native, incidental, or on the periphery of their range and are either

expanding or very common in adjacent states. Montana's CFWCS also identifies 3 tiers of individual species and taxonomic groups that are in need of inventory work. Each species' conservation and inventory tiering status is indicated before and after a dash, respectively in the table below.

38

Presence and Status Ranks for Amphibians Within Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Wildlife Regions in Montana Current distribution and status information can be found on the Montana Natural Heritage Program's website at www.mtnhp.org
Common and Scientific Name	CFWCS Tiers*	Heritage Ranks	Region 1	Region 2	Region 3	Region 4	Region 5	Region 6	Region 7
Long-toed Salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum)	2-3	G5/S4	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Part	Present Part	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
Tiger Salamander {Ambystoma tigrinum)	2-3	G5/S4	Present Part	Outside Range	Present Part	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire
Idaho Giant Salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus)	4-3	G3/S1S3	Presence Possible	Present Part	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
Coeur d' Alene Salamander (Plethodon idahoensis)	1-1	G4/S2	Present Part	Present Part	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
Rocky Mountain Tailed Frog (Ascaphus montanus)	2-3	G4/S4	Present Part	Present Part	Present Part	Present Part	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
Plains Spadefoot (Spea bombifrons)	2-1	G5/S3	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part	Present Part	Present Part	Present Entire	Present Entire
Great Basin Spadefoot (Spea intermontana)	3-2	G5/SNA	Outside Range	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
BWesterm Toad (Bufo boreas)	1-1	G4/S2	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Part	Present Part	Outside Range	Outside Range
Great Plains Toad (Bufo cognatus)	2-1	G5/S2	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part	Present Part	Present Part	Present Entire	Present Entire
Canadian Toad (Bufo hemiophrys)	4-3	G4/SNA	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Possible Presence	Outside Range
Woodhouse's Toad (Bufo woodhousii)	2-3	G5/S4	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part	Present Part	Present Part	Present Entire
Pacific Treefrog (Pseudacris regilla)	2-2	G5/S4	Present Part	Present Part	Outside Range	Present Part	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
Boreal Chorus Frog (Pseudacris maculata)	3-3	G5/S4	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire
American Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana)	4-3	G5/SNA Exotic	Continue to Spread	Continue to Spread	Limited Presence	Limited Presence	Continue to Spread	No Records	Limited Presence
Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris)	2-3	G4/S4	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Part	Present Part	Outside Range	Outside Range
BNorthern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens)	1-1	G5/S1S3	Nearly Extirpated	Extirpated	Present Part	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire
Wood Frog (Rana sylvatica)	?-3	G5/SNA	Presence Possible	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Outside Range	Outside Range

1 relatively few records for species.

evidence that species has declined.

questionable historic observation record, but presence is possible.

39

Presence and Status Ranks for Reptiles Within Montana Fish, Wildlife, and

Current distribution and status information can be found on the Montana Natural Heritage

Parks Wildlife Regions in Montana

Program's website at www.mtnhp.org

Common and Scientific Name	CFWCS Tiers*	Heritage Ranks	Region 1	Region 2	Region 3	Region 4	Region 5	Region 6	Region 7
ASnapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina)	1 - 1	G5/S3	Limited Introduction	Outside Range	Limited Introduction	Outside Range	Present Part	Present Part	Present Entire
Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta)	3-3	G5/S4	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire
ASpiny Softshell Turtle (Apalone spinifera)	1 - 1	G5/S3	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part	Present Entire	Present Part	Present Entire
ANorthern Alligator Lizard (Elgaria coerulea)	2- 1	G5/S3	Present Part	Present Part	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
Pigmy Short -horned Lizard (Phrynosoma douglasii)	No Tier Assigned	G5/SNA	Outside Range	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
BGreater Short-horned Lizard (Phrynosoma hernandesi)	2-2	G5/S3	Outside Range	Outside Range	Possibly Extirpated	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire
Common Sagebrush Lizard (Sceloporus graciosus)	2-2	G5S3	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part	Present Part	Present Entire	Present Part	Present Entire
Western Fence Lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis)	No Tier Assigned	G5/SNA	Introduced in Part	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
AWestern Skink (Eumeces skiltonianus)	2- 1	G5S3	Present Part	Present Part	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
ARubber Boa (Charina bottae)	2- 1	G5S4	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Part	Present Part	Outside Range	Outside Range
Eastern Racer (Coluber constrictor)	3-2	G5S5	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire
Western Hog-nosed Snake (Heterodon nasicus)	1 -1	G5S2	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part	Present Part	Present Entire	Present Entire
ASmooth Greensnake (Opheodrys vernalis)	1 - 1	G5S2	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part	Outside Range
AMilksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum)	1 - 1	G5S2	Outside Range	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Present Part	Present Entire	Present Part	Present Entire
Gophersnake (Pituophis catenifer)	3-2	G5S5	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire
Terrestrial Gartersnake (Thamnophis elegans)	3-3	G5S5	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Part	Present Part
Plains Gartersnake (Thamnophis radix)	3-2	G5S4	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Entire	Present Part	Present Entire	Present Entire
Common Gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis)	2-3	G5S3	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Presence Possible	Present Entire
Prairie Rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis)	2-2	G5S4	Present Part	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire
				40

v relatively few records for species.

' evidence that species has declined.

single historic museum record and current presence is possible.

Presence and Status Ranks for Amphibians and Reptiles on USFWS Wildlife Refuges in Montana

Heritage Program status ranks and notations on species presence are listed in the table below for each of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge or refuge complexes in Montana. While some amphibian and reptile species in Montana have undergone declines and/or regional extirpations in recent decades (e.g., Northern Leopard Frog, Western Toad, Greater Short-horned Lizard), none of these species is currently listed or is a candidate for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (16 U.S.C.A. §1531-1543 (Supp. 1996)). If an amphibian or reptile species in Montana were to be proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA the decision as to whether the species is threatened or endangered must be made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data and must be judged according to the species status due to the five following factors (1) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range, (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes, (3) disease or predation, (4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, and (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (U.S.C. § 1533 (a) (1), (b)(1)). Clearly, it is in the best interest of the species, various state, federal, and tribal agencies, and the general public to take measures to avoid having these factors justify a listing under the ESA.

41

Presence and Status Ranks for Amphibians on USFWS Wildlife Refuges in Montana

Current distribution and status information can be found on the Montana Natural Heritage Program's website at www.mtnhp.org

Common and Scientific Name	USFWS Status	Heritage Ranks	Benton Lake	Bowdoin	CMR	Lee Metcalf	Medicine Lake	Bison Range Complex	Red Rock Lakes
Long-toed Salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum)	No Special Status	G5/S4	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Entire	Outside Range	Present Entire	Outside Range
Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum)	No Special Status	G5/S4	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Outside Range	Present Entire	Outside Range	Present Entire
Idaho Giant Salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus)	No Special Status	G3/S1S3	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
Coeur d' Alene Salamander (Plethodon idahoensis)	No Special Status	G4/S2	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
Rocky Mountain Tailed Frog (Ascaphus montanus)	No Special Status	G4/S4	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Outside Range
Plains Spadefoot (Spea bombifrons)	No Special Status	G5/S3	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Outside Range	Present Entire	Outside Range	Presence Possible
Great Basin Spadefoot (Spea intermontana)	No Special Status	G5/SNA	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Presence Possible
BWestern Toad (Bufo boreas)	No Special Status	G4/S2	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Entire	Outside Range	Present Entire	Present Entire
Great Plains Toad (Bufo cognatus)	No Special Status	G5/S2	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Outside Range	Present Entire	Outside Range	Outside Range
Canadian Toad (Bufo hemiophrys)	No Special Status	G4/SNA	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Outside Range	Outside Range
Woodhouse's Toad (Bufo woodhousii)	No Special Status	G5/S4	Presence Possible	Presence Possible	Present Entire	Outside Range	Present Entire	Outside Range	Outside Range
Pacific Treefrog (Pseudacris regilla)	No Special Status	G5/S4	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part	Outside Range
Boreal Chorus Frog (Pseudacris maculata)	No Special Status	G5/S4	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Outside Range	Present Entire	Outside Range	Present Entire
American Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana)	No Special Status	G5/SNA Exotic	No Records	No Records	No Records	Present Entire	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Outside Range
Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris)	No Special Status	G4/S4	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Entire	Outside Range	Present Entire	Present Entire
"Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens)	No Special Status	G5/S1S3	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Extirpated	Present Entire	Extirpated	Outside Range

A relatively few records for species. B evidence that species has declined.

42

single historic museum record in area and current presence is possible.

Presence and Status Ranks for Reptiles on USFWS Wildlife Refuges in Montana Current distribution and status information can be found on the Montana Natural Heritage Program's website at www.mtnhp.org
Common and Scientific Name	USFWS Status	Heritage Ranks	Benton Lake	Bowdoin	CMR	Lee Metcalf	Medicine Lake	Bison Range Complex	Red Rock Lakes
ASnapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina)	No Special Status	G5/S3	Outside Range	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Outside Range	Outside Range	Introduction Possible	Outside Range
Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta)	No Special Status	G5/S4	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Outside Range
ASpiny Softshell Turtle (Apalone spinifera)	No Special Status	G5/S3	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Part	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
Northern Alligator Lizard (Elgaria coeruled)	No Special Status	G5/S3	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Outside Range
Pigmy Short-horned Lizard (Phrynosoma hernandesi)	No Special Status	G5/SNA	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Presence Possible
BGreater Short -horned Lizard {Phrynosoma hernandesi)	No Special Status	G5/S3	Presence Possible	Presence Possible	Present Entire	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Outside Range	Outside Range
Common Sagebrush Lizard (Sceloporus graciosus)	No Special Status	G5S3	Presence Possible	Presence Possible	Present Entire	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Outside Range	Outside Range
AWestern Skink (Eumeces skiltonianus)	No Special Status	G5S3	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Presence possible	Outside Range	Presence Possible	Outside Range
ARubber Boa (Charina bottae)	No Special Status	G5S4	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Entire	Outside Range	Present Entire	Present Entire
Eastern Racer {Coluber constrictor)	No Special Status	G5S5	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Part	Present Entire
AWestern Hog-nosed Snake (Heterodon nasicus)	No Special Status	G5S2	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Outside Range	Present Entire	Outside Range	Outside Range
Smooth Greensnake (Opheodrys vernalis)	No Special Status	G5S2	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Present Entire	Outside Range	Outside Range
AMilksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum)	No Special Status	G5S2	Presence Possible	Presence Possible	Present Entire	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range	Outside Range
Gophersnake (Pituophis catenifer)	No Special Status	G5S5	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire
Terrestrial Gartersnake (Thamnophis elegans)	No Special Status	G5S5	Present Entire	Outside Range	Present Part	Present Entire	Outside Range	Present Entire	Present Entire
Plains Gartersnake (Thamnophis radix)	No Special Status	G5S4	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Part	Outside Range	Present Entire	Outside Range	Outside Range
Common Gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis)	No Special Status	G5S3	Present Entire	Presence Possible	Present Part	Present Entire	Presence Possible	Present Entire	Present Entire
Prairie Rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis)	No Special Status	G5S4	Present Entire	Present Entire —43	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Entire	Present Part	Presence Possible

1 relatively few records for species.

' evidence that species has declined.

single historic museum record and current presence is possible.

General Habitat Associations for Amphibians in Montana

	Habitat Type	Species Typically Present
	Temporary ponds and wetlands in the	Long-toed Salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum)
	mountainous region of the state	Western Toad (Bufo boreas) * Pacific Treefrog (Pseudacris regilla) Columbia Spotted Frog {Rana luteiventris)
Temporary ponds and wetlands in the	Tiger Salamander {Ambystoma tigrinum)
	plains region of the state	Plains Spadefoot (Spea bombifrons) Great Plains Toad {Bufo cognatus) Woodhouse's Toad {Bufo woodhousii) Boreal Chorus Frog {Pseudacris maculata) Northern Leopard Frog {Rana pipiens)
Permanent lakes and ponds in the	Long-toed Salamander {Ambystoma macrodactylum)
	mountainous region of the state	+ Tiger Salamander {Ambystoma tigrinum) Western Toad {Bufo boreas) * Pacific Treefrog {Pseudacris regilla) * # American Bullfrog {Rana catesbeiana)
		Columbia Spotted Frog {Rana luteiventris)
		* @ Northern Leopard Frog {Rana pipiens)
Permanent lakes and ponds in the plains	Tiger Salamander {Ambystoma tigrinum)
region of the state	Great Plains Toad {Bufo cognatus)
u		Woodhouse's Toad {Bufo woodhousii)
		Boreal Chorus Frog {Pseudacris maculata)
3		* # American Bullfrog {Rana catesbeiana)
<u		Northern Leopard Frog {Rana pipiens)
Riverine and riparian habitats in the	Idaho Giant Salamander {Dicamptodon aterrimus)
	mountainous region of the state	Rocky Mountain Tailed Frog {Ascaphus montanus) Western Toad {Bufo boreas) * # American Bullfrog {Rana catesbeiana) Columbia Spotted Frog {Rana luteiventris) * @ Northern Leopard Frog {Rana pipiens)
Riverine and riparian habitats in the	Plains Spadefoot {Spea bombifrons)
	plains region of the state	Woodhouse's Toad {Bufo woodhousii) Boreal Chorus Frog {Pseudacris maculata) * # American Bullfrog {Rana catesbeiana) Northern Leopard Frog {Rana pipiens)
Fractured rock sites with subterranean	Long-toed Salamander {Ambystoma macrodactylum)
	water near streams, springs, and spray	Coeur d'Alene Salamander {Plethodon idahoensis)
	zones on the northwestern margin of the state	Rocky Mountain Tailed Frog {Ascaphus montanus)
	Closed forest habitats in the mountainous	Long-toed Salamander {Ambystoma macrodactylum)
1/3	region of the state	Idaho Giant Salamander {Dicamptodon aterrimus)
	* Pacific Treefrog {Pseudacris regilla)
Open forest, shrubland, and grassland	+ Tiger Salamander {Ambystoma tigrinum)
	habitats in the mountainous region of the state	Western Toad {Bufo boreas)
Prairies, badlands, and open forest	Tiger Salamander {Ambystoma tigrinum)
V	habitats in the plains region of the state	Plains Spadefoot {Spea bombifrons)
Sh		Great Plains Toad {Bufo cognatus)
H		Woodhouse's Toad {Bufo woodhousii) Boreal Chorus Frog {Pseudacris maculata)

*

+

#

Typically restricted to lower elevations

Only found in the Tobacco Valley near Eureka

Exotic invasive species introduced and spreading in some areas

Typical historical habitat prior to declines

44

General Habitat Associations for Reptiles in Montana

	Habitat Type	Species Typically Present
« « 3	Temporary ponds and wetlands in the mountainous region of the state	Terrestrial Gartersnake {Thamnophis elegans) Common Gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis)
Temporary ponds and wetlands in the plains region of the state	* Smooth Greensnake (Opheodrys vernalis) Terrestrial Gartersnake (Thamnophis elegans) Plains Gartersnake (Thamnophis radix) Common Gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis)
Permanent lakes and ponds in the mountainous region of the state	Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta) Terrestrial Gartersnake (Thamnophis elegans) Common Gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis)
Permanent lakes and ponds in the plains region of the state	Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina) Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta) * Smooth Greensnake (Opheodrys vernalis) Terrestrial Gartersnake (Thamnophis elegans) Plains Gartersnake (Thamnophis radix) Common Gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis)
Riverine and riparian habitats in the mountainous region of the state	Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta) Rubber Boa (Charina bottae) Terrestrial Gartersnake (Thamnophis elegans) Common Gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis)
Riverine and riparian habitats in the plains region of the state	Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina) Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta) Spiny Softshell (Apalone spinifera) Western Hog-nosed Snake (Heterodon nasicus) * Smooth Greensnake (Opheodrys vernalis) Gophersnake (Pituophis catenifer) Terrestrial Gartersnake (Thamnophis elegans) Plains Gartersnake (Thamnophis radix) Common Gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis) Prairie Rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis)
VI « « is ■** Vi s- s- H	Closed forest habitats in the mountainous portion of the state	Western Skink (Eumeces skiltonianus) Rubber Boa (Charina bottae)
Open forest, shrubland, and grassland habitats in the mountainous region of the state	Northern Alligator Lizard (Elgaria coerulea) + Greater Short-horned Lizard (Phrynosoma hernandesi) Western Skink (Eumeces skiltonianus) # Common Sagebrush Lizard (Sceloporus graciosus) Rubber Boa (Charina bottae) Eastern Racer (Coluber constrictor) Gophersnake (Pituophis catenifer) Prairie Rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis)
Prairies, badlands, shrublands, and open forest habitats in the plains region of the state	Greater Short-horned Lizard (Phrynosoma hernandesi) Common Sagebrush Lizard (Sceloporus graciosus) Eastern Racer (Coluber constrictor) Milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum) Gophersnake (Pituophis catenifer) Prairie Rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis)
Rock outcrops in the mountainous region of the state	Northern Alligator Lizard (Elgaria coerulea) Western Skink (Eumeces skiltonianus) Rubber Boa (Charina bottae) Gophersnake (Pituophis catenifer) Prairie Rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis)
Rock outcrops in the plains region of the state	Greater Short-horned Lizard (Phrynosoma hernandesi) Common Sagebrush Lizard (Sceloporus graciosus) Eastern Racer (Coluber constrictor) Milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum) Gophersnake (Pituophis catenifer) Prairie Rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis)

* Only in the far northeastern corner of the state

+ Historical habitat in portions of southwest Montana prior to apparent declines or extirpations

# Only found around the margins of Yellowstone National Park

45

LAWS AND REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES IN MONTANA

Federal Laws and Regulations, Tribal regulations, and Montana state laws and regulations, all govern the management of amphibians and reptiles in Montana.

Federal Laws and Regulations

Federal laws applicable to amphibians and reptiles include those governing the management of agencies responsible for the management of federal lands and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.A. §1531-1543 (Supp. 1996). Federal regulations for agencies managing federal lands that are applicable to amphibians and reptiles are mostly associated with special status designations as described in the Presence and Status sections above. While some amphibian and reptile species in Montana have undergone declines and/or regional extirpations in recent decades (e.g., Northern Leopard Frog, Western Toad, Greater Short-horned Lizard), none of these species is currently listed or is a candidate for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (16 U.S.C.A. §1531-1543 (Supp. 1996)). If an amphibian or reptile species in Montana were to be proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA the decision as to whether the species is threatened or endangered must be made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data and must be judged according to the species status due to the five following factors (1) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range, (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes, (3) disease or predation, (4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, and (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (U.S.C. § 1533 (a) (1), (b)(1)). If a species was listed, a recovery plan for the species must be developed unless a plan would not promote the conservation of the species (U.S.C. § 1533 (f)). The development of recovery programs for listed species is undertaken according to the threats faced by the species and the degree to which it conflicts with economic activity (48 FR 43104). Each recovery plan must include, "to the maximum extent practicable" (1) a description of site specific management actions, (2) objective, measurable criteria which, if met, would allow the agency to find the species has recovered and therefore may be removed from the list, and (3) estimates of the time and costs required to carry out the measures detailed in the recovery plan (48 FR 16756).

Tribal Regulations

Tribal fish and wildlife departments have responsibility for management of amphibians and reptiles on each reservation and as independent nations, each tribe independently decides the status designations of species on their lands. Species status designations on reservations in Montana were not identified for the current draft of this report.

46

Portions of Montana Code Annotated Relevant to Nongame and Endangered Species

87-5-101. Short title.

This part shall be known and may be cited as "The Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act".

87-5-102. (Effective October 1, 2007). Definitions.

As used in this part, the following definitions apply:

(1) "Account" means the nongame wildlife account established in 87-5-121.

(2) "Commercial purposes" means the collection, harvest, possession, or transportation of a species or subspecies of nongame wildlife from the wild with the intent to barter, offer for sale, ship or transport for eventual sale, or sell the animal or any part of the animal.

(3) "Ecosystem" means a system of living organisms and their environment, each influencing the existence of the other and both necessary for the maintenance of life.

(4) "Endangered species" means a species or subspecies of wildlife that is actively threatened with extinction due to any of the following factors:

(a) the destruction, drastic modification, or severe curtailment of its habitat;

(b) its overutilization for scientific, commercial, or sporting purposes;

(c) the effect on it of disease, pollution, or predation;

(d) other natural or artificial factors affecting its prospects of survival or recruitment within the state; or

(e) any combination of the foregoing factors.

(5) "Management" means the collection and application of biological information for the purposes of increasing the number of individuals within species and populations of wildlife up to the optimum carrying capacity of their habitat and maintaining those levels. The term includes the entire range of activities that constitute a modern scientific resource program, including but not limited to research, census, law enforcement, habitat improvement, and education. The term also includes the periodic or total protection of species or populations as well as regulated taking.

(6) "Nongame wildlife" means a wild mammal, bird, amphibian, reptile, fish, mollusk, crustacean, or other wild animal not otherwise legally classified by statute or regulation of this state. Animals designated by statute or regulation of this state as predatory in nature are not classified as nongame wildlife for purposes of this part.

(7) "Optimum carrying capacity" means that point at which a given habitat can support healthy populations of wildlife species, having regard to the total ecosystem, without diminishing the ability of the habitat to continue that function.

(8) "Person" means an individual, firm, corporation, association, or partnership.

(9) "Take" means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill wildlife.

(10) "Wildlife" means a wild mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, fish, mollusk, crustacean, or other wild animal or any part, product, egg, or offspring or the dead body or parts of the animal.

87-5-103. Legislative intent, findings, and policy.

(1) The legislature, mindful of its constitutional obligations under Article II, section 3, and Article IX of the Montana constitution, has enacted The Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act. It is the legislature's intent that the requirements of this part provide adequate remedies for the protection of the environmental life support system from degradation and provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of natural

47

resources.

(2) The legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(a) that it is the policy of this state to manage certain nongame wildlife for human enjoyment, for scientific purposes, and to ensure their perpetuation as members of ecosystems;

(b) that species or subspecies of wildlife indigenous to this state that may be found to be endangered within the state should be protected in order to maintain and, to the extent possible, enhance their numbers;

(c) that the state should assist in the protection of species or subspecies of wildlife that are considered to be endangered elsewhere by prohibiting the taking, possession, transportation, exportation, processing, sale or offer for sale, or shipment within this state of species or subspecies of wildlife unless those actions will assist in preserving or propagating the species or subspecies.

87-5-104. Investigations by department.

The department shall conduct investigations on nongame wildlife in order to develop information relating to population, distribution, habitat needs, limiting factors, and other biological and ecological data to determine management measures necessary for their continued ability to sustain themselves successfully. The department shall conduct ongoing investigations of nongame wildlife.

87-5-105. Regulations to manage nongame wildlife.

(1) On the basis of the determinations made pursuant to 87-5-104, the department shall issue management regulations. The regulations must set forth species or subspecies of nongame wildlife that the department considers to be in need of management pursuant to 87-5-104 through 87-5-106, giving their common and scientific names by species and subspecies.

(2) The department shall by regulation establish limitations relating to taking, possession, transportation, exportation, processing, sale or offer for sale, or shipment considered necessary to manage nongame wildlife that is designated in need of management.

87-5-106. Unlawful acts.

Except as provided in regulations issued by the department, it shall be unlawful for any person to take, possess, transport, export, sell, or offer for sale nongame wildlife deemed by the department to be in need of management. Subject to the same exception, it shall further be unlawful for any common or contract carrier knowingly to transport or receive for shipment nongame wildlife deemed by the department to be in need of management.

87-5-107. List of endangered species.

(1) (a) On the basis of investigations on nongame wildlife provided for in 87-5-104 and other available scientific and commercial data and after consultation with other state wildlife agencies, appropriate federal agencies, and other interested persons and organizations, the department shall recommend to the legislature a list of those species and subspecies of wildlife indigenous to the state that are determined to be endangered within this state, giving their common and scientific names by species and subspecies.

(b) The department may propose legislation to specifically include any species or subspecies of fish and wildlife appearing on the United States' list of endangered native fish and wildlife (part 17 of Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, appendix D) as it appears on July 1, 1973, as well as any species or subspecies offish and wildlife appearing on the United States' list

48

of endangered foreign fish and wildlife (part 17 of Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, appendix A), as that list may be modified.

(2) (a) The department shall conduct a review of the state list of endangered species every 2 years. The department may propose specific legislation to amend the list by additions that are considered appropriate and at times that are considered appropriate.

(b) Whenever a species or subspecies is removed from the United States' list of endangered native fish and wildlife (part 17 of Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, appendix D) and that species or subspecies is also on the state list of endangered species in ARM 12.5.201, the department shall amend the state list to remove that species or subspecies. The removal of a species or subspecies from the state list pursuant to this subsection (2)(b) does not require approval by the legislature.

(3) Except as otherwise provided in this part, it is unlawful for any person to take, possess, transport, export, sell, or offer for sale and for any common or contract carrier knowingly to transport or receive for shipment any species or subspecies of wildlife appearing on any of the following lists:

(a) the list of wildlife indigenous to the state determined to be endangered within the state pursuant to subsection (1);

(b) any species or subspecies of fish and wildlife included by the department and appearing on the United States' list of endangered native fish and wildlife (part 17 of Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, appendix D) as it appears on July 1, 1973; and the United States' list of endangered foreign fish and wildlife (part 17 of Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, appendix A), as that list may be modified.

(4) Any species or subspecies offish and wildlife appearing on any of the enumerated lists that is brought into the state from another state or from a point outside the territorial limits of the United States and that is transported across the state destined for a point beyond the state may be brought into the state and transported without restriction in accordance with the terms of any federal permit or permit issued under the laws or regulations of another state.

(5) If the United States' list of endangered native fish and wildlife is modified by additions, the modifications, whether or not involving species or subspecies indigenous to the state, may be accepted as binding under subsections (3) and (4) if, after the type of scientific determination described in subsection (1), the department proposes and the legislature accepts the modification for the state.

87-5-108. Establishment of programs.

(1) The director shall establish such programs, including acquisition of land or aquatic habitat, as are deemed necessary for management of nongame and endangered wildlife. The department shall establish such policies as are necessary to carry out the purpose of this section and 87-5- 109.

(2) In carrying out programs authorized by this section, the department may enter into agreements with federal agencies, political subdivisions of the state, or with private persons for administration and management of any area established under this section and 87-5-109 or utilized for management of nongame or endangered wildlife.

(3) The governor shall review other programs administered by him and, to the extent practicable, utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this section and 87-5-109. The governor shall also encourage other state and federal agencies to utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this section and 87-5-109.

49

87-5-109. Taking of species for educational, scientific, or other purposes.

(1) The director may permit the taking, possession, transportation, exportation, or shipment of species or subspecies of wildlife which appear on the state list of endangered species, on the United States' list of endangered native fish and wildlife, as amended and accepted in accordance with 87-5-107(5), or on the United States' list of endangered foreign fish and wildlife, as such list may be modified hereafter, for scientific, zoological, or educational purposes, for propagation in captivity of such wildlife, or for other special purposes.

(2) Upon good cause shown and where necessary to alleviate damage to property or to protect human health, endangered species may be removed, captured, or destroyed but only pursuant to permit issued by the director and, where possible, by or under the supervision of an agent of the department. Endangered species may be removed, captured, or destroyed without permit by any person in emergency situations involving an immediate threat to human life. Provisions for removal, capture, or destruction of nongame wildlife for the purposes set forth above shall be set forth in regulations issued by the department pursuant to 87-5-105.

87-5-110. Department to issue regulations.

The department shall issue such regulations as are necessary to carry out the purposes of this part.

87-5-111. Enforcement and penalty.

(1) Any person who violates the provisions of this part or whoever fails to procure or violates the terms of any permit issued thereunder shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(2) Upon a first conviction for a violation under this part, the court may fine the defendant not to exceed $250. Upon a second such conviction, the defendant may be fined not to exceed $500 or be imprisoned in the county jail for any term not to exceed 30 days, or both. Upon subsequent such convictions, the defendant shall be fined not less than $500 or more than $1,000 and in addition may be imprisoned in the county jail for any term not to exceed 6 months.

(3) Any officer employed and authorized by the director or any peace officer of the state or of any municipality or county within the state shall have authority to enforce the provisions of this part.

(4) Wildlife seized under the provisions of this part shall be held by an officer or agent of the department pending disposition of court proceedings and thereafter be forfeited to the state for disposition as the director may deem appropriate. Prior to forfeiture, the director may direct the transfer of wildlife so seized to a qualified zoological, educational, or scientific institution for safekeeping. The department is authorized to issue regulations to implement this subsection.

87-5-112. Construction.

This part may not be construed to apply retroactively or to prohibit importation into the state of wildlife that are lawfully imported into the United States or lawfully taken or removed from another state or to prohibit entry into the state or possession, transportation, exportation, processing, sale or offer for sale, or shipment of any wildlife whose species or subspecies is determined to be threatened with statewide extinction in this state but not in the state where originally taken, if the person engaging therein demonstrates by substantial evidence that the wildlife was lawfully taken or removed from the state. However, this section may not be construed to permit the possession, transportation, exportation, processing, sale or offer for sale, or shipment within this state of wildlife on the United States' list of endangered native fish and

50

wildlife, as amended and accepted in accordance with 87-5-107(5), except as permitted in the provision by 87-5-107(3) and (4) and 87-5-109(1).

87-5-116. Limited taking of certain nongame wildlife for commercial purposes ~ exceptions.

(1) The following nongame wildlife may not be taken for commercial purposes, except as provided in subsections (3) and (4), without prior authorization of the department, subject to regulations adopted by the department:

(a) northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus);

(b) pika (Ochotona princeps);

(c) pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis);

(d) amphibians native to the state of Montana; and

(e) reptiles native to the state of Montana.

(2) The department may regulate the taking of nongame wildlife for commercial purposes. Regulations may establish limitations related to the taking, possession, transportation, exportation, processing, sale or offer for sale, and shipment of nongame wildlife that are considered necessary to manage nongame wildlife.

(3) The harvest of the prairie rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis) for commercial purposes may not be regulated under this section.

(4) This section does not prohibit:

(a) outfitting for the shooting of nongame wildlife;

(b) payment by a landowner to an individual for shooting or removing nongame wildlife; or

(c) the use of byproducts of nongame wildlife in fishing flies, jewelry, or other handicrafts.

87-5-121. Nongame wildlife account.

(1) There is a nongame wildlife account in the state special revenue fund provided for in 17-2- 102.

(2) All money collected under 15-30-150 and all interest earned by the fund before being expended under this section must be deposited in the account.

(3) Money in the account must be used by the department, upon the approval of the commission as determined under 87-5-122, to provide adequate funding for:

(a) research and education programs on nongame wildlife in Montana, as provided for in 87- 5-104; and

(b) any management programs for nongame wildlife approved by the legislature under 87-5- 105 as species or subspecies in need of management.

(4) The money is available to the department in the same manner as provided in 87-1-601, except that money collected under 15-30-150 may not be used:

(a) for the purchase of any real property; or

(b) in such a way as to interfere with the production on or management of private property.

87-5-122. Duties of commission. (1) The commission shall review and approve annually the nongame wildlife programs projects recommended by the department for funding from the nongame wildlife account. The commission shall provide for public comment during the review and approval process.

(2) The commission may adopt rules governing:

(a) the use of the nongame wildlife account set forth in 87-5-121; and

(b) the review and approval process set forth in subsection (1).

51

Portions of Montana Code Annotated Relevant to Importation, Introduction, and Translocation of Wildlife

87-5-701. Purpose

The legislature finds that in order to protect Montana's native wildlife and plant species, livestock, horticultural, forestry, and agricultural production, and human health and safety, it is necessary to regulate the importation for introduction and the transplantation or introduction of wildlife in the state and to regulate the importation, transplantation, possession, and sale of exotic wildlife. Serious threats, known and unknown, from the introduction of wildlife and exotic wildlife into Montana necessitate the regulation of the importation for introduction and the transplantation or introduction of wildlife and regulation of the importation, transplantation, possession, and sale of exotic wildlife unless it can be shown that no harm will result from the importation, transplantation, possession, sale, or introduction. Any importation, transplantation, possession, sale, or introduction permitted must be conducted in a manner to ensure that wildlife or exotic wildlife can be controlled if harm arises from unforeseen effects.

87-5-702. DefinitionsA

For purposes of this part, the following definitions apply:

(1) "Controlled exotic wildlife" means species placed on the controlled exotic wildlife list under 87-5-707 that may be imported, possessed, or sold only pursuant to commission and department rules and an authorization permit provided for in 87-5-705(2).

(2) "Domestic animal" means an animal that, through long association with humans, has been bred to a degree that has resulted in genetic changes affecting color, temperament, conformation, or other attributes of the species to an extent that makes the animal unique and distinguishable from wild individuals of the species and that is readily controllable if accidentally released into the wild. The term includes livestock, as defined in 81-2-702, dogs, cats, rodents, Eurasian ferrets, and poultry.

(3) "Exotic wildlife" means a wildlife species that is not native to Montana.

(4) "Feral" means the appearance of an animal and any offspring that have escaped captivity and become wild.

(5) "Importation" means the act of receiving, bringing or having brought, or shipping into the state for a person's temporary or permanent residence or domicile any wildlife from a location outside the state.

(6) "Introduction" means the release from captivity or attempt to release from captivity, intentional or otherwise, wildlife from outside the state into the wild within the state.

(7) "Native wildlife" means a species or subspecies of wildlife that historically occurred in Montana and that has not been introduced by humans or has not migrated into Montana as a result of human activity.

(8) "Noncontrolled exotic wildlife" means animal species traditionally sold or kept as pets and includes animals listed in 87-5-706 or animals that are added to the list in 87-5-706 by commission rule.

(9) "Possession" means to own or have control over an animal for personal use or resale.

(10) "Prohibited exotic wildlife" means animal species placed on the list provided in 87-5- 704(3)(a) that may not be imported, possessed, or sold.

(1 1) "Transplantation" means the release of or attempt to release, intentional or otherwise, wildlife from one place within the state into another part of the state.

52

(12) (a) "Wildlife" means any wild mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, fish, mollusk, crustacean, or other wild animal or the egg, sperm, embryo, or offspring of the wild animal, (b) The term does not include domestic animals.

87-5-704. Rulemaking

(1) The commission may adopt rules to implement 87-5-701, 87-5-702, and 87-5-711 through 87-5-715. In implementing 87-5-713, the commission may adopt rules approving species of wildlife that may be introduced by the department. In implementing 87-5-715, the commission may adopt rules to authorize the control or extermination by the department of introduced wildlife species.

(2) The department may adopt rules to implement 87-5-713 and 87-5-715. In implementing 87-5-713 and 87-5-715, the department may not adopt rules in the subject areas reserved to the commission in subsection (1).

(3) (a) The commission may adopt rules to implement 87-5-705 through 87-5-709 and 87-5- 712 regarding the importation, possession, and sale of exotic wildlife, including adoption of a list of controlled exotic wildlife and a list of prohibited exotic wildlife. The commission may by rule add to the list of noncontrolled exotic wildlife provided in 87-5-706. The department of livestock may not issue import permits for exotic wildlife on a list of controlled exotic wildlife or prohibited exotic wildlife without authorization from the department.

(b) The commission may adopt rules regarding the operation of the classification review committee established in 87-5-708.

(4) (a) The department may adopt rules regarding issuance of the authorization permit provided for in 87-5-705(2), including the establishment of a reasonable fee for the permit.

(b) The department may adopt rules regarding the amnesty program provided for in 87-5- 709(2).

87-5-705. Regulation of exotic wildlife

(1) A person may not import into the state, possess, or sell any exotic wildlife unless:

(a) the importation, possession, or sale of the exotic wildlife is allowed by law or commission rule; and

(b) the person has obtained authorization for importation from the department of livestock pursuant to Title 81, chapter 2, part 7.

(2) The department may issue a permit for authorizing the possession or sale of controlled exotic wildlife and make the permit available to persons who wish to import, possess, or sell controlled exotic wildlife, subject to rules of the commission and the department. The department may charge a reasonable fee, as determined by department rule, for the issuance of the authorization permit.

87-5-706. Noncontrolled exotic wildlife authorized for possession or sale

(1) The following noncontrolled exotic wildlife may not be released or transplanted in the state but may be possessed or sold as pets in Montana without a permit:

(a) tropical and subtropical birds in the order Passeriformes, including but not limited to birds in the families:

(i) Sturnidae (mynahs);

(ii) Ramphastidae (toucans, toucanettes);

(iii) Fringillidae (siskins);

53

(iv) Estrildidae (finches); (v) Emberizidae (cardinals); (vi) Ploceidae (weavers); (vii) Timaliidae (mesias); (viii) Viduinae (wydahs); (ix) Thraupidae (tanagers); (x) Zosteropidae (zosterops); (xi) Psittacidae (parrots); (xii) Loriidae (lories); and (xiii) Cacatuidae (cockatoos);

(b) nonnative species in the subfamily Phaisianae, except: (i) chukar partridge (Alectoris chukar);

(ii) gray (Hungarian) partridge (Perdix perdix);

(iii) ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus); and

(iv) turkey (Meleagris gallopavo);

(c) all tropical fish, subtropical fish, marine fish, common goldfish (Carassius auratus), and koi (Cyprinus carpio) for use in residential and office aquariums;

(d) unless otherwise regulated pursuant to 87-5-116, all nonnative tropical and subtropical species of nonvenomous snakes not on the controlled or prohibited lists in the families:

(i) Boidae (boas);

(ii) Bolyeriidae (Round Island Boas);

(iii) Tropidophiidae (dwarf boas);

(iv) Pythonidae (pythons);

(v) Colubridae (modern snakes);

(vi) Acrochordidae (file and elephant trunk snakes);

(vii) Xenopeltidae (sunbeam snakes);

(viii) Aniliidae (pipe snakes);

(ix) Uropeltidae (shield-tailed snakes);

(x) Anomalepididae (blind snakes);

(xi) Leptotyphlopidae (blind snakes); and

(xii) Typhlopidae (blind snakes);

(e) unless otherwise regulated pursuant to 87-5-116, all nonnative tropical and subtropical species of nonvenomous lizards not on the controlled or prohibited lists, including but not limited to the following families or subfamilies:

(i) Agamidae (chisel-teeth lizards);

(ii) Amphisbaenidae (worm lizards);

(iii) Anelytropsidae (limbless lizards);

(iv) Anguidae (glass and alligator lizards);

(v) Anniellidae (legless lizards);

(vi) Chamaeleonidae (chameleons);

(vii) Cordylidae (girdle -tailed lizards);

(viii) Corytophanidae (casquehead lizards);

(ix) Crotaphytidae (collared and leopard lizards);

(x) Dibamidae (blind lizards);

(xi) Eublepharidae (eyelid geckos);

(xii) Feyliniidae (African snake skinks);

54

(xiii) Gekkonidae (geckos);

(xiv) Helodermatidae (beaded lizards and gila monsters);

(xv) Iguanidae (iguanas);

(xvi) Lacertidae (wall lizards);

(xvii) Lanthanotidae (earless monitor);

(xviii) Phrynosomatidae (earless, spiny, and horned lizards);

(xix) Polychrotidae (anoles);

(xx) Pygopodidae (snake lizards);

(xxi) Scincidae (skinks);

(xxii) Teiidae (whip tail);

(xxiii) Tropiduridae (neotropical ground lizards);

(xxiv) Varanidae (monitor lizard);

(xxv) Xantusiidae (night lizards); and

(xxvi) Xenosauridae (knob-scaled lizards);

(f) unless otherwise regulated pursuant to 87-5-116, all nonnative tropical and subtropical species of turtles with a carapace or shell length of more than 4 inches and not on the controlled or prohibited lists in the families:

(i) Carettochelyidae (New Guinea softshell turtles);

(ii) Chelidae (snake -necked turtles);

(iii) Chelydridae (snapping turtles);

(iv) Dermatemydidae (Central American river turtle);

(v) Emydidae (pond turtles);

(vi) Kinosternidae (mud turtles and musk turtles);

(vii) Pelomedusidae (hidden-necked turtles);

(viii) Platysternidae (big-headed turtle);

(ix) Testudinidae (tortoises); and

(x) Trionychidae (soft-shelled turtles);

(g) unless otherwise regulated pursuant to 87-5-116, all nonnative tropical and subtropical species of frogs and toads not on the controlled or prohibited lists in the families:

(i) Atelopodidae (harlequin frogs); (ii) Bufonidae (true toads); (iii) Centrolenidae (glass frogs); (iv) Dendrobatidae (poison dart frogs); (v) Hylidae (tree frogs); (vi) Leptodactylidae (rain frogs); (vii) Microhylidae (narrow-mouthed toads); (viii) Pelobatidae (spadefoot toads); (ix) Pelodytidae (old world spadefoot toads); (x) Ranidae (true frogs, except bullfrogs, Rana catesbeiana); (xi) Rhacophoridae (old world tree frogs); and (xii) Rhinophrynidae (Mexican burrowing frog);

(h) unless otherwise regulated pursuant to 87-5-116, all nonnative tropical and subtropical species of limbless amphibians not on the controlled or prohibited lists in the families: (i) Caeciliidae (caecilians); (ii) Ichthyophiidae (fish caecilians); (iii) Rhinatrematidae (beaked caecilians);

55

(iv) Scolecomorphidae (tropical caecilians); and

(v) Uraeotyphlidae (Indian caecilians); and

(i) unless otherwise regulated pursuant to 87-5-116, all nonnative tropical and subtropical species of salamanders not on the controlled or prohibited lists in the families:

(i) Ambystomatidae (mole salamanders);

(ii) Amphiumidae (amphiumas);

(iii) Cryptobranchidae (hellbenders);

(iv) Dicamptodontidae (giant salamanders);

(v) Hynobiidae (Asian salamanders);

(vi) Plethodontidae (woodland salamanders);

(vii) Proteidae (waterdogs);

(viii) Salamandridae (newts, except for rough-skinned newt, Taricha granulosa); and

(ix) Sirenidae (sirens).

(2) The commission may by rule authorize the possession or sale of other species of noncontrolled exotic wildlife that are not listed in subsection (1) if it is determined that the other species present minimal disease, ecological, environmental, safety, or health risks.

87-5-708. Classification review committee -- composition, appointment, and duties.

(1) The director shall appoint a classification review committee whose duty is to advise the commission regarding the importation, possession, and sale of exotic wildlife, including recommendations on animals to be placed on the noncontrolled, controlled, or prohibited exotic wildlife list.

(2) The classification review committee is composed of at least one representative from:

(a) the department;

(b) the department of public health and human services;

(c) the department of livestock;

(d) the department of agriculture;

(e) a business that breeds or exhibits exotic wildlife; and

(f) the general public who has an interest in fish or wildlife.

(3) Members of the classification review committee are not entitled to compensation or travel expenses as provided in 2-15-122.

87-5-709. Exceptions and exemptions to possession and sale of exotic wildlife.

(1) Sections 87-5-705 through 87-5-708 and this section do not apply to:

(a) institutions that have established that their proposed facilities are adequate to provide secure confinement of wildlife, including:

(i) an accredited zoological garden chartered by the state as a nonprofit corporation;

(ii) a roadside menagerie permitted under 87-4-803 that was established for the purpose of exhibition or attracting trade;

(iii) a research facility for testing and science that employs individuals licensed under 37-34- 301 or that submits evidence to the department that it meets animal testing standards as provided by the national institutes of health, the national science foundation, the centers for disease control and prevention, the United States department of agriculture, or another similar nationally recognized and approved testing standard; or

(b) domestic animals.

(2) Authorization for possession must be provided by the department for exotic wildlife

56

possessed as of January 1, 2004, and the authorization may include any conditions and restrictions necessary to minimize risks.

87-5-711. Control of importation for introduction and transplantation or introduction of wildlife.

(1) Except as otherwise provided, the importation for introduction or the transplantation or introduction of any wildlife is prohibited unless the commission determines, based upon scientific investigation and after public hearing, that a species of wildlife poses no threat of harm to native wildlife and plants or to agricultural production and that the transplantation or introduction of a species has significant public benefits.

(2) With regard to the transplantation or introduction of a fish species not previously legally transplanted to a specific water body within the state or not previously legally introduced to the state, the requirement for scientific investigation in subsection (1) may be satisfied only by completion of an environmental review conforming to the provisions of Title 75, chapter 1, part 2.

87-5-712. Authority for commission to control importation, possession, or sale of certain wildlife species and exotic wildlife.

(1) The commission may, after public hearing and recommendation by the classification review committee in 87-5-708, list by administrative rule wildlife species or exotic wildlife that may not be imported, possessed, or sold as pets for captive breeding for research or commercial purposes, for the commercial pet trade, or for any other reason. A wildlife species or exotic wildlife may be placed on the list only after the commission finds that:

(a) the exotic wildlife would not be readily subject to control by humans while in captivity;

(b) if released from captivity, the exotic wildlife would pose a substantial threat to native wildlife and plants or agricultural production; or

(c) the exotic wildlife would pose a risk to human health or safety, livestock, or native wildlife through disease transmission, hybridization, or ecological or environmental damage.

(2) The commission may make exceptions for wildlife species or exotic wildlife otherwise prohibited under this section if the wildlife species or exotic wildlife is controlled in an institution listed in 87-5-709(T)(a) and under any conditions specified by the commission.

87-5-713. Control of wildlife species permitted to be transplanted or introduced.

Any wildlife species listed in 87-5-714 or approved by the commission for introduction or transplantation may be introduced or transplanted only subject to a plan developed by the department to assure that the population can be controlled if any unforeseen harm should occur.

87-5-714. Wildlife species authorized for introduction or transplantation.

(1) The following wildlife species may be introduced or transplanted by the department based upon scientific investigation and upon approval of the commission:

(a) gray (Hungarian) partridge (Perdix perdix);

(b) chukar partridge (Alectoris chukar);

(c) ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus);

(d) turkey (Meleagris gallopavo);

(e) rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri);

(f) golden trout (Salmo aquabonita);

57

(g) brown trout (Salmo trutta);

(h) brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis);

(i) lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush);

(j) northern pike (Esox lucius);

(k) black bullhead (Ictalurus melas);

(1) yellow bullhead (Ictalurus natalis);

(m) largemouth bass (Micropterus salmo ides);

(n) smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui);

(o) pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus);

(p) bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus);

(q) green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus);

(r) rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris);

(s) black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus);

(t) white crappie (Pomoxis annularis);

(u) yellow perch (Perca flavescens);

(v) walleye (Stizostedion vitreum);

(w) cisco (tulibee) (Coregonus artedii);

(x) spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius);

(y) kokanee salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka);

(z) chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha);

(aa) lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis);

(bb) golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas).

(2) The commission may by rule and subject to the provisions of 87-5-711 authorize the department to transplant or introduce species of wildlife not listed in subsection (1).

87-5-715. Extermination or control of transplanted or introduced wildlife or feral species posing threat.

Any wildlife or feral species transplanted or introduced in the state may be exterminated or controlled by the department if the commission determines that the species poses harm to native wildlife or plants or to agricultural production.

87-5-716. Consultation with departments of agriculture, public health and human services, and livestock.

The commission and the department shall consult with the departments of agriculture, public health and human services, and livestock in all matters relating to the control of wildlife species and exotic wildlife that may have a harmful effect on agricultural production or livestock operations in the state or that may pose a risk to human health or safety.

87-5-721. Penalty ~ license and permit revocation and denial.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who violates a provision of this part is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable as provided in 87-1-102, and the department, upon conviction of the person, shall revoke any license or permit issued by it under this title to the person and deny any application by the person for a license or permit under this title for a period not to exceed 2 years from the date of the conviction.

(2) A person who intentionally imports, introduces, or transplants fish in violation of this part: (a) is guilty of an offense punishable by a fine of not less than $500 or more than $5,000 and

58

imprisonment for up to 1 year. A sentencing court may consider an appropriate amount of community service in lieu of imprisonment. A sentencing court may not defer or suspend $500 of the fine amount.

(b) is civilly liable for the amount necessary to eliminate or mitigate the effects of the violation. The damages may be recovered on behalf of the public by the department or by the county attorney of the county in which the violation occurred, in a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction. Money recovered by the department or a county attorney must be deposited in the state special revenue fund as provided in 87-1-601(1).

(c) upon conviction or forfeiture of bond or bail, shall forfeit from the date of conviction or forfeiture any current hunting, fishing, or trapping license issued under this title and the privilege to hunt, fish, or trap in this state for not less than 24 months. If the time necessary to eliminate or mitigate the effects of the violation exceeds 24 months, a person may be required to forfeit the privilege to hunt, fish, or trap in this state for more than 24 months. If the effects of the violation cannot be eliminated or mitigated, a person may be required to forfeit the privilege to hunt, fish, or trap in this state for the lifetime of that person.

(3) Any exotic wildlife held in violation of this part must be shipped out of state, returned to the point of origin, or destroyed within 6 months of a conviction or sooner if ordered by the court. The person in possession of the exotic wildlife may choose the method of disposition. If the person in possession of the exotic wildlife does not comply with this requirement, the department may confiscate and then house, transport, or destroy the unlawfully held exotic wildlife. The department may charge any person convicted of a violation of this part for the costs associated with the handling, housing, transporting, or destroying of the exotic wildlife.

59

REVIEW OF LITERATURE RELEVANT TO THE CONSERVATION OF AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES IN GENERAL

Ecological Function and Importance of Amphibians and Reptiles

Montana's 13 native amphibians represent a valuable biological and cultural resource whose conservation is essential not only to their own survival, but to the survival of other vertebrate and invertebrate taxa as well. As larvae, amphibians structure aquatic communities by being important herbivores (e.g., Dickman 1968; Seale 1980), competitors (e.g., Werner 1992), predators (e.g., Morin 1983; Wilbur et al. 1983), and prey (e.g., Wilbur 1997). Many metamorphosing amphibians act as key links between aquatic and terrestrial food webs as they transfer energy from aquatic prey to terrestrial predators (Wilbur 1997). The importance of adult amphibians in terrestrial food webs is highlighted by their efficiency at converting the prey they consume to new animal tissue; as ectotherms they are up to 50 times more efficient than mammals or birds (Pough 1980, 1983). Their importance to terrestrial food webs is further highlighted by studies conducted in eastern deciduous forests which demonstrate that amphibians rival or exceed mammals and birds with respect to numbers, biomass, and energetics (Burton and Likens 1975a; Burton and Likens 191 5b; Hairston 1987).

Amphibians also contribute a great deal to human welfare. In many impoverished societies they are among the most important sources of animal protein and many affluent societies import large quantities of frog legs for culinary purposes; the U.S. imports 1,000-2,000 tons of frog legs annually, while France imports 3.4 million tons annually (Stebbins and Cohen 1995). Amphibians have been extremely important to studies of vertebrate anatomy, neurology, physiology, embryology, developmental biology, genetics, evolutionary biology, animal behavior, and community ecology (Stebbins and Cohen 1995; Petranka 1998; Pough et al. 1998). Eggs and larvae have been extensively used in toxicological studies on the effects of chemical contaminants that may impact human health (Harfenist et al. 1989). Skin secretions of some species show promise as antibiotics and as nonaddictive pain killers that are 200 times more powerful than morphine (Stebbins and Cohen 1995). They are important in the control of insect pests such as mosquitoes (Pough et al. 1998). Amphibians are also important reminders of one of the most significant events in the evolution of vertebrate life, the movement into the terrestrial environment some 360 million years ago (Pough et al. 1998). Finally, some species are valuable bioindicators of environmental health because they have highly permeable skin and egg membranes and because they have complex life cycles with both aquatic and terrestrial life history stages that are philopatric to specific breeding, foraging, and overwintering sites connected by habitats suitable for migration (Turner 1957; Duellman and Trueb 1986; Weygoldt 1989; Wake 1991; Olson 1992; Blaustein 1993, 1994; Welsh and Ollivier 1998).

60

Amphibian and Reptile Biology and Disturbance Regimes Relevant to Management

Possibly the most important feature of the biology of amphibians that management plans need to address is that their complex life histories require a complex set of habitats connected by suitable migratory corridors. At higher latitudes all amphibians require suitable breeding/rearing, foraging and overwintering habitats in order to survive (e.g., Turner 1957, Dole 1965; Ewert 1969). Many amphibians require warmer lentic waters with emergent vegetation for breeding/rearing habitat, riparian areas that support large insect populations for foraging habitat, and terrestrial burrows, forest litter, or deep waters that are unlikely to freeze for overwintering habitats (Nussbaum et al. 1983; Stebbins and Cohen 1995). Loss or exclusion from any one of these habitats, or loss of the resources they contain, may cause the species to decline or be extirpated from a local area unless individuals dispersing from nearby areas recolonize (e.g., Hecnar and M'Closkey 1996; Patla 1997). In cases where all 3 of these habitats are present in a relatively small geographic area herpetofauna often do not undergo extensive migrations between overwintering, breeding, and foraging habitats (Sinsch 1990). In these instances, isolated populations may successfully perpetuate themselves unless the specific area is altered by natural succession or anthropogenic activity (e.g., Gulve 1994). In cases where the 3 required habitat types are isolated spatially, herpetofauna are capable of undertaking quite extensive seasonal migrations (e.g., Sinsch 1990; Dodd 1996). In these instances, they are not only dependent on suitable breeding, foraging and overwintering habitats, but are also dependent on habitats suitable for migration (Dodd and Cade 1998). Coupled with the importance of considering all habitat requirements is the importance of considering the extreme philopatry shown by many herpetofauna species to the same breeding, foraging and overwintering sites year after year (Daugherty and Sheldon 1982; Sinsch 1990; Stebbins and Cohen 1995; Pough et al. 1998).

In order to ensure the presence of habitats critical to the survival of amphibians management plans need to consider the disturbance regimes that create and maintain them. Disturbance regimes that create and drive the succession of breeding, foraging, and overwintering habitats used by amphibian species include glaciation, flooding, fire, and the dam building, wallowing, and foraging activities of beaver and other large mammals. The majority of standing water bodies in western Montana and on the plains north of the Missouri River in eastern Montana are the result of Pleistocene glaciation (Alt and Hyndman 1986, 1995). Flooding carves out depressions and eliminates vegetation so that important breeding, foraging, and basking habitats are maintained (Lind et al. 1996; Cavallo 1997). Standing water bodies that are used as breeding and overwintering sites are created and maintained as the result of the dam building and foraging activities of beaver (Donkor and Fryxell 1999; Russell et al. 1999a) and the foraging and wallowing activities of large mammals such as moose, elk, and bear (Bryce Maxell, pers. obs.). Beaver seem to be particularly important in the maintenance of standing waterbodies in western Montana. For example where historic fur trapping has eliminated beaver from some mountain ranges in the central portion of the state many water bodies are approaching their final successional stages as they fill in with sediments (Bryce Maxell, pers. obs.; Grant Hokit, Carroll College, pers. comm.). Finally, periodic fires may act to maintain open waters by eliminating vegetation that catches sediment, and may contribute to the amount of downed woody debris that provides habitat for terrestrial amphibians (Russell et al 1999b).

61

Global Amphibian Declines

In the past few hundred years, increases in human population and our ability to impact natural ecosystems have led to a dramatic increase in the global rate of species extinction (Wilson and Peter 1988). Within this overall biodiversity crisis, evidence has accumulated during the past few decades that amphibians around the globe may be declining at a higher rate than other taxonomic groups (Blaustein and Wake 1990; Phillips 1990; Wyman 1990; Wake and Morowitz 1991; Drost and Fellers 1996; Alford and Richards 2000; Houlahan et al. 2000; but see Pechmann and Wilbur 1994). In North America, amphibian declines have been most numerous in the West and have occurred among species that occupy a variety of elevations, habitat types, and disturbance regimes (Corn 1994).

Seven major factors, and their interaction, have been implicated as causative agents of amphibian declines. These include: (1) loss, deterioration, and fragmentation of aquatic and terrestrial habitats (e.g., Bury et al. 1980; Schwalbe 1993; Van Rooy and Stumpel 1995; Lind et al. 1996; Beebee 1997); (2) introduction of nonindigenous species (e.g., Bradford 1989; Fisher and Schaffer 1996; Gamradt and Kats 1996; Kupferberg 1996; Adams 1997; Hecnar and MXloskey 1997; Kiesecker and Blaustein 1997a); (3) environmental pollutants (e.g., Lewis et al. 1985; Kirk 1988; Beebee et al. 1990; Dunson et al. 1992); (4) increased ambient UV-B radiation (e.g., Blaustein et al. 1994a; Blaustein et al. 1995; Kiesecker and Blaustein 1995; Nagl and Hofer 1997); (5) climate change (e.g., Pounds and Crump 1994; Stewart 1995; Pounds et al. 1999); (6) pathogens (e.g., Carey 1993; Kiesecker and Blaustein 1997Z?; Berger et al. 1998; Carey et al. 1999; Daszak et al. 1999; Lips 1999) and (7) human commerce (e.g. Nace and Rosen 1979; Jennings and Hayes 1985; Buck 1997; Pough et al. 1998). Not suprisingly, a majority of these factors have also been implicated as causative agents of the overall decline in biodiversity (Wilson and Peters 1988). Thus, the conspicuous decline of amphibian populations may indeed be a good indication of the declining health of our environment.

In recent years concerns over environmental health have also been raised by the issue of amphibian deformities, an issue that seems to be completely distinct from that of amphibian declines because declines have not been reported in the species and areas where deformities have been found. Most amphibian deformities that have been reported involve missing, deformed, or multiple hind limbs (Bishop and Hamilton 1947; Sessions and Ruth 1990; Ouellet et al 1997; Sessions et al. 1999; Johnson et al. 1999). In Montana missing, malformed, and multiple hind limb deformities have been found in western toads (Bufo boreas), Pacific treefrogs {Pseudacris regilla), and Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) at a few sites in the western portion of the state and have been reported as early as 1958 (Hebard and Brunson 1963; Bryce Maxell, pers. obs.). Suggested causes of deformities include UVB radiation (e.g., Blaustein et al. 1997), contaminants including pesticides containing retinoic acid (Scadding and Madden 1986; Bryant and Gardiner 1992; Sessions 1999) and infection by a nematode parasite in the genus Ribeiroia (Johnson 1999; Kaiser 1999). Currently evidence favors two of these mechanisms, contaminants in the midwestern United States and nematode parasites in the western United States (Souder 2000). The Ribeiroia parasite has been documented in populations of the Pacific treefrog and the Columbia spotted frog in western Montana and may be the cause of limb deformities in western toads (Pieter Johnson, Claremont Mckenna College, pers. comm.). Deformities apparently result from the amphibian larvae's response to the mechanical perturbation of the cysts the parasites

62

form after they burrow through the larvae's body wall because mechanical implants of resin beads result in almost identical deformities (Sessions and Ruth 1990; Johnson et al. 1999) While it is uncertain how long or to what extent this phenomena has occurred, accelerated eutrophication of waters due to organic pollution may cause planorbid snail (the first host of Ribeiroia) numbers to rise, thereby increasing the rate of parasite infection and deformities (Johnson 1999).

Montana's 13 native amphibians occupy a diverse array of habitats and vary greatly in their life history patterns (Reichel and Flath 1995; Hart et al. 1998). Furthermore, relatively few studies have investigated the impacts of human activities on amphibians. Thus, identification of all possible impacts on Montana's amphibians, and development of a comprehensive set of guidelines that would mitigate these impacts, are not possible at this time. However, because 60- 70% of the predicted ranges of these species are in private lands without any formal protection from conversion of natural habitat types to anthropogenic habitat types (Hart et al. 1998; Redmond et al. 1998) a review of likely impacts is appropriate in order to ensure the viability of these populations on public lands. A review of the scientific literature identified nine major risk factors that may affect the viability of amphibian populations. In no particular order they are:

1 . Timber harvest

2. Grazing

3. Fire and fire management activities

4. Nonindigenous species and their management

5. Road and trail development and on- and off-road vehicle use

6. Development and management of recreational facilities and water impoundments

7. Harvest and commerce

8. Habitat fragmentation and metapopulation impacts

9. Lack of information / research needs

Specific areas of concern associated with each of these themes and a general set of management guidelines that would allow impacts to be minimized are addressed individually below.

63

Timber Harvest

The timing and extent of the impacts of timber harvest on Montana's amphibians likely depend on the preferred habitat, physiological adaptations, and dispersal abilities of individual species as well as the spatial, extent, location, and configuration of the harvest, the timing and method of harvest, and the speed of forest regeneration. deMaynadier and Hunter (1995) conducted a thorough review of literature on forest management and amphibian ecology in North America. In 1 8 studies that examined the effects of clear-cutting on amphibians they found that most amphibians (toads were sometimes an exception) were always present at lower median abundances on 6 month to 40 year old clear-cuts as compared to control plots. However, clear taxonomic differences existed: amphibians in general were 3.5 times greater on control plots; anurans (frogs and toads) were 1.7 times greater; salamanders in general were 4.3 times greater; and plethodontid salamanders were 5.0 times greater. While these reductions in species' abundances may result in some impacts on the food chain, by themselves reductions in abundance may be an acceptable consequence of timber harvest as long as species are able to persist and abundances are not reduced in the long run. Species richness may, therefore, be a more important measure of the impacts of timber harvest because it may indicate the addition or extirpation of species as a result of harvest. deMaynadier and Hunter (1995) found that patterns of species richness between clearcut and control plots across the 18 studies were less conclusive. In most studies species richness values were not changed. However, clear decreases in species richness have been reported by several studies in the Pacific Northwest and most of these indicate the loss of species that are dependent on healthy stream, streamside, or other moist microhabitats. For example, in a study of four streamside amphibians in Oregon and Washington, Corn and Bury (1989) reported that only 1 of 20 streams in logged stands contained all four species as compared to 1 1 of 23 streams in uncut stands. Furthermore, only 2 of the streams in the uncut stands had fewer than three species, whereas 1 1 streams in the logged stands had only 1 or no species present. Similarly, a number of other studies in the Pacific Northwest have reported that stream dwelling amphibians such as the tailed frog (Ascaphus truei) were absent or found in greatly reduced numbers in clear cuts versus mature or old growth forests, apparently as a result of decreased canopy cover and increased sedimentation (Bury 1983; Bury and Corn 1988; Corn and Bury 1990; Welsh 1990; Welsh and Lind 1988). Finally, it should be noted that many of the negative impacts associated with timber harvest may be associated with the building and maintenance of roads and road traffic (see section on road impacts below). For instance sedimentation of streams has major impacts on stream dwelling amphibians (e.g., Welsh and Lind 1998) and 90% of the sediment runoff from some harvest operations comes from roads (Anderson et al. 1976).

Although positive impacts of timber harvest have rarely been reported there may be some instances in which some amphibian species benefit. For example, in higher gradient streams, Pacific giant salamanders (Dicamptodon ensatus) have been documented to increase in the abundance in cut stands, apparently as a result of warmer water temperatures, increased light, and increased insect or salmonid prey ( Murphy and Hall 1981; Murphy et al. 1981; Hawkins et al. 1983; Bury and Corn 1988). However, it should be noted that these apparent benefits do not hold for all streams because in lower gradient streams increased sedimentation associated with harvested stands eliminates microhabitats used by Pacific giant salamanders and other stream dwelling amphibians (Connor et al. 1988; Corn and Bury 1989). Depending on the scale of

64

timber harvest positive impacts on individual species may include forest openings that benefit more terrestrial species by creating basking or foraging sites (e.g., Raphael 1988; Kirkland et al. 1996) and the creation of habitat by debris left over from harvest activities. For example, Bury and Martin (1973) and Bury (1983) both found that the clouded salamander (Amides fer reus) was more abundant in second-growth stands, apparently because the species uses crevices and bark under downed timber. In addition, limited removal of forest trees immediately adjacent to standing waters that are used for breeding may enhance the length of time ephemeral wetlands are present by reducing evapotranspiration and may reduce the length of the larval period of many amphibians by increasing solar radiation, thereby ensuring that metamorphosis takes place prior to pond drying (deMayandier and Hunter 1999; Russell et al. \999b). For example, McGraw (1997) found that larval long-toed salamanders (Amby stoma macrodactylum) were more abundant in ponds where a fraction of the pond margin was harvested than either ponds whose margins were completely harvested or ponds whose forest margins were completely intact.

Both the taxonomic differences in abundance and species diversity resulting from timber harvest highlight the importance of considering the individual needs of species and indicate that amphibians that rely almost exclusively on moist microhabitats or streams are likely to be the most heavily impacted by timber harvest activities. In Montana forest species that utilize these habitats include the long-toed salamander, the Coeur d'Alene salamander (Plethodon idahoensis), the tailed frog, and the Pacific treefrog. Unfortunately, the impacts of timber harvest has only been studied for one of these species in Montana and many of the findings for coastal sites in the Pacific Northwest may not be directly applicable here because of differences in precipitation and forest types. In a study of the long-toed salamander in Douglas-fir forests in the Swan River Valley McGraw (1997) found that areas where overstory removal (250-300 trees harvested per hectare) and new forestry (leave 13-25 dominant tree species per hectare and retain all snags and hardwoods) harvest techniques were applied had less ground cover, higher soil temperatures, and 75% fewer terrestrial salamanders than control plots. He suggested that retention of greater amounts of all types of forest debris and understory vegetation may mitigate these impacts. In their review of the management of the Coeur d'Alene salamander Groves et al. (1996) suggest that the impacts of timber harvest at sites known or likely to support populations be mitigated by: (1) avoiding concentration of harvest activities in headwater subdrainages; (2) using partial cutting that maintains at least 60% canopy cover; (3) ensuring that forest harvest activities provide for recruitment of woody debris; (4) reducing ground disturbance by winter harvesting and using low ground pressure tracked vehicles; (5) carrying out harvest activities during periods of salamander are not active on the ground surface (dry periods in the summer or during the winter); and (6) maintaining 30 meter forest buffers along both sides of all streams. Maintenance of buffer zones around streams has also been suggested by Corn and Bury (1989) (7.6-15.0 meters) and deMaynadier and Hunter (1995) (30-100 meters). A study in the Blue Mountains of Oregon provides evidence that stream buffers do provide protection for tailed frogs in drier forests similar to those found across much of Montana. Bull and Carter (1996) found that the number of tailed frogs was best predicted by a combination of stream substrates and the presence of stream buffers. deMaynadier and Hunter (1995) note that adjusting buffers proportionally to (1) stream width, (2) the intensity of the adjacent harvest, and (3) the slope of the area is likely to result in the most appropriate and efficient application of buffers. Finally, if buffers are applied it is important to ensure that they represent the habitat needs and home range

65

of the animals they are designed to protect (Burke and Gibbons 1995). Unfortunately, information on the home range size of Montana's amphibians is virtually non existent.

Research and Management Suggestions

1 . The impacts (both positive and negative) of timber harvest and subsequent forest succession on all amphibians that inhabit Montana's forests should be formally studied using sound experimental designs that gather pre-harvest data as well as a time series of post-harvest data. This should be done for stream and seep dwelling amphibians as well as those that use permanent and ephemeral standing waters.

2. When planning a timber harvest the area impacted by the harvest should be thoroughly surveyed for all amphibian species in order to identify the likely impacts of the harvest activities. Special emphasis should be placed on detecting the presence of Coeur d'Alene salamanders and tailed frogs because of their dependence on moist microhabitats and known sensitivities to timber harvest.

3. Harvested areas should leave 30 meter forest buffers along both sides of all streams (especially headwater streams) in order to prevent sedimentation of streams and desication of moist microhabitats adjacent to streams.

4. Timber harvest should not be allowed in areas that serve as refugia for the Coeur d'Alene salamander because of the species' dependence on moist microhabitats and the fact that populations of this species are usually isolated from one another by long distances, thereby eliminating the opportunity for recolonization.

5. Timber management practices that make use of intensive site preparation, such as plantations, and practices that modify levels of coarse woody debris and other microhabitats should not be used extensively. Harvest practices which minimize the immediate and long- term differences in abundance and distribution of moist microhabitats (e.g., woody debris or undergrowth) between harvested and nonharvested areas are preferred.

6. In areas that prove to be critical breeding, foraging, or overwintering habitat, timber harvest should be limited to periods of inactivity by amphibians (drier periods in the summer or during the winter) and during harvest ground disturbance should be minimized with low ground pressure tracked vehicles.

66

Livestock Grazing

Livestock grazing is one of the most widespread land management practices in western North America (70% of the western United States is grazed) and has been associated with negative impacts on a variety of plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate taxa (Fleischner 1994). However, studies reporting the impacts of livestock grazing on amphibians are virtually nonexistent. Livestock have been documented to cause the direct mortality of amphibians as a result of trampling. Individual northern leopard frogs (Rana pipiens) and woodhouse's toads (Bufo woodhousii) have been found crushed at the bottoms of cattle hoove prints at the margins of several wetlands in eastern Montana (Bryce Maxell, pers. obs.). In some instances trampling can result in severe population-level impacts. For example, after what may have been the first successful reproductive event at a site in southeastern Idaho in 10 years Bartelt (1998) documented the deaths of thousands of western toad metamorphs when 500-1,000 sheep were herded through the drying pond the toadlets were concentrated around. He found that hundreds of animals had been directly killed underfoot and hundreds more died soon afterward as a result of dessication because the vegetation they had been hiding in had been trampled to the point that it no longer provided a moist microhabitat.

Riparian areas often provide critical breeding, foraging, and overwintering habitats and frequently serve as migratory or dispersal corridors for amphibians. These areas are also usually the preferred habitat of livestock (Kauffman and Krueger 1984; Fleischner 1994) so grazing likely has a number of indirect impacts on amphibian populations. In certain areas one possible positive impact may be that mechanical clearing of vegetation opens up basking areas that amphibians require (Bill Leonard, Washington State D.O.T., pers. comm.; Dick Tracy, University of Nevada at Reno, pers. comm.). In addition, in some areas livestock defecation and subsequent eutrophication of waters may benefit some amphibian larvae via a bottom-up control of the food web (Reaser 1996). Another possible positive impact of livestock grazing is the increased number of water bodies available to amphibians because of tanks and dams used for watering; assuming the hydroperiod is not long enough to allow exotic or native predators to become established (Scott 1996).

Unfortunately, it is likely that the majority of indirect impacts on amphibians are negative (Jones 1988). For example, contamination of waters through livestock defecation may increase fecal coliform counts and lead to mass mortality events and life history changes such as those documented and suspected, respectively, for the tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) (Worthylake and Hovingh 1989; Pfenning et al. 1991). Furthermore, eutrophication of waters through fecal contamination may cause planorbid snail numbers to rise, thereby increasing the number of nematode parasites and the rate of parasite infection that subsequently lead to limb deformities in amphibians (Johnson 1999). Livestock also cause major changes in the bank structure, substrate composition and vegetation in riparian habitats (Kauffman and Krueger 1984; Fleischner 1994). Elimination of bankside vegetation and collapse of overhanging banks reduces the number of moist non freezing microhabitats that are required by many amphibian species during summer foraging and overwinter periods, respectively. Compaction of soils in the riparian area may eliminate the ability of many species to burrow underground in order to prevent dessication or freezing (Duellman and Trueb 1986; Swanson et al. 1996). The collapse of banks leads to increased sedimentation which has negative impacts on stream dwelling

67

amphibians such as the tailed frog (Kauffman and Krueger 1984; Corn and Bury 1989; Bull and Carter 1996). Loss of bankside willows may result in reduced beaver activity or possibly even the extirpation of beaver; a species whose activities are responsible for the creation of a large portion of amphibian breeding habitats (Donkor and Fryxell 1999; Russell et al. 1999a). Grazing may also reduce the number of insect prey that amphibians are dependent on (Fleischner 1994). Finally, a number of amphibian species may be highly dependent on the burrows created by prairie dogs and other small mammals (Reading et al. 1989; Sharps and Uresk 1990; Scott 1996). Loss of prairie dogs as a result of control programs associated with the protection of livestock from injury is, therefore, likely to have major impacts on grassland amphibians.

Research and Management Suggestions

1 . The impact of different livestock grazing regimes on amphibian populations should be formally investigated using sound experimental designs.

2. Livestock should be fenced from all or portions of water bodies that are critical breeding habitat in order to prevent mass mortality as a result of disease or trampling at or prior to the time of metamorphosis.

3. Livestock should be fenced from all or portions of riparian areas that provide critical breeding, foraging, or overwintering habitats or that serve as important migratory or dispersal corridors in order to protect these critical areas from damage.

4. Hydroperiods of waterbodies should not be altered in order to provide water for livestock.

5. Prairie dog control efforts undertaken to prevent harm to livestock should be eliminated in order to conserve critical summer refugia and overwintering habitats.

68

Fire and Fire Management Activities

Although the impacts of fire and fire management activities have been investigated for a number of vertebrates (e.g., Lyon et al. 1978; DeBano et al. 1998), impacts on amphibians have received virtually no attention at all (Russell et al. 1999b). Furthermore, the little attention that has been given has been focused on scrub forests in the southeastern United States (Vogl 1973) hardwood and pine forests in the northeastern United States (Kirkland et al. 1996; McLeod and Gates 1998), and chapparal communities in California and Australia (Friend 1993; Gamradt and Kats 1997; Hannah and Smith 1997). The sparse amount of research may in part be due to the belief that the wet areas occupied by many amphibian species act as refugia from fire or that many amphibians are inactive in burrows during the dry season when fires are more frequent. Vogl's (1973) observations of a large breeding chorus ofHyla crucifer in a Florida wetland surrounded by still-smoking ashes and Friend's (1993) finding that most Australian anurans (frogs and toads) were inactive in burrows during the dry season support this contention. However, wildfire, prescribed fire, and fire control actions are all likely to have both direct and indirect impacts on amphibians.

Direct mortality of amphibians as a result of fire has been documented in wetlands (Vogl 1973) and the relatively low vagility of many amphibian species (Sinsch 1990) indicates that species that inhabit forest vegetation may face high rates of fire induced mortality (Friend 1993; Russell et al. \999b; Papp and Papp 2000). However, the population-level impacts of direct fire induced mortality have not been examined. Indirect effects of fire may be either positive or negative. For instance, increased sedimentation following a chaparral wildfire in California reduced the number of stream pools and was apparently related to reduced numbers of California newt (Taricha granulosa) egg masses (Gamradt and Kats 1997) Furthermore, fire may remove the forest canopy, downed logs, leaf litter, and other structures that create moist microhabitats suitable for amphibians. This may be why both Mushinsky (1985) and McLeod and Gates (1998) found amphibian species present in greater numbers in unburned scrub and pine forest, respectively, relative to adjacent burned areas. However, fire may also have positive indirect effects by creating openings that allow more terrestrial amphibians to bask and forage (Kirkland et al. 1996). Fire may also positively impact amphibian populations by removing vegetation and opening wetlands to an earlier succession stage, thereby enhancing the life of the wetland (Russell et al. 1999b). In addition removal of forest trees immediately adjacent to wetlands may enhance the length of time ephemeral wetlands are present by reducing evapotranspiration (Russell et al. 1999b) and may reduce the length of the larval period of many amphibians by increasing solar radiation, thereby ensuring that metamorphosis takes place prior to pond drying.

The impacts of prescribed fire and fire management activities have not been investigated, but may present some serious risks to amphibian populations. For instance many of Montana's amphibians are most active on the ground surface during moist periods in the spring and fall (e.g., Turner 1957; Beneski et al. 1986; Hill 1995) when most prescribed burns take place. As these animals migrate between terrestrial and aquatic habitats they may be particularly susceptible to fire because many migrate in mass (e.g., DeLacey 1876) and most remain closer to the ground surface where they may be more easily reached by flames. Fire control activities may also present a risk to amphibians. The large volumes of water required for control efforts may decrease wetland hydroperiods and thereby desicate larvae before they are capable of

69

metamorphoses (Rowe and Dunson 1995; Skelly 1996). Finally, no published studies of the impacts of aerially dropped fire retardant slurries on amphibian larvae were found, but it is reasonable to assume that these retardants may be toxic to amphibian larvae or adults.

Research and Management Suggestions

1 . The impacts of wildfire, prescribed burns on terrestrial and aquatic amphibians should be formally investigated so that the impacts of both the timing and magnitude of fire and the subsequent succession of vegetation can be understood.

2. The toxicity of commonly used fire retardants to amphibians should be investigated for both terrestrial and aquatic species and/or life history stages at different periods of time after application.

3. Radio telemetry studies should be conducted for all amphibian species in order to gain a better understanding of how far they migrate to and from aqautic breeding habitats so that the spatial context of the impacts of wildfire, prescribed burns, and fire control efforts can be better understood.

4. Prescribed burns should not be conducted outside of the normal fire season in areas where amphibian species are present as disjunct populations unless research indicates the population is not widely present in habitat that will be impacted by the burn (i.e. on the ground surface or in vegetation that will burn).

70

Nonindigenous Species and Their Management

Impacts of Nonindigenous Fish

At least 52 species offish belonging to 14 families have been introduced in Montana (Nico and Fuller 1999; Fuller et al. 1999). Of these species, 9 belonging to 3 families have been widely introduced for recreational fishing and have been implicated in the decline of native amphibians across the globe (Sexton and Phillips 1986; Bahls 1992; Bradford et al. 1993; Bronmark and Endenhamn 1994; Brana et al. 1996; Hecnar and M'Closkey 1997a; Fuller et al. 1999). These species include pumpkinseed {Lepomis gibbosus), blue gill (Lepomis macrochirus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) in the family Centrarchidae, yellow perch (Perca flavescens) in the family Percidae, and rainbow trout {Oncorhynchus mykiss), cutthroat trout {Oncorhynchus clarki), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) in the family Salmonidae. Introductions of warm water centrarchids and percids and cold water salmonids have undoubtedly been made into a number of low-elevation water bodies that support or formerly supported amphibian communities. However, introductions of salmonids at higher elevations, which began as early as the 1880s (Jordan 1891), are likely to have had a particularly important impact on native amphibian communities inhabiting high (>800 meters) mountain lakes because 95% of these lakes in the western United States were naturally Ashless prior to stocking (Bahls 1992). Thus, historically, as many as 15,000 lakes at elevations greater than 800 meters in the western United States may have supported native amphibian communities without the threat of predation or competition from fish. Presently, about 9,500 of the West's high-elevation lakes and virtually all of the deeper lakes contain introduced salmonids (Bahls 1992). In Montana, approximately 47% of the state's 1,650 high-elevation lakes now contain nonindigenous salmonids (Bahls 1992).

Egg, larval, and adult amphibians may be subject to direct predation by introduced warm and cold water fishes (e.g.s, Korschgen and Baskett 1963; Licht 1969; Semlitsch and Gibbons 1988; Liss and Larson 1991). Similarly, all 3 amphibian life history stages are likely to be indirectly effected by the threat of predation due to (1) adult avoidance of oviposition sites where predators are present (e.g. Resetarits and Wilbur 1989; Hopey and Petranka 1994), (2) decreased larval foraging and, therefore, growth rates as a result of staying in refuges to avoid predators (e.g., Figiel and Semlitsch 1990; Skelly 1992; Kiesecker and Blaustein 1998; Tyler et al. 1998), and (3) decreased adult foraging, growth rates, and overwinter survival as a result of avoiding areas with fishes (e.g., Bradford 1983).

Impacts of Chemical Management of Sport Fisheries

Rotenone and commercial piscicides containing rotenone have often been used to remove unwanted fish stocks from a variety of aquatic habitats (Schnick 1974). The impacts of rotenone-containing piscicides on amphibians and turtles were recently reviewed by Fontenot et al. (1994) and McCoid and Bettoli (1996). They found the range of lethal doses of rotenone- containing piscicides for amphibian larvae (0.1-0.580 mg/L) to overlap to a large extent with lethal doses for fish (0.0165-0.665 mg/L), and to be much lower than the concentrations commonly used in fisheries management (0.5-3.0 mg/L). Furthermore, they reviewed, a number of studies that noted substantial mortality of nontarget amphibian larvae. However, the effects of rotenone on newly metamorphosed and adult amphibians was found to vary with the degree of each species' aquatic respiration and their likelihood of exiting treated water bodies (Fontenot et

71

al. 1994; McCoid and Bettoli 1996). Hockin et al. (1985) reduced nontarget mortality of amphibian larvae by providing several untreated refuge areas that could be accessed through Netlon fence divisions and by protecting one refuge area containing high densities of amphibian larvae by placing a sheet of hessian sacking soaked in a saturated potassium permanganate solution that neutralized the rotenone. The nontarget effects of another piscicide, antimycin, have apparently not been formally studied, but preliminary observations seem to indicate that antimycin is also toxic to amphibian larvae (Patla 1998). In Montana all amphibian larvae as well as tailed frog adults use some sort of aquatic respiration or may be unlikely to exit treated water bodies depending on the time of day (Daugherty and Sheldon 1982). Thus, all amphibian species are likely to suffer mortality if piscides are applied to waters they inhabit.

Impacts of Nonindigenous Bullfrogs

Bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) are native to the United States east of a line extending from northwest Wisconsin to south central Texas (Bury and Whelan 1984). However, they have now been widely introduced into permanent waters in all lower forty-eight states, with the possible exception of North Dakota, and have been implicated in the declines of a number of amphibian and reptile species throughout this area (Moyle 1973; Hammerson 1982; Bury and Whelan 1984; Kupferberg 1994; Rosen et al. 1995; Kupferberg 1997; Lawler et al. 1999). The impetus for bullfrog introduction seems largely to be due to their use as a recreational hunting and food item, apparently, in some cases, as a result of native frogs having already declined because of human hunting and consumption (Bury and Whelan 1984; Jennings and Hayes 1985). In Montana, bullfrogs were introduced for unknown reasons into the Bitterroot Valley sometime prior to 1968 and they are now continuously distributed along much of the lower Bitterroot, Flathead, and Clark Fork Rivers as well as a few other isolated localities around the state (Black 1969a; \969b; Werner and Reichel 1994; Reichel 1995; Hendricks and Reichel 1996; Werner et al. 1998). Unfortunately, bullfrogs continue to be introduced into new sites from source populations both inside and outside of Montana despite the fact that unauthorized introduction or transplantation of wildlife into the natural environment is prohibited by Montana law (Bryce Maxell, pers. obs.; Levell 1995; MCA 87-5-71 1).

All 3 life history stages of amphibians may be subject to direct predation by adult bullfrogs (e.g., Korschgen and Baskett 1963; Carpenter and Morrison 1973; Bury and Whelan 1984; Clarkson and DeVos 1986). Additionally, both the eggs and larvae of native amphibians may be preyed upon by larval bullfrogs (e.g., Ehrlich 1979; Kiesecker and Blaustein 1997a). Furthermore, egg, larval and adult amphibians are also likely to be indirectly effected by the threat of predation due to (1) adult avoidance of oviposition sites where predators are present (e.g., Resetarits and Wilbur 1989), (2) decreased larval foraging and, therefore, growth rates as a result of staying in refuges to avoid predators (e.g., Kiesecker 1997; Kiesecker and Blaustein 1998), and (3) decreased adult foraging and growth rates as a result of avoiding areas with bullfrogs. Native amphibian larvae or adults may also be subject to chemically mediated interference competition (e.g., Petranka 1989; Griffiths et al. 1993) or exploitative competition for resources (e.g., Kupferberg 1997). Finally, predators that are dependent on larval or adult amphibians as a food source may also be impacted as a result of the loss of native amphibian larvae and the presence of larger bullfrog tadpoles and adults that they are unable to efficiently forage on (e.g., Kupferberg 1994).

72

Impacts of Nonindigenous Species as Vectors for Pathogens

Reports of mass mortality of amphibians due to pathogens are increasingly common (e.g., Nyman 1986; Worthylake and Hovingh 1989; Carey 1993; Blaustein et al. 1994&; Berger et al. 1998, Carey et al. 1999; Daszak 1999; Lips 1999). Nonindigenous species, such as bullfrogs and other amphibians that are sold in pet stores, and introduced centrarchid, percid, and salmonid fishes, may act as vectors for amphibian pathogens. For example, the chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis is now the primary suspect for amphibian declines in Australia, Central America, and the Western United States, and many amphibians exported to pet stores in the United States come from these areas (Daszak et al. 1999, 2000). Similarly, the water fungus Saprolegnia, a common pathogen offish species reared and released from fish hatcheries, has recently been associated with declines of amphibian populations (Blaustein et al. 1994b). Releasing hatchery-raised fish may, therefore, increase the inoculation rate and lead to declines in native amphibian populations. Laurance et al. (1996) suggest that declines in stream-dwelling amphibian populations in Australia are caused by an unknown pathogen and hypothesize that nonindigenous species, such as the cane toad (Bufo marinus) and aquarium fish, are responsible for the introduction of the pathogen. Similarly, nonindigenous organisms may change environmental conditions leading to enhanced survival and number of pathogens. For example, Worthylake and Hovingh (1989) found that elevated nitrogen levels, caused by high numbers of sheep, increased bacterial concentrations and lead to periodic mass mortality of salamanders. Finally, pathogens may act synergistic ally with other natural and anthropogenically caused environmental stressors. For example, Kiesecker and Blaustein (1995) found that an interaction between UV-B radiation and Saprolegnia fungus enhanced the mortality of amphibian embryos.

Impacts of Weeds and Weed and Pest Management Activities

Noxious weeds may be spread by the use of off-road vehicles, watercraft, recreational livestock use, and camping activities. There is little knowledge of the impacts that weeds have on amphibian communities. However, nonindigenous aquatic and terrestrial weeds often form dense stands that are likely to exclude native amphibians and enhance the probability of successful introduction of other exotic species. For example, there is some evidence that the survival of exotic bullfrogs is enhanced by the presence of exotic aquatic vegetation, which provides habitat more suitable to the bullfrogs (Kupferberg 1996).

Management of weeds and insect pests with chemical herbicides and pesticides can have major impacts on amphibian communities. In particular, several features of amphibian biology may enhance their susceptibility to chemical contamination (Stebbins and Cohen 1995). The life history of most amphibians involves both aquatic larvae and terrestrial adults, allowing exposure to toxicants in both habitats. Many amphibians have skin with vascularization in the epidermis and little keritinization, allowing easy absorption of many toxicants. In fact, many studies have demonstrated the effects of chemical contamination on amphibians (reviewed in Cooke 1981; Hall and Henry 1992; Boyer and Grue 1995; Carey and Bryant 1995). The effects range from direct mortality to sublethal effects such as depressed disease resistance, inhibition of growth and development, decreased reproductive ability, inhibition of predator avoidance behaviors, and morphological abnormalities.

73

Currently, there are no requirements for testing the toxicity of herbicides and pesticides on amphibians (Hall and Henry 1992). Furthermore, there are no water quality criteria established for amphibians (Boyer and Grue 1995). It is often assumed that criteria for mammals, birds, and fish will incorporate the protection needed for amphibians. The few chemicals that have been tested with fish and larval amphibians suggest that tadpoles may be more vulnerable to some toxicants than others (Hall and Henry 1992; Boyer and Grue 1995). Several studies have examined the acute (lethal) toxicity of herbicides and pesticides on amphibians. Saunders (1970) and Harfenist et al. (1989) reviewed the effects of 25 and 211 different pollutants, respectively. However, it is important to recognize sublethal effects as well. Johnson and Prine (1976) found that organophosphates affect the thermal tolerance of western toad tadpoles. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and organochlorines can disrupt corticosterone production and inhibit glucogenesis (Gendron et al. 1997). Many pesticides result in decreased growth rate and inhibition of a predator response in amphibians (e.g., Berrill et al. 1993; Berrill et al. 1994).

Many of the newer pesticides and herbicides are designed to decompose soon after application. Although still toxic, presumably this reduces the impact area and, thus, the number of exposed individuals. However, many of the older chemicals may still be present in sediments. For example, Russell et al. (1995) found potentially toxic levels of DDT in tissues of spring peepers (Pseudacris crucifer) at Point Pelee National Park, Ontario, even though DDT had not been used in the area for 26 years. Levels as high as 1,188 ug/kg were found in spring peepers and implicate DDT as a possible causative agent in the local extinction of several amphibian populations.

Research and Management Suggestions

1 . The impacts of introduced fish, bullfrogs, weeds, and pathogens on Montana's native amphibians should be formally investigated.

2. Introduction of nonindigenous fish species should be limited to areas where they have already been introduced and nonindigenous fish should be removed from waters that act as key overwintering or breeding sites for amphibians.

3. Streams and lakes should be thoroughly surveyed for amphibians prior to and after the application of piscicides in order to identify impacts of piscicide application.

4. If lakes are to be treated with piscicides, they should be treated in late summer after most amphibian larvae have metamorphosed and before adults enter deeper water bodies for overwintering. When amphibians are present an effort should be made to remove them before treatments begin.

5. Piscicides should not be used in streams containing tailed frogs because of the possibility of removing multiple larval and adult cohorts. Other methods of removal should be explored in these instances. If piscicide use is the only option available then pretreatment gathering and posttreatment restocking of tailed frog tadpoles and adults should be undertaken and treatment should occur in the late evening hours so that adults are more likely to exit waters.

6. The public should be educated on the possible impacts of bullfrogs on native communities and be made aware of the fact that it is illegal to introduce them into the wild in Montana.

7. Where possible, bullfrog populations should be removed. Removal may be accomplished by altering habitats from permanent waters that support exotic bullfrogs, fish, and aquatic weeds to ephemeral habitats that support native species. Removal may also be accomplished by surrounding waterbodies with a drift fence and subsequently draining the water body in the

74

late fall after bullfrogs have moved into overwintering sites. Individuals can then either be captured by hand or left to dessicate and/or freeze.

8. The Montana state legislature could further prohibit the introduction of bullfrogs by designating them a species that is detrimental to Montana's native flora and fauna (Levell 1995; MCA 87-5-712).

9. Because animals sold in pet stores can act as vectors for pathogens they should be examined and formally certified as free of pathogens such as the chytrid fungus which seems to be responsible for amphibian population declines around the world and in the western United States.

10. The impacts of commonly used herbicides and pesticides on all life history stages of all of Montana's amphibians should be formally investigated. In the meantime herbicide and pesticide use should be limited to brands that rapidly decompose after application, and herbicides and pesticides should not be sprayed within 100 meters of water bodies or wetlands. Alternative methods of weed and pest removal should be used in these areas.

75

Road and Trail Development and On- and Off- Road Vehicle Use

Road Kill

Many studies have reported large numbers of amphibians killed on roadways. Ehmann and Cogger