Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Amphibians and Reptiles within the Catawba- Wateree River System

Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Amphibians and Reptiles within the Catawba- Wateree River System By Michael E. Dorcas 14 March 2005 Herpetology Laboratory Department of Biology Davidson College

Purpose This report details the evaluation of the status of rare, threatened and endangered species of amphibians and reptiles occurring or potentially occurring within the Catawba and Wateree River Systems as part of the relicensing effort for the Duke Power-Catawba/Wateree Project. Suggested Citation Dorcas, M. E. 2005. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Amphibians and Reptiles within the Catawba-Wateree River System. Final Report to Duke Power Company. Cover Photograph Bog turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii) photographed in Wilkes County, North Carolina by Michael E. Dorcas, Summer 1999. For additional information, please contact: Michael E. Dorcas, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Biology Department of Biology Davidson College Davidson, NC 28035-7118 704-894-2727 704-894-2512 FAX midorcas@davidson.edu http://www.bio.davidson.edu/dorcas 2

Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Amphibians and Reptiles within the Catawba- Wateree River System By Michael E. Dorcas 14 March 2005 Herpetology Laboratory Department of Biology Davidson College 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction..5 Methods.7 Results and Discussion.8 Species Accounts.11 Acknowledgements..57 Literature Cited...58 Appendix 1...60 Ancillary Materials (on CD) - GIS maps (shape files) of suggested sampling localities 4

INTRODUCTION Amphibian and reptile (herpetofauna) diversity reaches a zenith in the southeastern United States. Of the approximately 225 species that occur in the southeast about 20% are endemic to the region (Gibbons 1993, Palmer and Braswell 1995, Conant and Collins 1998). The herpetofaunal diversity of North Carolina and South Carolina are not exceptions with totals of 158 and 138 species of amphibians and reptiles occurring in these states, respectively. Amphibians and reptiles play vital roles as predators and as prey in natural ecosystems (Taylor et al. 1988, Gibbons and Dorcas 2004) and add considerably to the aesthetics and natural heritage of the southeast. Many species of amphibians and reptiles can be particularly susceptible to anthropogenic impacts and some have been touted as indictors of environmental integrity (Gibbons et al. 2000). Some species of amphibians and reptiles which have suffered declines or are known from few localities are considered rare, threatened or endangered (RTE) by state or federal governments. In many cases, the status of populations of RTE species is poorly known. The paucity of available information for many RTE species is a result of not being viewed as charismatic megafauna which is often exacerbated by the difficulties associated with effectively sampling many species. Critical assessment of the known statuses of RTE species is necessary for the development of adequate monitoring and protection plans. Organizations that impact the environment must therefore evaluate the statuses of RTE species in areas potentially influenced by their operations. Duke Power is required by the federal government to relicense the Catwaba- Wateree Project. The intent of relicensing is to resolve impacts related to operation of hydroelectric facilities. One of the issues that must be addressed are the potential impacts on rare, threatened or endangered animals affected by project operations. 5

In this study, we assess the statuses of RTE amphibians and reptiles within the Catawba- Wateree River System, an area partially influenced by activities of the Duke Power Company hydro operations, and provide recommendations regarding research directed towards inventory of these species. Specific objectives: 1) Develop a list of occurring or potentially occurring RTE species in or in close proximity to the Catawba-Wateree study area. 2) Provide a summary of the geographic distribution of all documented RTE species occurrences within or in close proximity to the study area. 3) Evaluate the preferred and suitable habitat of all occurring or potentially occurring RTE species. (Note: In the identification of the potential habitats of RTE species discussed in this report, many are outside the Catawba-Wateree study area. In coordination with Gene Vaughan, Senior Scientist with Duke Power Company, there was a conscious effort to identify potential RTE habitat anywhere within a county bordering the Catawba-Wateree River. By so doing, hopefully the findings of this research will be useful to all entities, inside and outside the hydro relicensing process, charged with protection of herpetofaunal communities). 4) Provide guidance for on-the-ground surveys to determine the presence or absence of these species. 5) Discuss potential hydroelectric-related impacts on RTE species. 6

METHODS To develop a list of occurring or potentially occurring RTE species in the Catawba- Wateree study area, the author compared lists of species considered either Species of Special Concern, Threatened, or Endangered by South Carolina and North Carolina Natural Heritage Programs, and by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to range maps of amphibians and reptiles (Conant and Collins 1998). Species whose range overlapped or potentially overlapped counties along either side of the Catawba-Wateree study area (Fig. 1) were considered RTE species that occurred or potentially occurred in the study area. Figure 1. The Catwaba-Wateree RTE study area. To generate a summary of the geographic distribution of all RTE species occurrences within the study area, the author contacted 34 museums, universities, and other appropriate organizations (Appendix 1) and requested all records of RTE amphibians and reptiles for the counties bounding the study area. All records were complied into a single database and then 7

digitized in a GIS (ArcGIS ver. 8.3, ESRI, Redlands, CA) for evaluation of geographic distribution within the study area. To evaluate the preferred and suitable habitat of all potentially occurring RTE species in the study area, a list of suitable habitat types was developed. These habitats are those recognized by Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (PARC) as appropriate habitat categories for southeastern amphibians and reptiles (Bailey et al. 2004). Habitats that do not occur within the study area (e.g., maritime forest) were eliminated. The author then combined the habitat list with the RTE species and, using published information on habitat requirements and his own experiences with these species in the field, developed a matrix that indicates in which habitats RTE species could occur. To provide guidance for potential on-the-ground surveys to determine the presence or absence of RTE species, the geographic range of each species and known localities was overlaid onto topographic maps. Areas within approximately 8 km (5 miles) on either side of the Catawba-Wateree Rivers that potentially represented suitable habitat for each species if that species had nearby known distribution records (usually either in that county or an adjacent county) were identified. For species with no distribution records within the study area, possible survey areas likely to have habitat suitable for that species across the entire study area were selected based on best professional judgment. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Thirteen species of RTE amphibians and reptiles occurred or potentially occurred within the study area (Table 1). These included one, the bog turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii) that is 8

considered threatened by the federal government. Suitable habitat for nearly all RTE species identified in the report is found within the study area, but for many species is quite limited (Table 2). Table 1. Conservation status of rare, threatened, and endangered amphibians and reptiles occurring or potentially occurring within the study area. Species status are only included for a state if they occur or potentially occur in the study area within the state in which they are considered RTE (see below for definitions). Common Name Scientific Name Status in South Carolina Status in North Carolina Federal Status Mole Salamander Ambystoma talpoideum Special Concern Eastern Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Special Concern Four-toed Salamander Hemidactylium scutatum Special Concern Northern Cricket Frog Acris crepitans Special Concern Pine Barrens Treefrog Hyla andersonii Threatened Gopher Frog Rana capito Endangered Pickerel Frog Rana palustris Special Concern Bog Turtle Glyptemys (= Clemmys) muhlenbergii Threatened Threatened Threatened (S/A) Spotted Turtle Clemmys guttata Threatened Striped Mud Turtle Kinosternon baurii Special Concern Timber/Canebrake Rattlesnake Crotalus horridus Special Concern Special Concern Southern Hognose Snake Heterodon simus Special Concern Milksnake Lampropeltis triangulum Special Concern Eastern Coral Snake Micrurus fulvius Special Concern Pine Snake Pituophis melanoleucus Special Concern Pigmy Rattlesnake Sistrurus miliarius Special Concern Endangered. Any native or once native species of wild animal whose continued existence as a viable component of the state's fauna is determined to be in jeopardy or any wild animal determined to be an "endangered animal" pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. Threatened. Any native or once native species of wild animal that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all, or significant, portions of its range, or one that is designated "threatened" pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (S/A). Designation of a species (subspecies or population segment) as federally listed, even though not otherwise federally listed, because it so closely resembles in appearance a federally listed species that enforcement personnel would have difficulty in differentiating between the listed and unlisted species. Special Concern. Any species of wild animal native or once native to North Carolina that is determined. 9

Table 2. Habitat associations of RTE species within the study area. Hardwood forest Pine Forest Mixed Forest Sandhill/Scrub Prairie/OldField Mole Salamander X X X X X X Tiger Salamander X X X X X X Four-toed Salamander X X X X X X X Northern Cricket Frog X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Pine Barrens Treefrog X X X X X Gopher Frog X X X X Pickerel Frog X X X X X X X X X X X X X Spotted Turtle X X X X X X Bog Turtle X X X Striped Mud Turtle X X X X X Southern Hognose Snake X X X Milk Snake X X X X X Pine Snake X X X Eastern Coral Snake X X Timber Rattlesnake X X X X X Pigmy Rattlesnake X X X X Agricultural Urban/Residential Floodplain Forest Seasonal Wetland Perm. Wetland Spring/Seep River Wet Meadow/Bog Swamp 10

SPECIES ACCOUNTS An evaluation of the status of each study area RTE species, habitat requirements, range maps, actual locality maps, suggested sampling localities, potential project impacts, and recommendations and plans for sampling are provided below. 11

COMMON NAME: Mole Salamander SCIENTIFIC NAME: Ambystoma talpoideum STATUS IN STUDY AREA: Species of Special Concern North Carolina HABITAT: Mole salamanders can be found in a variety of forested habitats. Populations can occasionally be found in floodplain forest, but most known populations are found within or within the vicinity of seasonal wetlands that do not have fish. POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS: It is unlikely that hydro operations would influence this species to any significant degree. Mole salamanders are not documented from the study area and this species preferred habitat, vernal pools in floodplain habitats that lack fish (predators), is uncommon within the project boundaries. RECOMMENDATIONS: There are no records of mole salamanders occurring within the study area. However, because of its secretive nature, this species could easily be overlooked. The wetland in Gaston County approximately 2.5 miles W of the Catawba River at river mile 160 would be a potential sampling site; albeit out of the project boundary. Sampling should be conducted for larvae or breeding adults using dipnetting/and or minnow traps in the spring. 12

The geographic range of mole salamanders (green) in North and South Carolina. 13

Suggested sampling locality for mole salamanders (green circle). 14

COMMON NAME: Eastern Tiger Salamander SCIENTIFIC NAME: Ambystoma tigrinum STATUS IN STUDY AREA: Species of Special Concern South Carolina HABITAT: Tiger salamanders can be found in a variety of forested habitats. Most known populations are from seasonal wetlands or the vicinity of seasonal wetlands, generally in upland habitats, that do not have fish. POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS: It is unlikely that hydro operations would influence this species to any significant degree. Tiger salamander records in the project area are nonexistent and the forested wetland habitats free of fish this species prefers are generally not associated with Wateree hydro operations. RECOMMENDATIONS: There are no known records of tiger salamanders within the study area. Because of the apparent decline of this amphibian across large portions of its range, surveys would be warranted in South Carolina. Specifically, ephemeral wetlands in identified upland habitats along the lower Wateree River, although largely out of the project boundary, would potentially harbor this species (see suggested sampling sites on following pages). Sampling should be conducted for larvae or breeding adults using dipnetting and/or minnow traps in the spring. 15

The geographic range of tiger salamanders (green) in North and South Carolina. 16

Suggested sampling areas for tiger salamanders. Ephemeral wetlands within forested upland habitats (pale yellow) along the Wateree River and within Poinsett State Park (red) are potential sites. 17

COMMON NAME: Four-toed Salamander SCIENTIFIC NAME: Hemidactylium scutatum STATUS IN STUDY AREA: Species of Special Concern North Carolina HABITAT: Four-toed salamanders are generally restricted to floodplains, seasonal wetlands, seeps, or bogs. They are nearly always found in close association with Sphagnum moss (or similar mosses). POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS: It is unlikely that hydro operations would influence this species to any significant degree due to the preference of four-toed salamanders for Sphagnum dominated environments. Generally, hydro operations do not affect any extensive Sphagnum habitats. RECOMMENDATIONS: Surveys for this species should target any wetland or bog-type habitat known to have Sphagnum moss or similar plant species. The wetland in Gaston County approximately 2.5 miles W of the Catawba River at river mile 160 is a potentially productive survey site, if suitable habitat is available. Sampling should be conducted for adults (generally nesting females) by looking under and within Sphagnum mats during February or March. 18

The geographic range of four-toed salamanders (green) in North and South Carolina. 19

Suggested sampling locality for four-toed salamanders (green circle). 20

COMMON NAME: Northern Cricket Frog SCIENTIFIC NAME: Acris crepitans STATUS: Species of Special Concern South Carolina HABITAT: Cricket frogs (Acris sp.) can be found along muddy edges of any aquatic habitats within the study area. POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS: It is possible that hydro operations could influence northern cricket frog numbers by influencing the amount of suitable aquatic habitat availability. However, there are a limited number of documented occurrences of the northern cricket frog within the project boundary and the correct identification of those specimens is not verified. RECOMMENDATIONS: Cricket frogs (Acris sp.) are abundant throughout the study area in many aquatic systems. Northern cricket frogs (Acris crepitans) are extremely difficult to distinguish from southern cricket frogs (Acris gryllus) and hybridization occurs in some parts of their range. There are several characters that are potentially useful in distinguishing the two species, but they are often subjective and difficult to discern. Likewise, the calls can be difficult to distinguish as well, unless similar numbers of the two species are calling sympatrically. Duke Power and contractual researchers working along the Catawba and Wateree rivers and tributaries will collect a few cricket frogs (Acris sp.) from localities throughout the study area whenever they are encountered. These specimens should will be preserved and carefully examined to determine which species occur in specific regions of the study area. 21

The geographic range of northern cricket frogs (green) in North and South Carolina. Known localities (red dots) of northern cricket frogs in counties within the study area in South Carolina. 22

COMMON NAME: Pine Barrens Treefrog SCIENTIFIC NAME: Hyla andersonii STATUS IN STUDY AREA: Threatened South Carolina HABITAT: Pine barrens treefrogs are generally found breeding in seasonal wetlands within pine or sandhills forested areas. They can sometimes be found in large seeps or bogs. POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS: It is doubtful that hydro operations influence pine barrens treefrogs to any significant degree due to the paucity of suitable habitat within the project boundary. RECOMMENDATIONS: Surveys for this species should be conducted regularly at known localities to monitor existing populations. Sampling should be done using calling surveys conducted during the breeding season (April July) at historical localities and at other suitable locations. Automated recording systems would provide the ability to sample intensively for long periods at localities where the species might occur. Sampling at the historical locality (Betty Neck Swamp) on the W side of the Wateree River between river miles 57 and 63 (out of the project boundary), is recommended if suitable habitat is present. 23

The geographic range of pine barrens treefrogs (green) in NC and SC. Known localities (red dots) of pine barrens treefrogs in counties within the study area in South Carolina 24

Suggested sampling area for pine barrens treefrogs in Kershaw County, SC. 25

COMMON NAME: Gopher Frog SCIENTIFIC NAME: Rana capito STATUS IN STUDY AREA: Endangered South Carolina HABITAT: Gopher frogs can be found in pine or sandhills habitats and breed exclusively in seasonal wetlands that do not contain fish. POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS: It is thought that hydro operations would probably not influence this species to any significant degree due to the southern range of the species within the project area, the rarity of suitable fishless habitat within the project area, and the lessened impacts of hydro operations on the lower Wateree River. RECOMMENDATIONS: There are no known records of gopher frogs within the study area. However, this species is an explosive, somewhat unpredictable breeder and may occur within the study area in South Carolina, despite the lack of historical records. Duke will sample some ephemeral wetlands within upland habitats for this species on the W side of the Wateree River in the vicinity of river miles 28-32 in the spring of 2005. Sampling will be conducted by dipnetting for larvae in late spring and/or calling surveys. Automated recording systems may be used to intensively monitor potential breeding sites for calling males during late winter and early spring. 26

The geographic range of gopher frogs (green) in North and South Carolina. 27

Suggested sampling areas for gopher frogs. Ephemeral wetlands within forested upland habitats (pale yellow) along the Wateree River and within Poinsett State Park (red) are potential sites. 28

COMMON NAME: Pickerel Frog SCIENTIFIC NAME: Rana palustris STATUS IN STUDY AREA: Species of Special Concern South Carolina HABITAT: Pickerel frogs are most commonly associated with swamps and large wetlands. However, they may occur around farm ponds in some areas (Todd et al. 2003). POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS: It is possible that hydro operations, as they potentially influence wetlands, could have some impact on pickerel frogs along the lower Wateree River. RECOMMENDATIONS: During recent surveys (2003) at Congaree Swamp National Park, investigators from the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory found pickerel frogs to be abundant in river floodplains. Until this survey, pickerel frogs were considered absent from most of central South Carolina (Conant and Collins 1998). A field survey of several sites along the river floodplains of the Wateree River will be conducted in the spring of 2005 for this species. Survey techniques will include calling surveys and/or automated recording systems during the breeding season (February early April). 29

The geographic range of pickerel frogs (green) in North and South Carolina. Known localities (red dots) of pickerel frogs in counties within the study area in South Carolina. 30

Suggested sampling area for pickerel frogs (yellow). 31

COMMON NAME: Bog Turtle SCIENTIFIC NAME: Glyptemys (= Clemmys) muhlenbergii STATUS IN STUDY AREA: Threatened North Carolina; Federally Threatened - due to similarity of appearance with northern populations. HABITAT: Bog turtles are found almost exclusively in wet, open canopy meadow bogs that do not dry. Such bogs are generally next to a slope with seeps that keep the meadow bog wet. Because cattle often help to keep woody vegetation out of such bogs, some of the best bog turtle habitat in North Carolina is within cow pastures. Most localities are from the mountains, however, there are some isolated localities from the Piedmont. POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS: It is unknown whether hydro operations have any impact on bog turtles because of the paucity of known locations of this federally threatened species. RECOMMENDATIONS: Selected habitats will be sampled in the spring of 2005 along the N side of the Catawba River between river miles 258-262. Additionally, sampling will be conducted on the Chesterfield, NC site (Burke Co.) along Bristol Creek where bog turtles were found in 2003. 32

The geographic range of bog turtles (green) in North and South Carolina. Known localities (red dots) of bog turtles within counties in the study area in North Carolina. 33

Lake James Rhodhiss Lake Suggested sampling region (top) and site (bottom) for bog turtles (green). 34

COMMON NAME: Spotted Turtle SCIENTIFIC NAME: Clemmys guttata STATUS IN STUDY AREA: Threatened South Carolina HABITAT: Spotted turtles are found in a variety of swampy, marshy habitats. They are usually not found in permanent wetlands such as farm ponds, but may be found in floodplain forest and in seasonal wetlands. POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS: It is unknown whether hydro operations influence this species because spotted turtles were not known to occur in the vicinity of the Wateree River until recently. RECOMMENDATIONS: This species was recently (2003) discovered in Congaree Swamp National Park within the floodplain of the Congaree River by investigators from the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. Recommended sampling sites for this species would be selected within the floodplain swamps of the Wateree River from mile 0 to mile 63. This species is very secretive and rarely seen. Sampling using turtle traps may provide limited success. Consequently, manual searching in suitable habitat may be more productive. During diadromous fish gill netting and electrofishing that will be conducted during the spring of 2005, any netted turtles will be documented. 35

The geographic range of spotted turtles (green) in North and South Carolina. Known localities (red dots) of spotted turtles within counties in the study area in South Carolina. 36

Suggested sampling area for spotted turtles (yellow). 37

COMMON NAME: Striped Mud Turtle SCIENTIFIC NAME: Kinosternon baurii STATUS IN STUDY AREA: Species of Special Concern South Carolina HABITAT: Striped mud turtles are primarily found in floodplain forests and river swamps. POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS: It is unknown if hydro operations influence this species because the striped mud turtle is not known to occur in the project area. If this species is found to occur in the project area, hydro influences will be evaluated. RECOMMENDATIONS: No records from the study area exist. However, this species is difficult to distinguish from its congener, the eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum) in the Carolinas. Surveyors for this species need to pay particular attention to proper identification of any Kinosternon species found (Lamb 1983). Recommended sampling sites for this species would include the floodplain swamps of the Wateree River from mile 0 to mile 63. Sampling using baited turtle traps works well for this species and is recommended as the primary sampling technique. During diadromous fish gill netting and electrofishing that will be conducted during the spring of 2005, any netted turtles will be documented. 38

The geographic range of striped mud turtles (green) in North and South Carolina. 39

Suggested sampling area for striped mud turtles (yellow). 40

COMMON NAME: Timber/Canebrake Rattlesnake SCIENTIFIC NAME: Crotalus horridus STATUS IN STUDY AREA: Species of Special Concern South Carolina and North Carolina HABITAT: Timber rattlesnakes are found primarily in forest areas throughout the study area. They are particularly susceptible to anthropogenic disturbance. In the northern parts of the study area, they may be seasonally associated with rocky outcroppings where they may hibernate or gestate developing young. POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS: The impact of hydro operations on the timber rattlesnake is probably negligible. They are typically not associated with floodplain wetlands, but usually prefer drier, upland environments. RECOMMENDATIONS: Piedmont records are extremely rare in both North Carolina and South Carolina. Searching suitable habitats, especially near known locations in the Piedmont, such as the site in Lincoln County between river miles 189 and 192, albeit out of the project area, would possibly yield new records for this species. The author recommends sampling at selected sites through the vast undeveloped region from York County to Kershaw County SC, from where there are no records, but the species likely occurs in suitable habitats. 41

The geographic range of timber/canebrake rattlesnakes (green) in North and South Carolina. Known localities (red dots) of timber/canebrake rattlesnakes within counties in the study area in North and South Carolina. 42

Suggested sampling areas for timber/canebrake rattlesnakes (purple). 43

COMMON NAME: Southern Hognose Snake SCIENTIFIC NAME: Heterodon simus STATUS IN STUDY AREA: Species of Special Concern South Carolina HABITAT: Southern hognose snakes are found primarily in upland sandhills habitats though they can occasionally be encountered in old field or prairie-type areas. POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS: The impacts of hydro operations on the southern hognose snake are probably negligible. This upland species usually prefers dry, sandy habitats rather than floodplains or wetlands. RECOMMENDATIONS: The apparent decline of this species in the southeast United States is documented by Tuberville et al. (2000). Sampling throughout the upland areas on the E side of the Wateree River from miles 0-28 and on the W side of the Wateree River from miles 28-32, although largely outside the project boundary, would potentially yield new records for this species. Sampling by driving roads during the daytime during optimal environmental conditions and seasons (September, early October) is recommended. 44

The geographic range of southern hognose snakes (green) in North and South Carolina. Known localities (red dots) of southern hognose snakes in counties within the study area in SC. 45

Suggested sampling areas for southern hognose snakes. Forested upland habitats (pale yellow) along the Wateree River and within Poinsett State Park (red) are potential sites. 46

COMMON NAME: Milksnake SCIENTIFIC NAME: Lampropeltis triangulum STATUS IN STUDY AREA: Species of Special Concern South Carolina HABITAT: Forested or prairie old-field habitats. POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS: The impact of hydro operations on the milksnake is probably minimal. This species generally prefers forested habitats or areas of old-field succession and is usually not encountered in the vicinity of aquatic habitats. RECOMMENDATIONS: Only the subspecies known as the eastern milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum triangulum) is considered a Species of Species Concern in South Carolina. The scarlet kingsnake (L. t. elapsoides) is not considered an RTE species. The intergradation zone between these subspecies is unclear. However, the one record for this species within the study area is likely a scarlet kingsnake, and thus not an RTE species. If this species is found anywhere within the study area in South Carolina, it would most likely be considered L. t. elapsoides, and thus no surveys specifically focusing on this species are recommended within the study area. 47

The geographic range of milksnakes (green) in North and South Carolina. Known locality (red dot) of Lampropeltis triangulum in counties within the study area in SC. 48

COMMON NAME: Eastern Coral Snake SCIENTIFIC NAME: Micrurus fulvius STATUS IN STUDY AREA: Species of Special Concern South Carolina HABITAT: Coral snakes are found primarily in upland sandhills habitats. POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS: The impact of hydro operations on the eastern coral snake is probably insignificant. This SC Species of Special Concern frequents dry, sandy upland areas and is thus not associated with aquatic habitats. RECOMMENDATIONS: Coral snakes are extremely secretive, staying below ground most of the time. A lack of historical records does not indicate the species is absent from any area with suitable habitat. Upland areas on the E side of the Wateree River from miles 0-28 and on the W side of the Wateree River from miles 28-32, albeit largely outside of the project boundary, are recommended survey sites. Sampling by driving roads and walking forested areas during mild day-time weather during September and early October is recommended. Some investigators recommend sampling during cloudy, but warm days during fall. 49

The geographic range of coral snakes (green) in North and South Carolina. Known localities (red dots) of coral snakes in counties within the study area in SC. 50

Suggested sampling areas for coral snakes (pale yellow and red). 51

COMMON NAME: Pine Snake SCIENTIFIC NAME: Pituophis melanoleucus STATUS IN STUDY AREA: Species of Special Concern South Carolina HABITAT: Pine snakes are found primarily in upland sandhills habitats. POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS: The impact of hydro operations on this species is probably insignificant. Pine snakes prefer dry, sandy upland areas and are rarely found near riverine or wetland aquatic habitats. RECOMMENDATIONS: This species is most frequently found crossing roads or dead on roads. Surveys in suitable habitat within the study area should use road-driving under suitable environmental conditions as the primary survey technique. Surveys near the historical locality in Kershaw County from river mile 92-68, albeit out of the project boundary, would potentially yield new specimens. 52

The geographic range of pine snakes (green) in North and South Carolina. Known locality (red dot) of pine snakes in counties within the study area in SC. 53

Suggested sampling area for pine snakes (orange). 54

COMMON NAME: Pigmy Rattlesnake SCIENTIFIC NAME: Sistrurus miliarius STATUS IN STUDY AREA: Species of Special Concern North Carolina HABITAT: Pigmy rattlesnakes are found primarily in forested areas with sandy soil. POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS: The impacts of hydro operations on this species is likely negligible. These snakes are generally associated with dry, upland areas and are not typically associated with aquatic habitats along rivers or lakes. RECOMMENDATIONS: Because of its diminutive size, this species is very difficult to find and thus, documentation of its occurrence is very spotty. Although there are some records from extreme western Gaston County, it is likely that there are no populations within North Carolina adjacent to the Catawba River. Thus, we recommend no surveys specifically focusing on this species. 55

The geographic range of pigmy rattlesnakes (green) in North and South Carolina. Known localities (red dots) of pigmy rattlesnakes in counties within the study area in North Carolina. 56

Some General Recommendations The paucity of historical records for many species of amphibians and reptiles makes recommendations of potential sampling localities difficult. The absence of any source of compiled historical records for amphibians in North Carolina and for both amphibians and reptiles in South Carolina make evaluation of actual ranges even more difficult. A thorough compilation of all historical records and reliable observations for all species of amphibians and reptiles throughout the Carolinas is desperately needed. Such effort should be augmented by campaigns to have researchers, game wardens, state park personnel, and others who are regularly in the field report their observations/captures to a centralized organization. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Scott Fletcher provided logistical assistance and Tim Leonard provided many of the GIS files used in the project. Numerous curators, collection managers, and others provided assistance by providing records of RTE species. Gene Vaughan provided valuable logistical assistance and guidance for nearly every aspect of this project. Photographs provided by Steven Price, J. D. Willson, Mark Danaher, Christopher Winne, R. Wayne Van Devender, and Pierson Hill. J.D. Willson helped with evaluation of habitat requirements. Steven Price provided invaluable assistance in database management and preparation of the final report. Funding for this project was provided by Duke Power via a contract with Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc. 57

LITERATURE CITED Bailey, M. A., J. N. Holmes, and K. A. Buhlmann. 2004. Habitat management guidelines for amphibians and reptiles of the southeastern United States (DRAFT). Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation. Conant, R., and J.T. Collins. 1998. Reptiles and Amphibians: Eastern/Central North America. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA. 616 pp. Gibbons, W. 1993. Keeping All the Pieces: Perspectives on Natural History and the Environment. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 182 pp. Gibbons, J.W. and M.E. Dorcas. 2004. North American Watersnakes: A Natural History. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK. Gibbons, J.W., D.E. Scott, T.J. Ryan, K.A. Buhlmann, T.D. Tuberville, B.S. Metts, J.L. Greene, T. Mills, Y. Leiden, S. Poppy, and C.T. Winne. 2000. The global decline of reptiles, Deja Vu amphibians. BioScience 50: 653-666. Lamb, T. 1983. The striped mud turtle (Kinosternon bauri) in South Carolina: a confirmation through multivariate character analysis. Herpetologica 39: 383-390. Palmer, W. M., and A. L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. Univ. North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC. Taylor, B.E., R.A. Estes, J.H.K. Pechmann, and R.D. Semlitsch. 1988. Trophic relations in a temporary pond: larval salamanders and their microinvertebrate prey. Canadian Journal of Zoology 66: 2191-2198. 58

Todd, M. J., R. R. Cocklin, M. E. Dorcas. 2003. Temporal and Spatial Variations in Anuran Calling Activity in the Western Piedmont of North Carolina. Journal of the North Carolina Academy of Science 119:103-110. Tuberville, T. D., J. R. Bodie, J. B. Jensen, L. LaClaire, and J. W. Gibbons. 2000. Apparent decline of the southern hognose snake, Heterodon simus. The Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 116:19-40. 59

Appendix 1: Museums, universities, and other organizations from which geographic distribution records were requested. American Museum of Natural History, Auburn University, Brigham Young University - Bean Museum, California Academy of Natural Sciences, Carnegie Museum, Charleston Museum, Clemson University, College of Charleston, Cornell University, Field Museum of Natural History, Harvard Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, Illinois Natural History Survey, Louisiana State University, Michigan State University, Milwaukee Public Museum, Museum of York County, North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Smithsonian Institution, South Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Texas A&M University, Tulane University, University of Arkansas, University of California Berkeley, University of Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Georgia, University of Kansas, University of Michigan, University of Missouri, University of Nebraska, University of New Mexico, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, University of Oklahoma, University of Richmond, University of Texas Arlington, University of Texas Austin, Yale University. 60