Forestry, Faculty of
DSpace
UBCV
Winand, Megan
Master of Science - MSc
University of British Columbia
Mitigation translocation, which involves moving animals from areas slated for anthropogenic alteration or destruction to alternative sites, is a globally utilized strategy to mitigate harm to amphibians and reptiles â herpetofauna. Despite the scientific communityâs lack of support for its usage, mitigation translocation continues to gain public favour. However, an assessment of the status and success of translocations is outdated with the last major global review completed 16 years ago, and no review of mitigation translocation or its effectiveness conducted in British Columbia (BC), Canada. Therefore, we set out to accomplish three goals: revaluate the global suitability of mitigation and conservation translocation for herpetofauna, evaluate the scale of mitigation translocation in BC and, its effectiveness for a native amphibian, the Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris). Through a systematic literature review of global herpetofauna translocations from 2007 to 2023, our review yielded 313 case studies. Our analysis reveals that most published efforts are conservation-driven, focusing primarily on reptiles. Regarding success when analysed using the Miller et al., (2014) definition, 19% of evaluated conservation studies reached success, and only 6% of mitigation translocations reached success. Focusing on BC, we reviewed mitigation translocations across the province from 2019 to 2022 and found that 5,134,254 individuals were translocated, most prominently larval Western toads (Anaxyrus boreas). These translocations were primarily linked to linear development projects such as large-scale oil and gas developments. However, the effectiveness of mitigation translocation in BC is unknown due to a lack of monitoring. Therefore, we evaluated post-translocation survival, body condition, and movement rates of Columbia spotted frogs relocated 1 km or 5 km from their capture locations. Results indicate translocations had no significant effect on body condition or movement rates; instead, apparent survival was linked more to the frogâs sex and age, with the lowest survival in juveniles and highest in females. However, more monitoring is needed to consider the translocation successful. Given the low success of mitigation translocations globally, BCâs reliance on the practice, and a lack of species-specific data and long-term monitoring, decision-makers must shift their focus to understanding and improving outcomes or identifying alternatives to mitigation translocation.
UNDERSTANDING THE EXTENT AND EFFECTIVENESS OF MITIGATION TRANSLOCATION FOR HERPETOFAUNA by MEGAN WINAND B.Sc., British Columbia Institute of Technology, 2018 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Forestry) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) SEPTEMBER 2025 © Megan Winand, 2025 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the thesis entitled: _____________________________________________________________________________________ submitted by _______________________________ in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of __________________________________________________________________________ in ___________________________________________________________________________________ Examining Committee: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Supervisor _____________________________________________________________________________________ Supervisory Committee Member _____________________________________________________________________________________ Supervisory Committee Member _____________________________________________________________________________________ Additional Examiner Megan Winand Master of Science nand Forestry Dr. Tara Martin, Professor, Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, UBC Dr. Leigh-Anne Isaac, Herpetofauna and Small Mammal Specialist, Government of British Columbia Dr. Scott Hinch, Professor, Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, UBC Dr. Cole Burton, Professor, Department of Forest Resources Management, UBC Understanding the extent and effectiveness of mitigation translocation for herpetofauna iii Abstract Mitigation translocation, which involves moving animals from areas slated for anthropogenic alteration or destruction to alternative sites, is a globally utilized strategy to mitigate harm to amphibians and reptiles â herpetofauna. Despite the scientific communityâs lack of support for its usage, mitigation translocation continues to gain public favour. However, an assessment of the status and success of translocations is outdated with the last major global review completed 16 years ago, and no review of mitigation translocation or its effectiveness conducted in British Columbia (BC), Canada. Therefore, we set out to accomplish three goals: revaluate the global suitability of mitigation and conservation translocation for herpetofauna, evaluate the scale of mitigation translocation in BC and, its effectiveness for a native amphibian, the Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris). Through a systematic literature review of global herpetofauna translocations from 2007 to 2023, our review yielded 313 case studies. Our analysis reveals that most published efforts are conservation-driven, focusing primarily on reptiles. Regarding success when analysed using the Miller et al., (2014) definition, 19% of evaluated conservation studies reached success, and only 6% of mitigation translocations reached success. Focusing on BC, we reviewed mitigation translocations across the province from 2019 to 2022 and found that 5,134,254 individuals were translocated, most prominently larval Western toads (Anaxyrus boreas). These translocations were primarily linked to linear development projects such as large-scale oil and gas developments. However, the effectiveness of mitigation translocation in BC is unknown due to a lack of monitoring. Therefore, we evaluated post-translocation survival, body condition, and movement rates of Columbia spotted frogs relocated 1 km or 5 km from their capture locations. Results indicate translocations had no significant effect on body condition or movement rates; instead, apparent survival was linked more to the frogâs sex and age, with the lowest survival in juveniles and highest in females. However, more monitoring is needed to consider the translocation successful. Given the low success of mitigation translocations globally, BCâs reliance on the practice, and a lack of species-specific data and long-term monitoring, iv decision-makers must shift their focus to understanding and improving outcomes or identifying alternatives to mitigation translocation. v Lay Summary The practice of moving amphibians and reptiles from areas threatened by human-caused habitat destruction to new sites, known as mitigation translocation, is used globally despite a lack of scientific support for its usage. Current research on translocations is outdated; therefore, we aimed to reassess global herpetofauna translocation success, assess the scale of mitigation translocations in British Columbia, and test its effectiveness on the Columbia spotted frog. We reviewed 313 published case studies from around the globe spanning conservation, mitigation, and research translocations (2007â2023) and found that only 6% of mitigation translocations succeeded. In BC, there is an increasing reliance on translocation with over 5 million individuals translocated from 2019 to 2022, mostly for linear development projects. In our field experiment, frog survival post-translocation varied by sex and was not attributed to relocation distances. Our results highlight the need for monitoring and improving outcomes or finding alternatives. vi Preface The following thesis was originally conceived by Megan Winand, Dr. Tara Martin, Dr. Leigh Anne Isaac in partnership with Ducks Unlimited Canada and the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship (WLRS). The second chapter evolved from a conversation with Dr. Jennifer Germano while attending the 3rd International Conservation Translocation Conference 2023 held by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Data for the second chapter was completed in collaboration with Sally Wren with support from Madeline Woodley and Maryam Saffarzadeh. Analysis and the draft were written by Megan Winand, and the final was reviewed by Dr. Jennifer Germano, Dr. Tara Martin, Sally Wren, Madeline Woodley and Maryam Saffarzadeh. The second chapter is currently under review for publication. The third chapter evolved out of work started by Megan Winand in 2022 for the Ministry of WLRS which included an internal review of permits issued for mitigation translocation from multiple internal government databases. The review evolved into the following chapter by adding an addition year of permits and summarizing the data into a publicly available format. Data collection, analysis and the draft were completed by Megan Winand with great support from Dr. Leigh Anne Isaac, Dr. Tara Martin, Dr. Purnima Govindarajulu and Dr. Lindsay Anderson who reviewed and revised the draft. The third chapter is currently under review for publication. The fourth chapter was completed in collaboration with Ducks Unlimited Canada with the greatest support from Dr. Tara Martin and Dr. Leigh Anne Isaac. Megan Winand carried out data collection under UBC animal ethics permit, A23-0020 and BC Wildlife Act permit, CB23-791702, with help from various field staff, and data analysis with incredible support from Stephaine Lingard. The draft was written by Megan Winand and reviewed by Stephanie Lingard, Dr. Tara Martin, Dr. Leigh Anne Isaac and Dr. Scott Hinch. ChatGPT was used to help write R code throughout the thesis. vii Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ iii Lay Summary ................................................................................................................................................ v Preface ......................................................................................................................................................... vi Table of Contentsâ¦.â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦vii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ ix List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... x Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................... xiii Dedication ................................................................................................................................................... xv Chapter One: Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction to Herpetofauna ................................................................................................. 1 1.1 What is Translocation? .......................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Current Success Rate of Herpetofauna Translocation ................................................................ 3 1.4 Mitigation Translocation in British Columbia, Canada .............................................................. 4 1.5 Research Questions ............................................................................................................... 5 1.6 Thesis Outline ...................................................................................................................... 5 Chapter Two: Re-evaluating the suitability of amphibians and reptiles for translocation ............................ 7 2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 9 2.3 Results .............................................................................................................................. 12 2.4 Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 21 2.5 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 27 Chapter Three: Scale of Herpetofauna Mitigation Translocation in British Columbia, Canada ................. 28 3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 28 3.2 Methods ............................................................................................................................ 29 3.3 Results .............................................................................................................................. 31 3.4 Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 38 3.5 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 44 Chapter Four: Mitigation Translocation of the Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris) in British Columbia, Canada: An Experimental Translocation Using Short and Long-Distance Release Sites ......... 45 4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 45 4.2 Methods ............................................................................................................................ 47 4.2.1 Site Selection ............................................................................................................... 47 viii 4.2.2 Frog Capture and Biological Characteristics .................................................................... 49 4.2.3 Model Selection and Apparent Survival ........................................................................... 49 4.2.4 Movement and Habitat Use of Tracked Frogs ................................................................... 50 4.3 Results .............................................................................................................................. 52 4.3.1 Frog Capture and Biological Characteristics .................................................................... 52 4.3.2 Model Selection and Apparent Survival ........................................................................... 53 4.3.3 Movement and Habitat Use of Tracked Frogs ................................................................... 56 4.4 Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 59 4.5 Study Limitation and Next Steps .......................................................................................... 62 4.6 Management Implications .................................................................................................... 63 Chapter Five: Conclusions and Management Considerations .................................................................... 64 5.1 Thesis Summary ................................................................................................................. 64 5.2 Suitability of Herpetofauna for Translocation ......................................................................... 65 5.3 Should Mitigation Translocation Continue in British Columbia, Canada? .................................. 66 5.4 Moving Away from Translocation ......................................................................................... 67 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................... 69 Appendices A: Chapter Two ....................................................................................................................... 92 Appendices B: Chapter Three ..................................................................................................................... 95 Appendices C: Chapter Four ..................................................................................................................... 101 ix List of Tables Table 2.1. Authors used various metrics for measuring success, therefore we grouped similar criterions for our literature review of translocations into the following categories: behaviour, body condition, habitat, health, movement, population, presence, survival. ........................................................................... 11 Table 3.1. Project types and definitions for a review of herpetofauna mitigation translocations in British Columbia, Canada. ...................................................................................................................... 30 Table 3.2. Number of mitigation translocations and individuals translocated by project type obtained from issued permits in British Columbia, Canada from January 2019 to December 2022 (n=227). Project types are categorized in Table 1. Bridge and forestry projects did not translocate herpetofauna and are therefore not included. ............................................................................................................................... 38 Table 4.1. Top ten Cormack-Jolly Seber candidate model selections based on AICc in Program MARK, where Φ = survival and Ï = detectability. Other model notations are (t)= time dependent, (.)=constant time. All models are found in Table C1: Appendix C. ....................................................................... 54 Table B1. Number of identifiable native amphibian and reptile species translocated (n=5,119,975) from mitigation translocations in British Columbia, Canada between January 2019-December 2022 (n=227). Species at Risk (2002) status and invasive species are accurate as of December 20, 2024. .................... 95 Table C1. Full list of Cormack-Jolly Seber candidate model selections based on AICc in Program MARK, where Φ = survival and Ï = detectability. Other model notations are (t)= time dependent, (.)=constant time. ........................................................................................................................................ 101 Table C2. Species of vegetation tracked Columbia spotted frog used post-translocation arranged into plant functional type categories for ease of analysis. .............................................................................. 102 Table C3. A list of all pit-tagged Columbia spotted frogs, including tag number, initial capture date (month and year), sex, experimental treatment (control, short distance and long distance), and total number of times each frog was recaptured from April to August 2023 and April to May 2024. ............ 102 Table C4. A list of all tracked Columbia spotted frogs throughout the experiment. Sex is defined as M = Male, F = Female, J = Juveniles (Unknown sex); treatment is C = Control, SD = Short distance and LD = Long distance. End point is defined as: C = signs of chafing therefore the belt was removed early, S = slipped out of belt, R = end of battery life therefore the transmitter was removed by researchers, BD = transmitter battery died before removal, E = eaten by predator, Uk = unknown death. ........................ 105 x List of Figures Figure 1.1. Illustration of a person carrying out mitigation translocation of herpetofauna. Credit: Emily Clark. ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2.2. Number of herpetofauna translocations based on the translocation date, aggregated into five-year intervals, across the three major literature reviews: Dodd & Seigel (1991), Germano & Bishop (2009) and the current review by Winand et al. (2025). Although Winand et al. only included papers published from 2007 to 2023, some of those publications document translocations that occurred prior to 2007; accordingly, these earlier events are represented in the appropriate intervals. Data prior to 1955 were combined into a single <1955 interval due to sparse records in the early decades. Bars are shaded with the lightest representing Dodd & Seigel (1991) and the darkest for Winand et al. (2025). The dashed line shows the fitted exponential trend over time. Note that some translocations may be reported in more than one review, leading to potential repetition in the aggregated counts. ............................................ 14 Figure 2.3. A total of 313 case studies were included in the review of herpetofauna translocations from 2007 to 2023. (a) illustrates the percentage of translocation case studies by continent, alongside the secondary y-axis displaying the number of amphibian and reptile species (black triangle) per continent, based on the IUCN Red List as of December 15, 2024. (b) shows the percentage of cases categorized by translocation motives: conservation reintroduction, conservation reinforcement, conservation introduction, mitigation for development, mitigation for nuisance, and research. (c) depicts the percentage of cases involving translocation of each herpetofauna order, with the secondary y-axis indicating the global number of species in each order as of December 15, 2024, sourced from amphibiansoftheworld.amnh.org and www.reptile-database (black triangle) and, (d) summarizes translocation motivations into three broad categoriesâconservation (reintroduction, reinforcement, introduction), mitigation (development, nuisance), and researchâshowing the length of monitoring (years) for each category. .............................................................................................................. 16 Figure 2.4. Success assessment for a subset of case studies from a systematic literature review of herpetofauna translocations conducted between 2007 and 2023 (n = 256). The left graph (a) illustrates the percentage of translocations self-assessed by authors as successful, partially successful, or failures. The right graph (b) presents the percentage of translocations evaluated using the standardized success criteria from Miller et al. (2014), which categorize outcomes into five stages: failure (stage 0), stage 1, stage 2, stage 3, and stage 4. ..................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 2.5. Proportional distribution of Miller et al. (2014) success stages across significant categorical variables collected from 256 case studies in a systematic literature review of herpetofauna translocations conducted between 2007 and 2023. Each panel (aâe) represents a variable that was significantly associated with translocation success based on Fisherâs exact tests. Darker shades indicate lower success stages. ........................................................................................................................................ 20 Figure 2.6. Box plots of Miller et al. (2014) success stages across significant numerical variables collected from 256 case studies in a systematic literature review of herpetofauna translocations conducted between 2007 and 2023. Each panel (aâc) represents a variable that was significantly associated with translocation success based on Kruskal-Wallis tests with the removal of some outliers. Darker shades indicate lower success stages. ............................................................................................................................ 21 Figure 3.1. Annual number of permits issued for herpetofauna mitigation translocations in British Columbia, Canada from 2009â2022. Lightâgrey bars indicate the total number of permits issued each year, and darkâgrey bars show the subset of issued permits with available reports that completed a translocation. .............................................................................................................................. 31 Figure 3.2 Frequency of translocations by month based on a review of herpetofauna mitigation translocations in British Columbia, Canada from 2019-2022 (n = 227). .............................................. 32 xi Figure 3.3. Relative proportion of translocated individuals from the five most frequently translocated native amphibian (a) and reptile (b) species, based on data from 227 mitigation translocation permits issued in British Columbia, Canada, from 2019â2022. A full list of species and counts is provided in Table B1: Appendix B. ................................................................................................................. 34 Figure 3.4. Relative proportions of life stages for the five most frequently translocated species of (a) amphibians and (b) reptiles based on mitigation translocation permits issued in British Columbia, Canada between 2019 and 2022 (n = 277). Life stages classified as unknown were excluded. Life stages are coloured as adults (purple), juveniles (yellow), larvae (blue), eggs (green). A full list life stages and counts is provided in Table B1: Appendix B. ............................................................................................. 35 Figure 3.5. The number of herpetofauna mitigation translocations that occurred in each of British Columbiaâs natural resource regions between January 2019 and December 2022 are shown in brackets next to region name. The total number of individuals translocated in each region is shown with shading â darker shades indicating higher numbers of individuals. ................................................................... 36 Figure 3.6. Proportional composition of herpetofauna mitigation translocations by project type across BC Natural Resource Regions and years (n = 277). Project types are defined in Table 1. Bridge and forestry projects did not translocate herpetofauna and are therefore not included. ............................................ 37 Figure 4.1. Map of study sites for Columbia spotted frog translocations near Cranbrook, British Columbia. All frogs were captured at Mayook wetland; control frogs were released at their capture location and short-distance translocation frogs were released 1 km away within Mayook. The Unnamed wetland, located 5 km from Mayook, served as the long-distance release site. The bottom left insert shows the location of both wetlands highlighted in blue. Map created in QGIS 3.36.2 (QGIS Development Team, 2023) using satellite imagery from Google Earth / Landsat-Copernicus (Google, 2023). Projection: EPSG:3005, NAD83 / BC Albers. ................................................................................................. 48 Figure 4.2. Boxplot showing the change in SMIi for Columbia spotted frogs post- translocation for control (n = 34), short distance (n = 34) and long-distance treatments (n = 24). The center line represents the median (50th percentile), the box spans the interquartile range (25thâ75th percentiles), and the black whiskers indicate the 5th and 95th percentiles. ................................................................................ 53 Figure 4.3. Apparent survival and capture probability estimates for Columbia spotted frogs. (a) Apparent survival probability (Ï) by sex (female, male, juvenile) estimated from the best CormackâJollyâSeber model (Φ(Sex), p(t)). (b) Capture probability (p) across survey months (April 2023âMay 2024) from the same model. (c) Apparent survival probability (Ï) by treatment (control, short distance, long distance) and sex from a model with additive sex and treatment effects on survival and time on recapture (Φ (Sex + Treatment), p(t)). Bars and error bars show ± SE in all graphs. .......................................................... 55 Figure 4.4. Box plot of individual movement rates (m/day) for tracked Columbia spotted frogs in the control (n =5), short distance (n = 12) and long distance (n = 13) treatments post-translocation. Short distance frogs were moved 1km away from their original capture point and long-distance frogs were moved 5km. One outlier (>50 m/day) from the short-distance group was removed. The centre line denotes the median value (50th percentile), the box contains the 25th to 75th percentiles and the black whiskers mark the 5th and 95th percentiles. Individual points are plotted for each frog. ..................................... 56 Figure 4.5. Proportion of tracked Columbia spotted frogs that used each vegetation category in the control, short distance and long-distance treatments post-translocation. Short distance frogs were moved 1km away from their original capture point and long-distance frogs were moved 5km (see Table C2). Vegetation category definitions can be found in Appendix C. ............................................................ 58 Figure A1. Frequency of success criteria used by authors from 256 case studies in a systematic literature review of herpetofauna translocations conducted between 2007 and 2023. Success criteria are split by xii translocation motive and defined in Table 1. Authors often employed more than one success criterion, so the total frequency of cases exceeds the total number of cases reviewed. ............................................ 92 Figure A2. Frequency of Authors success and success stages to show how effective authors are at evaluating their own translocation for conservation-related translocations. ......................................... 93 Figure A3. Frequency of Authors success and success stages to show how effective authors are at evaluating their own translocation for mitigation-related translocations. ............................................. 94 Figure B1. Proportions of all native amphibians translocated for various project types identified during a review of mitigation translocations in British Columbia, Canada from 2019-2022 (n = 277). ................ 99 Figure B2. Proportions of all native reptiles translocated for various project types identified during a review of mitigation translocations in British Columbia, Canada from 2019-2022 (n = 277). .............. 100 Figure C1. Columbia spotted frog with a radio transmitter attached using Magic Stretch tubing and glass beads........................................................................................................................................ 107 Figure C2. Individual movement of tracked Columbia spotted frogs in, a) control (n=4), b) short distance treatment (< 1km; n = 13) and c) long-distance treatment (5 km; n = 13). ......................................... 108 Figure C3. Capture probability estimates for Columbia spotted frogs by sex from May-August 2023 and April-May 2024. Females are represented as red dashed lines and circles (n = 22), juveniles are green dotted lines and triangles (n = 39) and males are blue solid line with squares (n = 20). ....................... 109 Figure C4. Recapture events for all female Columbia spotted frogs (n = 22) in our experiment. Recapture events are grouped by months; April-August 2023 and April-May 2024. A notation of 0 = not recaptured and 1 = recaptured. .................................................................................................................... 110 xiii Acknowledgements My favourite part of any thesis is this part right here, the acknowledgments. This is the section where you finally get to take in the fact that this chapter of your academic life is slowly but surely coming to an end. Back in 2020, after my time in consulting, I knew I wanted to study herpetofauna and translocation. Now, in 2025, seeing it all come together is surreal. Like any meaningful accomplishment, this thesis didnât happen alone. It took an incredible group of people to help me get across the finish line. To my family and friends who supported me on this journeyâthank you. To my partner Dave: dealing with me while I stressed about every bit of this masterâs wasnât easy, but you were there for me at every turn. Every chapter that needed an extra set of eyes, every stats question I spiraled over, every moment I needed a reminder that I could do thisâyou were there. I love you so very much. To my supervisor, Dr. Tara Martin: without you, I wouldnât have even applied to start a masterâs at UBC. When I emailed years ago asking if youâd take me on if I could ever find the funds, and you said yesâand then kept that yes years laterâthatâs the reason Iâm here. Your unwavering support as I navigated uncharted academic territory meant more than you know. To my co-supervisor, Dr. Leigh Anne Isaac: this thesis would not be what it is without your support. You not only made the research financially possible, but you gave me space to grow professionally and personally. That didnât go unnoticed, and Iâm incredibly grateful. Lastly, to my committee member, Scott Hinch, I appreciate your willingness to join my froggy team and generously offering his guidance and support throughout this project. To those not listed as co-authors but who were crucial in helping me along the wayâMike Badry, Lea Randall, Carlos Miranda, Dawn Nicholson, Calvin Tolkamp, Alex Yeung, Sultana Majid, Chris Madsen, Kenneth C. Dodd, Richard Seigel, Kimberleigh Field, Aidan Haigh, Riley Finn, Sarah and Cameron Browne, and Darah Clarkeâthank you. Whether it was a quick reply to an email or a long day in the field, you helped make this possible. To Penny Ohanjanian, and Matt, Allison, and their son, Nohlan xiv Lutes: thank you for opening your homes to me during fieldwork. I know itâs not easy hosting a tired, muddy, slightly-smelly field creatureâbut your kindness and generosity kept me going. A special thank you to the Ktunaxa and Secwepemc Nations and Ducks Unlimited Canada for allowing us to work on their lands. And for scholarships and funding from Together for Wildlife, the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation, UBC, MITACS, Ducks Unlimited Canada, and the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship. Your support allowed me to dedicate the time, energy, and resources needed to explore this under-researched topic. And finally, to my frogs: Miley, Bucko, Quintillion, Bubba, Dave, JT, Ronald, Daisy, Elton, Spring, Fiona, Shrek, Daffy, Dolly, Dwight, Enzo, Fillmore, Hazy, Jeremiah, Lainey, G. Gekko, Flo, Alex, Big Gurrl, Billingsworth, Bowie, Bugs, Charm, Ellie, Lilâ Baby, Louis Litt, Manny, Margott, Merle, Michigan J, Nemo, and Wayneâmay the insects be abundant and the predators few. xv Dedication To my grandpa, Poynter and grandfather, Winand Chapter One: Introduction 1.1 Introduction to Herpetofauna Amphibians and reptiles, collectively known as herpetofauna, represent a diverse group of vertebrates that play a crucial role in ecosystems. Amphibians have complex life cycles, many of which require access to aquatic habitat for breeding, larval development, and metamorphosis as well as upland terrestrial habitat for some adult life stages (Allen et al., 2020), making them exceptional indicator species. Reptiles serve as important predator and prey species and can contribute to ecosystem function through gene dispersal, nutrient cycling, trophic action, and ecosystem engineering (de Miranda, 2017). Despite their importance, herpetofauna face continuous challenges due to ongoing habitat loss and fragmentation caused by human activities, climate change and the spread of disease (Becker et al., 2007; Cushman, 2006; Hof et al., 2011; Shaffer et al., 2015; Stuart et al., 2004). With urban human populations surpassing 8 million, the additional destruction and alteration of habitat is expected to jeopardize herpetofauna survival and exacerbate current challenges (Gibbons et al., 2000; Stuart et al., 2004). The complexity of herpetofauna, characterized by a wide range of natural history, ecology, behavior, life history, morphology, and physiology, presents a significant challenge to developing effective, one-size-fits-all conservation strategies (Linhoff et al., 2021). One strategy that has gained prominence in the last several decades to assist in the recovery of herpetofauna is translocation. 1.1 What is Translocation? For centuries, humans have intentionally moved wildlife for cultural, economic, and management purposes at both local and global scales (Armstrong & Seddon, 2008). Over time, this practiceâknown as translocationâevolved into a formal conservation tool, with the first recorded conservation-oriented translocations dating back to the 1890s (Lloyd & Powlesland, 1994). However, it was not until the 1980s that translocations were widely recorded for wildlife management, especially for large-game animals (Brown & Boyle, 1988). Since then, translocations have been applied worldwide across diverse taxa, including large and small mammals, birds, fish, and herpetofauna (Griffith et al., 1989; Fischer & 2 Lindenmayer, 2000). Although similar in their goal to successfully move animals, not all translocations are driven by the same purposes. Conservation translocation is the most frequently reported practice for herpetofauna and includes population restoration, reinforcement, introduction and ecological assistance and involves moving animals to the same or new habitat either from a source population or captive breeding program (Linhoff et al., 2021). This conservation technique seeks to create stable and self-sustaining populations, safeguarding species that are on the brink of extinction or aiding in their recovery (Germano & Bishop, 2009). Conservation translocations are carried out by specialists and expert biologists and are thoroughly planned, monitored, and altered to facilitate a successful translocation of the species. A second type of translocation that has gained global momentum in the last decade is mitigation translocation. Mitigation translocation involves relocating animals out of the way of human caused habitat alteration or destruction to a new release site (Linhoff et al., 2021; Figure 1.1). Typically, mitigation translocation is implemented by government or legislative authorities as a solution to mitigate harm to herpetofauna (Germano et al., 2015). 3 Figure 1.1. Illustration of a person carrying out mitigation translocation of herpetofauna. Credit: Emily Clark. 1.3 Current Success Rate of Herpetofauna Translocation The effectiveness of conservation and mitigation translocations for herpetofauna has historically been limited, with reported success rates that fall behind those of other vertebrate groups. Dodd and Seigel (1991), were the first to review both types of herpetofauna translocations and bring attention to their 19% success rate which is considerably low, especially compared to translocations of other taxa. For example, Griffith et al., (1989) recorded a success rate of 48% for birds and mammals. A decade later, Germano and Bishop (2009) published another literature review of herpetofauna translocations showing a 41% success rate for conservation translocations, representing over a twofold increase compared to the 19% documented by Dodd and Seigel (1991). Currently, the global success rate of translocations is approximately 26â46% depending on the definition of success and the taxonomic group involved (Germano et al., 2015; Germano & Bishop, 2009; Griffith et al., 1989; Linnell et al., 1997). Since the last 4 literature review in 2009, conservation translocations have become a major focus for scientific research and in-the-field management, reflected in peer-reviewed papers, best-practice guidelines and specialized programs aimed at enhancing translocation success (Armstrong & Seddon, 2008). While focus has been applied to conservation translocation, only a small portion of attention has been given to mitigation translocation-driven projects. Despite the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN 2013) urging caution against the use of mitigation translocation to offset harm, the number of mitigation translocations undertaken has increased substantially within the last 20 years (Miller et al., 2014; Romijn & Hartley, 2016), and in some countries, outnumber conservation translocations (Germano et al., 2015; B. K. Sullivan et al., 2004). Without the same conservation-oriented goals as conservation translocations, many mitigation translocations fail from a lack of application of scientific principles and best practices (Sullivan et al., 2014), lack of suitable release site quality and quantity or the connectivity of habitat to meet the needs of all life stages (Germano & Bishop, 2009), reduced individual fitness, and an increased susceptibility to disease and risk of predation post-translocation (Dickens et al., 2010; Randall et al, 2018; Teixeira et al., 2007). Bradley et al (2022) reviewed mitigation translocation literature for all taxaâ19% herpetofauna relatedâand found that overall, less than one-quarter of mitigation translocations resulted in the establishment of self-sustaining populations. It begs the question posed in Germano et al (2015), âare the majority of cases simply removing wildlife for a socially acceptable death out of the public eye (phased destruction; Jackson et al. 1983) and, therefore, not effective management tools?â. No herpetofauna specific review of translocation success rates have been completed since Germano and Bishops (2009) review. 1.4 Mitigation Translocation in British Columbia, Canada British Columbia (BC), Canada sets itself apart from other provinces and territories in Canada in our usage of mitigation translocation. On the East Coast of Canada, mitigation translocation is seldom practiced, with the exception of Newfoundland, where it is carried out on a case-by-case basis and from Quebec to Alberta, translocations are infrequent and typically conducted on a small scale, primarily for 5 federally at-risk species (pers comms, L. Randall, Wildlife Biologist at Calgary Zoo, December 10, 2024). In contrast, BC employs mitigation translocation for all 32 of our native herpetofauna and has so for over a decade. What began as a solution to an isolated human development-wildlife conflict involving Northern red-legged frogs (Rana aurora) in 2008, has since turned into a province-wide application of translocating herpetofauna as a mitigation tactic (refer to Chapter 3). Currently, mitigation translocation is predominantly carried out by industries, consultants, or government officials for projects of various sizes. Under the province of British Columbiaâs Wildlife Act (1996), any capture, handling, or potential harm to native wildlife requires provincial authorization, which regulates translocation activities. Despite its known widespread use in the province, the scale and effectiveness of mitigation translocation are unknown. 1.5 Research Questions The goal of this thesis is to address global knowledge gaps in herpetofauna conservation and mitigation translocations and to investigate mitigation translocations at the local scale. Therefore, we aimed to understand three main questions: 1. What is the current global success rate of herpetofauna translocations? 2. What is the scale of mitigation translocation in British Columbia, Canada? 3. Does mitigation translocation impact a native amphibianâs survival, body condition or movement rates post-translocation? 1.6 Thesis Outline The remainder of this thesis is comprised of four chapters. Chapter 2 is a global literature review of herpetofauna translocations published between 2007 and 2023 to reevaluate the success rates of conservation and mitigation translocations and the primary drivers of success. Chapter 3 provides the first overview of the scale of herpetofauna mitigation translocations taking place in British Columbia, Canada by reviewing translocations carried out between 2019 to 2022. Lastly, Chapter 4 sets out to evaluate the 6 effectiveness of mitigation translocation for a native amphibian, the Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris). The last chapter summarizes the main findings from earlier chapters and discusses recommended next steps. 7 Chapter Two: Re-evaluating the suitability of amphibians and reptiles for translocation 2.1 Introduction Translocation of wildlife is used on a global scale for conservation, to offset habitat loss and to address human-wildlife conflicts (Griffith et al., 1989; Wolf et al., 1996; Dodd and Seigel, 1991; Fischer and Lindenmayer 2000; Sullivan et al., 2015; Germano et al., 2015). This approach is particularly widespread for herpetofauna â amphibians and reptiles â due to their vulnerability to habitat alteration, small home ranges and localized threats (Seddon et al., 2014; Strand et al., 2020; Bradley et al., 2022). The most widely used form of translocation is for conservation purposes, which involves the deliberate movement of wildlife and can include population reinforcement, reintroduction, introduction, and ecological replacement (Seddon, 2010; IUCN/SSC, 2013). Over the past decade, mitigation translocation has become increasingly common for relocating individuals from areas affected by human-induced habitat destruction or alteration to alternative release sites (Miller, Bell & Germano, 2014; Germano et al., 2014; Sullivan, Nowak & Kwiatkowski, 2014; Linhoff et al., 2021). There is growing criticism that many mitigation translocations are carried out without adequate scientific evaluation, monitoring, or clearly defined objectives (Griffith et al., 1989; Burke, 1991; Dodd & Seigel, 1991; Reinert, 1991; Linnell et al., 1997; Sullivan et al., 2004; Germano & Bishop, 2009; Germano et al., 2015; IUCN, 2013). Lastly, a sub-set of mitigation translocation is nuisance translocations which has emerged as a growing tactic for managing conflicts between wildlife and humans, particularly with snakesâboth venomous and non-venomousâfound in urban or residential areas (Fitzgerald et al., 2004; Nowak et al., 2002; Sullivan et al., 2015). The widespread usage of translocations has resulted in an emphasis on research, international guidelines and evaluations of translocations to improve outcomes (Randall et al., 2018; Linoff et al., 2021; Germano et al., 2024). Early reviews of herpetofauna conservation and mitigation translocations revealed a success rate of 19% which was considered notably low especially when compared to other taxonomic groups (Griffith et al., 1989; Dodd and Seigel 1991). A follow-up review of translocations from 1991 to 2006 by 8 Germano and Bishop (2009) found that success rates for conservation translocations of herpetofauna had doubled since the early findings of Dodd and Seigel (1991) but also highlighted the emerging issue of mitigation translocations which exhibited higher failure rates. However, authors for both reviews used different standards for evaluating translocation success. The lack of a rigorous framework for evaluating translocation success has been raised by many (Seddon, 1999; Miller et al., 2014; Germano et al., 2015). Labelling a translocation successful can also pose challenges by creating a misleading perception that continued management, or monitoring is unnecessary for the well-being of the translocated species and the ecosystem (Seddon, 1999). Traditional definitions of success, which often focused solely on establishing a self-sustaining population (Griffith et al., 1989; Dodd and Seigel 1991), frequently overlooked critical species-specific aspects such as unique life histories, reproductive strategies, and ecological requirements (Wolf et al., 1996; Fischer & Lindenmayer, 2000). To address the limitations in defining success, Armstrong and Seddon (2008) proposed a broader framework that incorporates multiple dimensions, including demographic and genetic outcomes, logistical feasibility, and stakeholder satisfaction. Building on this, Ewen et al. (2014) examined the wide range of both biological and non-biological objectives used by practitioners to evaluate herpetofauna translocations. Further advancing the discussion, Miller et al. (2014) developed a stepwise, standardized definition of success tailored to species with long lifespans or low reproductive outputâcharacteristics common among many herpetofauna. Their framework includes 5 stages: stage 0 is considered a failed translocation (i.e. no survival of founders), stage 1 indicates survival and growth of founders, stage 2 is reached with evidence of reproduction, stage 3 when population growth is recorded, and stage 4 indicates a viable population. Lastly, for nuisance translocations, success has more recently been defined as resolving the initial conflict, ensuring survival and adaptation of individuals at the release site, and preventing recurrence of problematic behaviors (Massei et al., 2010). The definitions proposed by Armstrong and Seddon (2008), Ewen et al. (2014), Miller et al. (2014) and Massei et al. (2010) have all been widely accepted as appropriate standards for evaluating success. 9 With the application of translocations continuing to rise â especially mitigation translocations (Seddon, Armstrong & Maloney, 2007; Germano et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2014) â it is timely for a reassessment of the status of herpetofauna translocation efforts using a standardized format for determining success. Here, we report on a systematic review of herpetofauna translocations utilizing gray literature and peer-reviewed papers over the past 16 years (2007-2023). We examine global trends, levels of translocation success and identify factors associated with successful outcomes to enhance our understanding of the key determinants of translocation success. 2.2 Methods Our systematic review of herpetofauna translocation literature was conducted by two independent reviewers, each assembling a dataset from publications dated Januaryâ¯1,â¯2007, to Decemberâ¯31,â¯2023; these datasets were then merged into a single compilation for the final eligibility assessment (Figure 2.1). The reviewers utilized the following databases: Google Scholar, Journal Storage (JSTOR), Web of Science, and Science Direct. Search terms included variations of translocat*, reintroduc* and mitigation and/or amphibia* and/or reptil*. Additional literature was sourced from the Global Reintroduction Perspectives series, compiled by the IUCN/SSC Translocation Specialist Group (Soorae, editions 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2016, 2018, 2021), which included all herpetofauna case studies that featured translocation. Of which, we included fully implemented translocations and those in preliminary stages of captive breeding with plans for future translocations. Further papers were identified by examining reference lists of relevant papers, and inclusion of papers identified through personal communications. We refined our selection of literature by removing non-relevant papers (e.g., invasion biology, gene translocation) and split the remaining papers into case studies. We defined a case study as the translocation of one species to a specific location (multiple locations were considered separate translocations if they were further apart than the home range of the focal species); some papers included multiple case studies. If an author had multiple papers on a particular translocation, we combined all publications into one case study. For each case we identified the motivation for the translocation: conservation reinforcement, conservation reintroduction, conservation introduction, mitigation (IUCN, 10 2013), nuisance (Sullivan et al, 2015), or research. Research was defined as a study that involved a trial or experimental translocation where research was the predominant reason for the translocation. We collected additional factors for each case including the continent where the translocation occurred, the date of the first translocation, and whether individuals originated from the wild or were held in captivity prior to release (e.g., housed in a facility, head-started or bred in captivity). We also noted the following variables: the type of release as either soft (involving some form of support to the animal or acclimation before and/or after release into a new environment) or hard (involving immediate release with no support; Parker et al., 2012); whether threats were removed prior to the species being translocated (e.g., invasive species); the species translocated; the life stage and number of individuals translocated; the duration of post-translocation monitoring (in years); and whether monitoring was continuous or intermittent. We defined continuous monitoring as projects where monitoring occurred daily, weekly, monthly, or annually. In contrast, intermittent monitoring occurred sporadically or at intervals greater than one year (e.g., every five years). In 12 cases, the authors did not specify the exact number of individuals translocated; therefore, we assigned the estimate provided. We categorized any case study that involved both wild and captive-bred individuals, or that employed both hard and soft release methods, under the label âboth.â, and categorized the life stage as 'unknown' if not mentioned or as 'various' if multiple life stages were referenced. Lastly, we assessed the success of each translocation case study and identified factors that may have influenced its outcome. Research case studies were excluded from the success analysis because their objectives did not consistently align with conservation or mitigation goals, making application of the standardized success-stage framework (Miller et al., 2014; hereafter referred to as âsuccess stagesâ) unsuitable. We also removed 11 additional cases that lacked the monitoring data or information needed for evaluation. In evaluating the remaining case studies, we first reviewed the success criteria used by each author (Table 2.1) and then assigned a success outcome based on both the authorsâ self-assessments and the success stage (Miller et al., 2014). For the self-assessment, we relied on each authorâs own evaluation of their translocation. When no clear assessment was provided, we assigned a rating of âYesâ 11 (met all criteria), âPartialâ (met some criteria), or âNoâ (met no criteria). Miller et al (2014) define success stages as: stage 0 is considered a failed translocation, stage 1 indicates survival and growth of founders, stage 2 is reached with evidence of reproduction, stage 3 when population growth is recorded, and stage 4 indicates a viable population. Stage 3 and 4 are considered successful with stage 4 being the highest form of success. A case was only allocated a particular stage if all preceding stages were met. In instances where it was not possible to evaluate every stage due to limited information, only the highest definite stage of success was recorded. Table 2.1. Authors used various metrics for measuring success, therefore we grouped similar criterions for our literature review of translocations into the following categories: behaviour, body condition, habitat, health, movement, population, presence, survival. Authors success criteria Definition Population evidence of reproduction, recruitment, demography, population retention and growth Survival survivorship of individuals over a defined period Movement dispersal, spatial use, home range and daily activity Body Condition growth rates, scaled mass index and body size Presence detection, presence/absence of unmarked individuals Behaviour seasonal behaviour, personalities, homing and site fidelity Habitat habitat selection, preference and use Health allele frequency distributions, body temperatures, genetic consequences/integration, presence of mites/nematodes, physiological health and stress We used Fisherâs exact tests (Fisher, 1922) and KruskalâWallis tests (Kruskal and Wallis, 1952) to assess how the following variables contribute to the outcome of a translocation: translocation motive, translocation date, geographic location, species, species origin, release type and life stage. We further evaluated whether monitoring duration and interval could be associated with translocation outcomes. We did not include interaction terms in our analysis of translocation success due to limited sample sizes for 12 some variable combinations. Variables that were significantly associated with a success stage (α = 0.05) were further examined using post hoc tests with Benjamini-Hochberg correction and Dunnâs test with Bonferroni correction to identify pairwise differences (Dunn, 1964; Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995; Bonferroni, 1936). We completed all analyses using R statistical software (version 4.4.2; R Core Team, 2024). 2.3 Results We compiled a total of 1,180 papers for our review. Of these, 261 were assessed for eligibility leaving 203 papers for review containing 313 case studies (Figure 2.1); representing the largest compilation of case studies compared with other notable herpetofauna reviews (Figure 2.2). 13 Figure 2.1. PRISMAâstyle flow diagram outlining the literature screening and selection process for our systematic review of herpetofauna translocation literature from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2023. Records were independently identified and screened by two reviewers, then merged into a single dataset for the final eligibility assessment. Final inclusion comprised of 203 papers which translated into 313 case studies for review. For the success analysis, 256 case studies were retained after excluding researchâonly studies and those without assignable success criteria. 14 Figure 2.2. Number of herpetofauna translocations based on the translocation date, aggregated into five-year intervals, across the three major literature reviews: Dodd & Seigel (1991), Germano & Bishop (2009) and the current review by Winand et al. (2025). Although Winand et al. only included papers published from 2007 to 2023, some of those publications document translocations that occurred prior to 2007; accordingly, these earlier events are represented in the appropriate intervals. Data prior to 1955 were combined into a single <1955 interval due to sparse records in the early decades. Bars are shaded with the lightest representing Dodd & Seigel (1991) and the darkest for Winand et al. (2025). The dashed line shows the fitted exponential trend over time. Note that some translocations may be reported in more than one review, leading to potential repetition in the aggregated counts. The majority of case studies originated from North America (43%, n = 135), followed by Oceania (22%, n = 70) and Europe (19%, n = 58; Figure 2.3a). Conservation-related translocations were the predominant translocation motive (58%, n = 181) âspecifically conservation reintroduction, followed by mitigation translocations (25%, n = 79) and research studies (15%, n = 46). Nuisance translocations only comprised 2% (n = 7) of the case studies (Figure 2.3b). Among the 163 translocated herpetofauna species, reptile species accounted for 71% of all case studies (n = 222). Of these reptile case studies, most involved species from the Order Squamata (38%; n = 119), 29% from Testudines (n = 81), and the least number of case studies from the Order Crocodilia (n = 13) and Rhynchocephalia (n = 9; Figure 2.3c). Reptile case studies that provided life stages reported the translocation of adults (n = 76), followed by juveniles (n = 38), hatchlings (n = 4), sub-adults (n = 3) and 15 eggs (n = 1). The remaining case studies translocated various life stages (n = 58) or did not provide a life stage (n = 42). In 76% of the reptile translocations (n = 168), fewer than 100 individuals were released and in 5% of case studies (n = 10) were more than 1,000 individuals released. Amphibians represented 29% of the total case studies (n = 91), with most involving the Order Anura (n = 68) (Figure 2.3c). Case studies typically translocated various life stages (n = 35) and when life stages were provided, amphibians were translocated as juveniles (n = 21), followed by adults (n = 9), larvae (n = 9), egg masses (n = 7), and sub-adults (n = 1). The remaining nine case studies did not provide a life stage. In contrast to reptile case studies, amphibian translocations typically involved larger releases, with 73% releasing over 100 individuals (n = 66). Six cases did not provide release numbers. 16 Figure 2.3. A total of 313 case studies were included in the review of herpetofauna translocations from 2007 to 2023. (a) illustrates the percentage of translocation case studies by continent, alongside the secondary y-axis displaying the number of amphibian and reptile species (black triangle) per continent, based on the IUCN Red List as of December 15, 2024. (b) shows the percentage of cases categorized by translocation motives: conservation reintroduction, conservation reinforcement, conservation introduction, mitigation for development, mitigation for nuisance, and research. (c) depicts the percentage of cases involving translocation of each herpetofauna order, with the secondary y-axis indicating the global number of species in each order as of December 15, 2024, sourced from amphibiansoftheworld.amnh.org and www.reptile-database (black triangle) and, (d) summarizes translocation motivations into three broad categoriesâconservation (reintroduction, reinforcement, introduction), mitigation (development, nuisance), and researchâshowing the length of monitoring (years) for each category. 17 The origin of all translocated amphibian and reptiles in 53% of case studies were wild individuals (n = 167) followed by captive bred (n = 116). Only 9% used both wild caught and captive individuals (n = 27) and three cases did not provide the individuals origin. Individuals were hard released for 87% of cases (n = 273) and 11% as soft release (n = 34). Six cases used both hard and soft release methods. Of the cases that reported whether threats were removed prior to release (63% of total), 60% (n = 118) had removed the threats prior to release and 23% (n = 46) did not. Monitoring was not conducted for eight cases and four were monitored for an unknown length of time. Among the remaining 301 case studies that monitored, 79% monitored continuously (n = 239), though duration varied by translocation type (Figure 2.3d). Conservation-related translocations (n = 176) tended to have the longest monitoring periods: 52% (n = 92) were monitored for five years or less, and 38% (n = 67) were monitored for 10 years or more. Mitigation-related translocations (n = 79) generally had shorter monitoring, with 85% (n = 67) monitored for five years or less and only 13% (n = 10) monitored for 10 years or more. Research translocations had the shortest durations overall, with 57% (n = 26) monitored for one year or less and only one case over 10 years. Translocation success We evaluated the success for 256 cases studies which included 177 conservation-related translocations (i.e., reintroduction, reinforcement and introduction) and 79 mitigation-related translocations (i.e., mitigation and nuisance). Based on the authorsâ selfâassessment of conservation translocations, 45% of cases were classified as successful (n = 79), 38% partially successful (n = 68), and 17% as failures (n = 30), using population and survival as the primary criteria (Figure A1: Appendix A). For mitigation translocation, 43% of cases were classified by authors as successful (n = 34), 29% partially successful (n = 23), and 28% as failures (n = 22), using population, survival and movement as primary criteria. In contrast, using Miller et al. (2014) success stages, only 11% of the conservation cases were assigned as stage 4 (successful; n = 20). Specifically, 23% of conservation cases were assigned stage 0 (failure; n = 41), 34% were assigned stage 1 (n = 59), 24% were assigned stage 2 (n = 42), and 8% were 18 assigned stage 3 (n = 14; Figure 2.4). No mitigation translocations reached stage 4 and only 6% reached stage 3, 20% reached stage 2, 28% reached stage 1 and 46% failed (stage 0). Figure 2.4. Success assessment for a subset of case studies from a systematic literature review of herpetofauna translocations conducted between 2007 and 2023 (n = 256). The left graph (a) illustrates the percentage of translocations self-assessed by authors as successful, partially successful, or failures. The right graph (b) presents the percentage of translocations evaluated using the standardized success criteria from Miller et al. (2014), which categorize outcomes into five stages: failure (stage 0), stage 1, stage 2, stage 3, and stage 4. Using Fisherâs exact tests, we found significant differences in success based on taxonomic Order (p = .04; Figure 2.5a), translocation motive (p = < .001; Figure 2.5b), life stage (p = .02; Figure 2.5c), monitoring interval (p = < .01; Figure 2.5d), and whether threats were removed (p = < .001; Figure 2.5e). KruskalâWallis tests revealed significant associations between translocation outcome and the number of individuals translocated, ÏÂ² (4) = 20.14, p < .001 (Figure 2.6a), the length of time monitored, ÏÂ² (4) = 52.63, p < .0001 (Figure 2.6b), and the translocation date, ÏÂ² (4) = 55.53, p < .0001 (Figure 2.6c). Post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that mitigation-driven translocations were significantly associated with failed outcomes (stage 0), whereas conservation translocations were linked to stage 4 success (both adjusted p < .01). Translocations completed before 2005 achieved significantly higher success stages than those conducted later (adjusted p < .001), and those in which threats were removed 19 (adjusted p = .002) and monitored for longer durations (adjusted p < .001) were more likely to reach the highest success stage (stage 4). The frequency at which a translocation was monitored, continuously or intermittently, were only significant up-to stage 2 outcomes (adjusted p = .008). Translocations involving a greater number of individuals were significantly more likely to achieve stage 3 success (adjusted p = .003). However, when examined by taxonomic group, this association was not significant for reptiles but remained significant for amphibians, where higher numbers of translocated individuals were linked to stage 3 success (adjusted p = .02), but not to stage 4. No specific life stages or taxonomic order remained significant after adjustment. 20 Figure 2.5. Proportional distribution of Miller et al. (2014) success stages across significant categorical variables collected from 256 case studies in a systematic literature review of herpetofauna translocations conducted between 2007 and 2023. Each panel (aâe) represents a variable that was significantly associated with translocation success based on Fisherâs exact tests. Darker shades indicate lower success stages. 21 Figure 2.6. Box plots of Miller et al. (2014) success stages across significant numerical variables collected from 256 case studies in a systematic literature review of herpetofauna translocations conducted between 2007 and 2023. Each panel (aâc) represents a variable that was significantly associated with translocation success based on Kruskal-Wallis tests with the removal of some outliers. Darker shades indicate lower success stages. 2.4 Discussion Our systematic review assesses current trends in herpetofauna translocations on a global scale over a 16 period, since the last major review in 2009. We identified 313 case studiesârepresenting a substantial increase from the 26 reviewed by Dodd & Seigel (1991) and the 91 reviewed by Germano & Bishop (2009). While the primary motive for translocations remains conservation focused, our review reveals a notable rise in mitigation and research-driven translocations compared to the two previous 22 reviews. At the same time, we find that only 19% of conservation studies reached high success stages (stages 3 and 4) and only 6% of mitigation translocations reached stage 3 with a significant link of mitigation releases to failed outcomes. Our findings reveal the increasing prevalence of translocation of herpetofauna, particularly for mitigation purposes, and highlights the urgent need for reevaluating our motives for translocating and rigour used to evaluate likelihood of success. Success rates in our review are notably less than the 41% success rate reported by Germano & Bishop (2009). We believe the decline in success rates is related to a reduced publication bias toward only successful translocations, increased scrutiny by biologists when classifying success, and our application of a standardized method for determining success based on the framework proposed by Miller et al. (2014). In the past, there has been an inclination towards primarily publishing successful translocations using older traditional definitions of success (Scargle, 2000; Schooler, 2011; Miller et al., 2014), which may have led to an inflated success estimate in the last global review (Germano & Bishop, 2009). However, in our analysis of conservation-related translocations, authors who described a failed translocation were predominantly categorized as stages 0 or 1, while translocations reaching stages 3 or 4 were consistently labeled as partially successful or successful (Figure A2: Appendix A). This indicates that authors are generally self-critical and transparent in evaluating outcomes while using appropriate criteria to assess success (i.e., population or survival), aligning with the standards set by Miller et al. (2014). Although similar criteria were used for mitigation-related translocations, evaluations appeared less critical, with 66% of translocations being categorized by authors as successful or partially successful despite being assigned stages 0, 1, or 2 (Figure A3: Appendix A). Overall, a general trend in minimizing publication bias and implementing a standardized framework for assessing success have likely enabled us to showcase a more accurate evaluation of translocation outcomes for herpetofauna. A success rate of 19% for conservation related translocations is generally low when compared to other taxa, such as the 66% reported for large carnivores (Thomas et al., 2023) and the 52% for invertebrate insects (Bellis et al., 2019). Such a disparity is especially notable given the emphasis on 23 improvements at both the local and international levels through increased research, scientific guidelines, and knowledge sharing. For example, the Global Conservation Translocation Perspectives series (Soorae et al., 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2016, 2018, 2021) was initiated to share knowledge and identify similar issues surrounding current and on-going conservation translocations â representing 69 conservation case studies in this review. Factors influencing success from an international perspective strongly encourage the use of scientific approaches to address a priori goals including the importance of choosing the appropriate release site, removing threats, monitoring long enough to properly assess the outcome and applying adaptive management to improve success (IUCN, 2013; Linoff et al., 2021; Germano et al., 2024)â some variables which our review identified as strongly linked to higher success stages. Lower success rates may reflect both insufficient monitoring duration at the time of our review to reveal true outcomes and a failure to complete all necessary pre-planning steps and meet species-specific requirements, particularly in the case of mitigation translocations. Mitigation-related translocations which are typically carried out to satisfy regulatory requirements around habitat loss or destruction or address human-wildlife conflicts, and most often do not adhere to the same rigour used in conservation translocations (IUCN/SSC, 2013). Therefore, a success rate of 6% and a strong association with failure is not unexpected and aligns with the outcomes described by others (Reinert & Rupert Jr 1999; Nowak et al. 2002; Sullivan et al. 2015; Devan-Song et al. 2016; Wolfe et al. 2018; Germano et al., 2015; Bradley et al., 2022). Most mitigation translocations lacked long-term monitoring and the removal of threats at the release location prior to translocation; two variables we identified as critical factors associated with success. This is not surprising given there is no enforcement of reporting standards in many regions (Germano et al., 2015; Nash 2017; Silcock et al. 2019), monitoring is rarely mandated (Massei et al., 2010; IUCN/SSC, 2013; Winand et al., 2025) and results are seldomly published. For example, in British Columbia, Canada, approximately 5.1â¯million herpetofauna were translocated for mitigation purposes between 2019 and 2022; however, none of these translocations required follow up monitoring, so no results were published (Winand et al., 2025). Furthermore, when monitoring did occur, monitoring 24 periods were shorter than for conservation releases. This pattern may reflect insufficient funding or a lack of emphasis on monitoring in this sector. It may also be a consequence of high failure rates: when translocations fail, monitoring often stops early, and without long-term data, adaptive management cannot be applied to enhance success. In our review, only 15% of mitigation cases explicitly addressed threat removal before release, and this occurred primarily for legally protected species such as the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus). While some authors have mitigated threats at the release site, the primary drivers that necessitate mitigation translocations in the first placeâhabitat loss and humanâwildlife conflictâremain largely unaddressed. There are a few good examples, however, such as the habitat offset program for Litoria aurea at Sydney Olympic Park, where ponds were created at a 19:1 ratio to account for the lower quality of manmade wetlands (Pickett et al., 2013), and the South Midlands District Licensing scheme in England for the great crested newt, which resulted in a 4:1 net gain in breeding habitat and the creation of two new ponds for every degraded pond (Newt Conservation Partnership, 2025). Outside of these examples however, issues such as those with nuisance translocations, which are implemented to reduce harmful humanâwildlife interactions, are continuous due to encroachment of development onto wildlife habitat (McKinney, 2002; Redpath et al., 2013). In essence, the habitat loss that triggers the need for mitigation translocations is the same underlying issue that leads to nuisance translocations; without directly addressing habitat loss or destruction, the fundamental threat is never truly resolved. In both mitigation and nuisance translocations, the issue at the heart of the problem is that releases are occurring to solve the ethical problem of killing protected wildlife, but the truth may be that without solving the core issue of habitat loss through habitat creation, these animals are likely dying out of sight post-release despite the mitigation effort and associated costs. These mitigation translocations often come with an extremely high budget that dwarfs the costs for conservation releases (Germano et al., 2015). If mitigation and offsetting funds could be used in a more constructive way, the resulting damage to wildlife populations may be lessened. 25 Issues surrounding translocation failures arise from multiple, interacting factors rather than a single cause. Global syntheses have highlighted numerous distinct challenges encountered in translocation practice which include high mortality or low recapture rates (Bell et al., 2010; Nussear et al. 2012), largeâscale movement away from release sites (Barrientos et al., 2021; Hinderle et al., 2015; Bell et al., 2010; Nussear et al., 2012), poor habitat suitability at release sites (Berger-Tal et al., 2020; Griffiths & Pavajeau, 2008), and increased stress responses and subsequent reproductive failure (Teixeira et al., 2007; Dickens et al., 2009, 2010; Parker et al., 2012). Moreover, inadequate long-term monitoring or insufficient monitoring at the time of evaluation further complicates assessments of translocation success (IUCN/SSC, 2013; Berger-Tal et al., 2020). In the previous review, the most common reported causes of translocation failure were homing and migration of introduced individuals out of release sites and poor habitat (Germano & Bishop, 2009). However, in our review, conservation related translocations, specifically those involving long lived species (e.g., tuatara), may not have reached stageâ¯3 orâ¯4 simply because additional monitoring time is needed. In addition, difficulties in tracking animals once released, especially in reintroduction efforts where it is unknown whether translocated individuals are contributing to the population, create challenges in assessing success at higher stages. Lastly, a lack of observed reproduction, combined with pressures from poaching and natural predation, contributed to lower stages of success for conservation translocations. Mitigation-related translocations encountered problems with high initial mortality, homing behaviors and extensive movements that returned individuals to conflict areas, and limited evidence of reproductive success. Challenges associated with monitoringâespecially when animals are released unmarkedâand the release of animals into unsuitable or deteriorating release sites also feature prominently across these efforts. Moreover, moving animals into habitats already occupied by conspecifics, unlike reintroductions into vacant sites, introduces additional complications that are rarely addressed in mitigation translocation efforts. Our analysis did not identify factors such as source of population (wild vs. captive), release method (hard vs. soft), or the number and life stage of released individuals as statistically significant predictors of success, despite the strong emphasis on addressing species-specific context in the literature 26 (Wolf et al., 1996; Fischer & Lindenmayer, 2000; Seddon et al., 2007; Armstrong & Seddon, 2008). It is possible that these variables did not emerge as significant drivers because the broad taxonomic and geographic scope of our review which obscured finer-scale, species-specific effects. Our review also reveals species and regional biases. Regional differences in legal frameworks (e.g., the Endangered Species Act in the U.S. or the Wildlife Act 1953 in New Zealand) likely contribute to the disproportionate number of published conservation studies and also drive mitigation translocations. Although our review encompasses 163 different species, only 35% were represented in two or more case studies. The majority of case studies were concentrated on species from the Order Squamata or Testudinesâparticularly the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) and the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), which are at-risk in North America and highly impacted by habitat destruction and human development. Conversely, regions such as South America were underrepresented, possibly due to a language barrier, with only ten case studies focusing exclusively on conservation and research; however, over 20 mitigation translocations in the last decade are known to have occurred in Brazil (pers.â¯comm., Carlos Miranda), during which herpetofauna were translocated opportunistically. Although this review is comprehensive, it is not without limitations. We restricted our analysis to publicly accessible, English-language papers, thereby excluding data from regions where translocations are known to occur but are either not well documented or are reported in other languages. For example, the large-scale translocation of 135,193 individuals from hydroelectric plants in Brazil was not captured by our review because the report was written in Portuguese (Sarmento, 2022). Although we applied a consistent framework to evaluate translocation success, our assessments were inherently limited by the available information. When authors did not provide definitive outcomes, we assigned success categories based on the available data and applied Miller et al. (2014) stages according to our interpretation of the results within a species-specific context. We acknowledge that recent publications, particularly those involving long-lived species, may not yet reflect the ultimate outcomes of their translocations. Some projects classified in lower success stages in this review could eventually progress to higher stages as longer-term results become available. Furthermore, although the overall number of translocation case 27 studies is increasing, many focus on the same at-risk species from similar geographic regions that have regulatory protection through existing legislation (e.g., gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), great crested newt (Triturus cristatus)). Despite our efforts to minimize duplication, some degree of pseudo-replication was unavoidable because similar methods were often employed by the same authors across multiple studies. 2.5 Conclusion With a near fourfold increase in global herpetofauna translocations since 2009, long-term success remains low, with only 19% of conservation and 6% of mitigation translocations achieving high success stages (stage 3 or 4). Our review highlights a shift towards the use of standardized success definitions, allowing for more accurate assessments of both failures and successes, and underscores the need for long term monitoring to determine true outcomes. We also identify two critical gaps: (1) translocation may not adequately address problems rooted in habitat loss; and (2) mitigation translocations are not meeting the standards necessary for success. Reasons for failure include lack of post release monitoring or monitoring durations are too short, lack of rigor in implementation, absence of evidence-based protocols, and failure to removal of threats, as carried out in conservation translocations. We urge practitioners and regulators to reevaluate the continued use of mitigation translocations, adopt more rigorous monitoring and implementation protocols around its use, and look towards alternatives that prioritise proactive habitat protection and restoration.28 Chapter Three: Scale of Herpetofauna Mitigation Translocation in British Columbia, Canada 3.1 Introduction The humanâmediated movement of plants and animals from one location to another, broadly defined as translocation, has occurred since time immemorial (Boivin et al., 2017). Conservationâoriented translocations date back to the 1890s (Lloyd & Powlesland, 1994) and remain the predominant translocation type, encompassing reinforcement, reintroduction, and introduction efforts (IUCN, 2013). More recently, mitigation translocation, which includes relocating organisms from areas affected by anthropogenic landâuse change or imminent threat to alternative sites, has emerged as a distinct and increasingly common strategy (Linhoff et al., 2021) and in many countries is legally mandated to offset developmentârelated habitat destruction (Germano et al., 2015; Doyle et al., 2024). For amphibians and reptiles (herpetofauna), two of the most threatened vertebrate groups on Earth according to The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (2024), mitigation translocations have gained popularity despite growing concerns over the effectiveness of mitigation translocation in offsetting development impacts (Griffith et al., 1989; Sullivan et al., 2004; Germano & Bishop, 2009; IUCN, 2013; Germano et al., 2015; Winand et al., 2025). Although these efforts often fail due to poor release-site quality, inadequate habitat connectivity or habitat to support all life stages, and the physiological stress of capture and relocation, which can reduce fitness and increase disease susceptibility (Griffith et al., 1989; Dodd & Seigel, 1991; Germano & Bishop, 2009; Dickens et al., 2010; Teixeira et al., 2007; Randall et al., 2018). Mitigation translocations have nevertheless increased globally over the past two decades (Miller et al., 2014; Romijn & Hartley, 2016; Germano et al., 2015). In Canada, the provinces of Alberta and Ontario restrict herpetofauna mitigation translocation to federally listed at-risk species (SARA, 2002) and is rarely used or documented in the Maritime provinces (pers. comm., Lea Randall). British Columbia (BC), however, has adopted mitigation translocation (often referred to as salvaging) as a standard practice for all 32 native herpetofauna species. In BC, prior to the loss or alteration of habitat, major projects (e.g., pipelines, mines, roads) undergo an environmental 29 impact assessment, which requires proponents to follow the mitigation hierarchy established in the Environmental Mitigation and Offsetting Policy (Government of British Columbia, 2014). The hierarchy prioritizes avoidance as the first and most effective action, followed by minimizing impacts, on-site restoration, and lastly, offsetting. Mitigation translocation falls under the second tier, minimization. Only within the past decade has BC formally embraced mitigation translocation as a minimization strategy for herpetofauna. For other taxa, such as salmonids, mitigation translocation to address fish stranding during hydroelectric operations has been ongoing for several decades (Golder Associates Ltd., 2020). For herpetofauna, however, a pivotal case and starting point for mitigation translocation in BC was during the realignment of a section of a major provincial highway (i.e., Sea-to-Sky Highway). Designed to accommodate increased traffic flow from Vancouver to Whistler prior to the 2010 Winter Olympics, the new highway bisected wetland habitat of the Northern red-legged frog (Rana aurora), a species federally listed under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) as Special Concern (SARA, 2005). Public pressure to protect the species resulted in the provincial governmentâs decision to translocate all frogs in the impacted wetland to areas of suitable habitat outside the project footprint (Malt, 2011). Since then, BC has utilized mitigation translocation as a standard to protect herpetofauna from anthropogenic changes to habitat, yet little is known by regulators about the extent of application or its efficacy for native herpetofauna. To address the former, we reviewed all herpetofauna mitigation translocations between January 2019 and December 2022 to quantify the scale of this practice in BC. 3.2 Methods All provincially native herpetofauna species are governed under BC's Wildlife Act (1996) which prohibits wounding, killing, capturing, possessing, or transporting wildlife without authorization (Sections 26(1)c, 29, 33, and 37). Therefore, proponents are required to undergo a provincial authorization process to obtain a permit to carry out mitigation translocation following the Canadian Council of Animal Care guidelines (CCAC, 2004a; CCAC, 2004b) and the Best Management Practices for Amphibian and Reptile Salvages in British Columbia (2016), which recommend proper handling protocols, capture techniques, and release site selection. Once the permit is approved and the project is 30 completed, the applicant is legally required to submit a report with their data to the provincial data repository (i.e. Wildlife Species Inventory). All permits expire after one calendar year unless special authorization is granted for a multi-year permit. Reporting requirements include reporting the species, number of individuals, and life stage translocated. We collected all permit reportsâhenceforth known as translocationsâissued between January 2019 and December 2022 using multiple internal government databases. We collected information on the reason for mitigation translocation (i.e., project type; Table 3.1), the project region, the number of individuals, species, and life stages the applicant translocated. Life stages are defined as adults, juveniles (which includes sub-adults, metamorphs and neonates), larvae (tadpoles or nymph), and eggs (i.e., egg mass, clutch, eggs). Project regions are based on eight provincial administrative areas defining the natural resource regions in BC: South Coast, West Coast, Northeast, Skeena, Thompson-Okanagan, Omineca, Kootenay Boundary, and Cariboo (Government of British Columbia, 2025). We report results as percentages and proportions against the total number unless a subset is described. All analyses were conducted using R statistical software (version 4.4.2; R Core Team, 2025). Table 3.2. Project types and definitions for a review of herpetofauna mitigation translocations in British Columbia, Canada. Project type Definition Bridge Bridge replacement or construction Forestry Removal of trees for timber or other wood products (logging) and creation of logging roads Hydroelectricity BC hydroelectric dams Linear development Oil and gas pipeline installation or maintenance (integrity digs), export terminals and, sewer line installation or maintenance Mining Construction and maintenance of mines, mine operations and the infilling of tailings ponds Restoration Construction or restoration of habitat Railway Railroad maintenance, construction or operation Roadway Road development, widening and realignment including projects under the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Urban development Destruction of habitat or infill of an area for human use (golf courses, airport, housing, parking) 31 Water infrastructure Water management includes ditch maintenance, culvert installation or replacement regardless of road type (highway or forest service road), drop box, flap gate or dam installation or replacement, and sediment or beaver dam removal. 3.3 Results Between 2019 and 2022, the provincial government issued a total of 629 permits for mitigation translocation of herpetofauna with issued permits increasing each year: most of all in 2022 (Figure 3.1). However, 223 translocations were unavailable for review (labelled as confidential or were not found in the database), 129 indicated no translocation was completed and 50 did not find any herpetofauna during their surveys. The remaining 227 permits available collectively reported translocating 5,134,254 amphibians and reptiles, primarily during the summer and late fall (Figure 3.2). Figure 3.7. Annual number of permits issued for herpetofauna mitigation translocations in British Columbia, Canada from 2009â2022. Lightâgrey bars indicate the total number of permits issued each year, and darkâgrey bars show the subset of issued permits with available reports that completed a translocation. 32 Figure 3.8 Frequency of translocations by month based on a review of herpetofauna mitigation translocations in British Columbia, Canada from 2019-2022 (n = 227). A total of 6,681 non-native individuals were captured and an additional 7,598 were reported as unknown herpetofauna. The remaining 5,119,975 identifiable native individuals translocated spanned across 28 different herpetofauna species, of which 15 are listed as at-risk under SARA (2002). A full list of translocated herpetofauna and life stages are found in Table B1: Appendix B. Amphibians made up 99% of the total number of translocated individuals (n = 5,116,960). Across all years combined, Western toads (Anaxyrus boreas) were the most frequently translocated species, accounting for 91% of the total (n = 4,638,073/5,116,960), followed by Long-toed salamanders (Ambystoma macrodactylum; n = 245,055), Northwestern salamanders (Ambystoma gracile; n = 94,013), and Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris; n = 70,032). Coastal giant salamanders (Dicamptodon tenebrosus; n = 2) were the least frequently translocated amphibian species. When these top species are viewed by year, Western toads remain the dominant species annually, consistently comprising the majority of translocated individuals (Figure 3.3a). While life stage varied by species (Figure 3.4a), the majority were translocated as larvae (56%), followed by eggs (26%), juveniles (15%), unclassified (2%), and < 1% as adults. 33 Reptiles were translocated relatively infrequently (n = 3,015). Western terrestrial gartersnake (Thamnophis elegans; n = 1,520), was the predominate reptile translocated followed by Common gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis; n = 738) and Northern alligator lizard (Elgaria coerulea; n = 344). Western skink (Plestiodon skiltonianus; n = 4) was the least frequently translocated reptile species. When these top species are examined by year, most Western terrestrial gartersnakes were translocated in 2020, Northern alligator lizards were the most frequently moved in 2021, and Common gartersnakes became the dominant reptile translocated in 2022 (Figure 3.3b).With respect to life stage, 52% of reptiles were labelled as unclassified, but those that provided a life stage were moved as adults (31%) and juveniles (17%; Figure 3.4b). 34 Figure 3.9. Relative proportion of translocated individuals from the five most frequently translocated native amphibian (a) and reptile (b) species, based on data from 227 mitigation translocation permits issued in British Columbia, Canada, from 2019â2022. A full list of species and counts is provided in Table B1: Appendix B. 35 Figure 3.10. Relative proportions of life stages for the five most frequently translocated species of (a) amphibians and (b) reptiles based on mitigation translocation permits issued in British Columbia, Canada between 2019 and 2022 (n = 277). Life stages classified as unknown were excluded. Life stages are coloured as adults (purple), juveniles (yellow), larvae (blue), eggs (green). A full list life stages and counts is provided in Table B1: Appendix B. Most translocations took place in the South Coast region (n = 77 translocations), followed by the Skeena (n = 36) and West Coast (n = 21; Figure 3.5) regions; multi-region permits were less common (n = 5). However, the South Coast region translocated the fewest number of individuals collectively across all years (< 50,000), and the greatest number of translocated individuals were in the Skeena (> 1,500,001) and Omineca region (750,001 â 1,500,000). 36 Figure 3.11. The number of herpetofauna mitigation translocations that occurred in each of British Columbiaâs natural resource regions between January 2019 and December 2022 are shown in brackets next to region name. The total number of individuals translocated in each region is shown with shading â darker shades indicating higher numbers of individuals. Across most regions, linear development and water infrastructure projects together were the main reason for herpetofauna translocations (Figure 3.6). In the Northeast and ThompsonâOkanagan regions, linear development accounted for over 70% of translocations each year. In the Cariboo, water infrastructure was the primary translocation project type in 2019, before linear development projects became dominant from 2020 to 2022. Similarly, the Omineca region alternated annually between linear development and water infrastructure as its leading project type requiring translocation. In contrast, the West Coast region recorded no linear developmentârelated translocations and instead saw a steady 37 increase in water infrastructure projects by 2022. Although most regions were characterized by two to three main project types, the South Coast exhibited the greatest diversity, with no single category exceeding 60% of total translocations. The Skeena region was the next most diverse but remained primarily dominated by linear development. Bridge and forestry projects did not involve herpetofauna translocations and were therefore excluded from this analysis. Figure 3.12. Proportional composition of herpetofauna mitigation translocations by project type across BC Natural Resource Regions and years (n = 277). Project types are defined in Table 1. Bridge and forestry projects did not translocate herpetofauna and are therefore not included. Linear development was not only the primary reason for translocation (n = 86/277 translocations) it was also responsible for relocating more individuals than any other project type (4,633,338; Table 3.2). Mining, by comparison, accounting for 12 translocations, had the secondâhighest total of translocated individuals (n = 423,609), followed by water infrastructure projects (n = 59) which translocated 35,854 individuals. Restoration projects (n = 6) accounted for the fewest number of translocated individuals (n = 340). The specific proportion of species by project type is found in Figure B1, B2: Appendix B. 38 Table 3.3. Number of mitigation translocations and individuals translocated by project type obtained from issued permits in British Columbia, Canada from January 2019 to December 2022 (n=227). Project types are categorized in Table 1. Bridge and forestry projects did not translocate herpetofauna and are therefore not included. 3.4 Discussion Our review reveals the scale and increasing application of herpetofauna mitigation translocation in BC over time, with approximately 5.1 million individual herpetofauna across 28 species translocated from 2019-2022. Although mitigation translocation is part of the mitigation hierarchy in the province, intended to mitigate the impacts of development-associated harm of herpetofauna, the survival and success of these animalsâ following translocation remains uncertain. We identified five parameters that we believe are influential in the number and species of herpetofauna translocated: (1) project and habitat location, (2) seasonal timing of the project in relation to the speciesâ lifecycle, (3) species life history, (4) geographic range, and (5) the type of project requiring translocation. Independently, each parameter is influential in the translocation outcome but when combined, it helps to explain the extent of translocations in BC and why some species and life stages are translocated more frequently than others. Project type Number of translocations Number of individuals translocated Linear development 86 4,633,338 Mining 12 419,462 Water infrastructure 59 35,854 Hydroelectricity 15 13,904 Roadways 23 11,700 Urban development 25 4,476 Railway 2 1,071 Restoration 5 170 Bridge 0 N/A Forestry 0 N/A Total 227 5,119,975 39 The timing and location of projects are influential in the species and life stages of herpetofauna translocated, as observed in our review. Projects conducted during the summer or late fall in aquatic habitats are especially likely to encounter aquatic and biphasic species in early life stages (e.g., egg masses or larvae). As proponents cannot capture, handle, and relocate herpetofauna during winter hibernation periods, translocation efforts are generally limited to the spring, summer, and fallâalthough the specific timing can vary by region. In the spring, projects can experience delays due to high freshet water levels and regulatory protections for vulnerable life stages of other species, such as salmonids (British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, 2019) and nesting birds (Migratory Birds Regulations, 2022). As a result, many translocations are conducted during the summer and late fall, when water levels are lower and fewer restrictions are in placeâbut also during peak periods of herpetofauna breeding and metamorphosis. Additionally, proponents tend to focus mitigation efforts on aquatic habitats and less so, if at all, on terrestrial habitat. As such, species with fully terrestrial life histories are less likely to be translocated, while those using aquatic habitats during parts of their life cycle are more likely to be affected. In our review, Western toads and Long-toed salamanders in their early life stages were the most frequently translocated species, likely due to their broad geographic distributions, life history traits, and the overlap of these factors with the timing and location of development projects. Western toads are widely distributed across BC and breed communally in aquatic habitats, where they lay large clutches of approximately 12,000â16,000 eggs (BC Ministry of Environment, 2015). Their larval stage persists in wetted areas throughout spring and summer, followed by synchronized migrations of metamorphosed juveniles into adjacent forests (BC Ministry of Environment, 2015). As a result, these early life stages are highly detectable during peak translocation periods, contributing to their overrepresentation in our review. Another highly translocated species, Long-toed salamanders, is also broadly distributed and among the earliest amphibians to breed each year, often arriving at breeding sites shortly after snowmelt (Graham & Powell, 1999). Projects that begin soon after winter, particularly before peak freshet, are more likely to 40 encounter eggs and larvae of this species. In contrast, once both Western toads and Long-toed salamanders transition to terrestrial habitats following breeding and metamorphosis, they become significantly less detectable. Juvenile and adult Western toads no longer congregate communally in wetted areas, and Long-toed salamanders become fossorial (Graham & Powell, 1999; Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2016), reducing the likelihood of encountering and translocating individuals at later life stages. Amphibians that were less frequently translocated in our review typically exhibit restricted geographic ranges, are less detectable during summer and fall peak translocation periods and those listed as Endangered or Threatened, due to small population sizes. Examples include the Wandering salamander (Aneides vagrans), and Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa). The Wandering salamander, which is listed as Special Concern, is entirely terrestrial, lays less than 30 eggs in rotting wood and occurs mainly in the West Coast region (SARA, 2018). The Oregon spotted frog, listed as Endangered, occurs only in the South Coast region and has a population of less than 400 individuals (SARA, 2003). These factors contribute to both species being less detectable and infrequently translocated. Reptiles are generally translocated less frequently than amphibians because they are completely terrestrial, often occurring in areas where fewer development projects take place. Additionally, many reptile species have restricted geographic ranges and are often assumed to be capable of avoiding construction areas without human intervention. Therefore, reptile encounters during project development are more likely to involve Western terrestrial or Common gartersnakes, as seen in our review, which are the only reptiles broadly distributed across the province, or when a den or hibernacula are unearthed, where reptiles congregate communally and are not actively moving, increasing the likelihood of translocation. The number of projects, individuals translocated and reasoning for carrying out translocations (i.e., project type), varied substantially across regions in BC, reflecting differences in habitat availability, 41 development intensity, and the types of projects undertaken. For example, the South Coast is where most of BCâs population resides (Environmental Reporting BC, 2018) and accounts for 28% of all translocations. However, the limited availability of suitable amphibian and reptile habitat in this highly urbanized region likely contributes to the relatively low numbers of individuals detected during pre-construction surveys, despite the high diversity and intensity of development projects. In contrast, Northern and Interior regions such as Skeena and Omineca tend to have greater habitat availability, which contributes to the relocation of larger numbers of individuals. Although these regions have fewer permits overall, translocations there are often associated with linear development projects that cover large geographic areas, intersect multiple habitats, and consequently involve moving disproportionately high numbers of individuals. Linear development projects, which include the installation and maintenance of oil and gas pipelines, demand extensive mitigation efforts as it requires building structures that cover long distances, involve clearing and grading large areas of vegetation and soil and, are often difficult or costly to reposition around important ecosystems (Richardson et al., 2017). This could potentially explain why linear development accounts for 31% of all translocations in our review and the relocation of 4,633,338 individuals across nearly all speciesâthe largest share of any project type (Figure B2, B3: Appendix B). Specifically, this category includes large-scale, multi-year oil and gas initiatives such as the Trans Mountain pipeline (Trans Mountain, 2019), Coastal Gas Link, and Liquid Natural Gas terminals, which were ongoing projects during this study. The province also has extensive water management infrastructure as a result of urbanization, forestry, mining and agricultural development causing land use changes and significant degradation of natural landscapes, especially in densely populated areas of BC (Boyle, 1997; Loë, 2000). This, combined with the natural tendency of some areas to flood, has necessitated the widespread installation of water management systems such as culverts, floodgates, and drainage infrastructure (i.e., water infrastructure project types). For example, in the South Coast region (i.e., Lower Fraser), approximately 800 road 42 culverts are currently in operation (Finn et al., 2021). The ongoing need to install and maintain these systems explains why water infrastructure projects account for 21% of all translocations and will likely continue to represent a substantial proportion of translocations in the future. However, because construction is typically localized and in degraded habitats, these projects result in relatively few herpetofauna being translocated. Although relatively few mining projects occurred, they resulted in the translocation of a large number of individuals. Permits issued for mining operations during our review primarily involved the management of waterbodies (e.g., infilling ponds, maintenance of sedimentation ponds). Given the extensive spatial footprint of mining operations in BCâapproximately 10.9 million hectares across the province (Fair Mining Collaborative, 2023)âthese waterbodies serve as key habitat for herpetofauna in otherwise disturbed or barren landscapes. The extensive scale of mining operations, combined with dredging and infilling waterbodies acting as necessary habitat, for species such as the Western toads, contributes to mining being the project type that translocated the second highest number of individuals. Less represented project types could be a result of no projects taking place during the timeframe of our review or the presence of other measures that reduce the need for translocation. For example, there were no forestry projects that translocated herpetofauna, despite forestry being a major industry in BC (Holmes, 2010). A lack of forestry permits is likely the result of legal habitat protections afforded to several (n=11) herpetofauna species within the province and their identified habitat (e.g., through establishment of Wildlife Habitat Areas) â measures can restrict harvest and road building activities in these areas and only apply when legally established. In addition, regulatory obligations under the Forest Planning and Practices Regulation require the creation of buffer zones around aquatic habitats (Forest Planning and Practices Regulation, 2004). Furthermore, the disturbance caused by forestry equipment is assumed to encourage most herpetofauna to move off-site, reducing the need to translocate individuals. However, it is unclear whether the absence of translocation reflects successful avoidance, unobserved 43 mortality, or other ecological impacts. Future reviews of translocations in the province may warrant further investigation into underrepresented project types such as this. Mitigation translocation has been met with limited support globally because of its significant association with failure, lack of evidence-based best management practices and the need for species-specific knowledge, long-term monitoring and careful selection of release sites after threats are removed (Armstrong & Seddon, 2008; IUCN, 2013; Miller et al., 2014; Germano et al., 2015; Winand et al., unpublished). Currently, these critical elements are largely lacking within the province. The current Best Management Practices for Amphibian and Reptile Salvage in British Columbia (2016) only offers high-level guidelines surrounding the general capture, handling and release of all herpetofauna, and species-specific translocation knowledge is limited to a single post-translocation monitoring report. Of which, the report documents the translocation outcome for the Sea-to-Sky Highway project, the pivotal case that started mitigation translocation in the province, reporting an estimated 73â92% population reduction in the 683 Northern red-legged frogs translocated from the impacted wetland (Malt, 2011). Since then, there have been no publicly available monitoring reports in BC because monitoring is not a legal requirement of the permitting process. Permits only require reports to include the number and life stages of individuals translocated, with no obligation to provide release sites details or monitor outcomes. With the above limitations, we cannot accurately assess mitigation translocation outcomes. This review is limited to a four-year period when translocation information was systematically tracked; because of this, we are unable to speak of translocation trends prior to this time. Within our review period, the content of material is limited by omissions due to confidentiality constraints, filing errors, and data inconsistencies within available reports. Even when permit reports were available, missing or incomplete informationâsuch as species or life stageâhindered detailed analyses. Additionally, release site coordinates are not currently required for reporting, which limits the ability to assess site-specific outcomes or manage future risks such as the spread of diseases. Lastly, for multi-year projects in conjunction with a lack of monitoring, we are unable to differentiate between herpetofauna 44 individuals who have returned to the construction site and new non-translocated herpetofauna. This is problematic because herpetofauna often attempt to return to their original capture locations post-translocation (Hinderle et al., 2015; Marchand et al., 2017; Nash & Griffiths, 2018; Gould et al., 2023; Otten et al., 2023), potentially inflating translocation totals in our review. These challenges underscore the need for improved, standardized reporting to support future research and protocol development. 3.5 Conclusion Our review provides valuable insights for decision-makers overseeing the mitigation translocation of herpetofauna. Regulatory guidelines should strongly advocate for avoidance as the first and most effective mitigation measure, as outlined in BCâs Environmental Mitigation and Offsetting Policy (2014). When avoidance is not feasible, translocation should be guided by research on habitat suitability, species-specific behaviour, and ecological context, which underscores the need to invest in both developing practical avoidance strategies and supporting research to understand translocation outcomes. Currently, many factors impede the adaptive improvement of translocation efforts when such mitigation becomes necessary. First, monitoring should be a required component of the permitting process, including post-translocation monitoring to assess mitigation success, evaluate residual impacts, and inform any necessary offsets. Additionally, assessing potential release sites prior to translocation is crucial for understanding habitat suitability and enhancing outcomes. Second, release sites should be evaluated for suitability, and coordinates should be required in the current permit reporting. Release site data alone would allow for follow-up and evaluation of translocation success in terms of distance moved and habitat suitability at the recipient site. Third, enforcing standardized and complete data collection would improve consistency across reporting and support long-term analyses. Ultimately, the scale of mitigation and translocation in BC is substantial; therefore, we must enhance our understanding of outcomes and best practices if we are to effectively mitigate harm to herpetofauna. 45 Chapter Four: Mitigation Translocation of the Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris) in British Columbia, Canada: An Experimental Translocation Using Short and Long-Distance Release Sites 4.1 Introduction Mitigation translocation is a strategy used to mitigate harm to herpetofauna, amphibians and reptiles, by moving animals from an area that will be altered or destroyed due to anthropogenic causes to an alternative site (Linhoff et al., 2021). Used on a global scale, mitigation translocation has become a legislated requirement in many countries, despite a lack of support for its usage from the scientific community (Germano et al., 2015). Over the last decade, research has shown that this practice can heighten disease risk, reduce individual fitness, increase movement rates, disrupt ecological and social structures, is ineffective in keeping animals out of the original habitat, and is significantly associated with failed outcomes (Teixeira et al., 2007; Dickens et al., 2010; Sullivan et al., 2015; Bradley et al., 2020; Winand et al., 2025a). Yet, it is still used as a widespread tool to mitigate harm and continues to gain public favor as a more ethical alternative to other methods (Massei et al., 2010). Canada is one of many countries employing mitigation translocation, particularly in the province of British Columbia (BC). The first translocation of herpetofauna for mitigation purposes in BC occurred during highway preparation for the 2010 winter Olympics in Whistler, BC, when public pressure to protect a federally listed amphibian (SARA, 2002) from a wetland slated for destruction, prompted a solution (Malt, 2011; Winand et al., 2025b). Since then, mitigation translocation which is often referred to as âsalvagingâ, has been adopted as a standard practice regulated under the BC Wildlife Act (1996) and is recognized as a minimization tool under the provincial environmental mitigation hierarchy (Government of British Columbia, 2014). The environmental mitigation hierarchy provides guidance in managing environmental impacts during development which encourages âavoidingâ the habitat alteration first, but as a second option, invoking mitigation translocation. However, a recent review of mitigation translocations in BC found an increasing reliance on translocations and reported approximately 5.1 million herpetofauna were translocated for mitigation purposes over a four-year period (Winand et al., 2025b). 46 Despite the large scale use of translocations in BC, we do not know the effectiveness of mitigation translocation for herpetofauna survival. Currently, the only guidelines in the province are the Best Management Practices of Amphibian and Reptile Salvage (BMP; 2016) which include general instructions for the capture, handling and release of herpetofauna such as releasing animals into sites that are of equal or better habitat value relative to capture sites, based on life history requirements. No species-specific instructions for habitat selection or translocation distance are provided. Additionally, there are no known or publicly available monitoring reports because monitoring is not a legal requirement of the translocation process therefore, translocation outcomes and methods for improvement are not available. To address one of these gaps, we conducted an experiment to better understand how mitigation translocation impacts a native amphibian, the Columbia spotted frog (CSF; Rana luteiventris) which is not considered at risk federally (SARA, 2002). Commonly found throughout BC, CSF are primarily aquatic (B.C. CDC, 2004) and were identified as one of the top five translocated species (Winand et al. 2025b). As such, they were chosen as the candidate species for this experiment. We assessed translocation effectiveness by determining post-translocation survival, body condition using individual scaled mass index (SMIi) and movement patterns from their capture location. Additionally, we collected habitat data from select animals to determine how attributes of release sites may contribute to the translocation outcome. We hypothesized post-translocation survival of CSF would be dependent on translocation distances, whereas habitat at release sites would not strongly influence short-term survival. We predicted this outcome because CSF can thrive in a variety of ecosystems (BC Ministry of Environment, 2016) and many ranid species exhibit strong site fidelity or homing behaviour (Matthews & Preisler, 2010), which would prompt CSF to return to their original capture location. We expected CSF that moved short distances (â¤1 km) would return to their original capture location, slightly increasing their movement rates and potentially decreasing survival, whereas CSF that moved long distances (>5 km) would exhibit strong desire to return to release sites decreasing their overall body 47 condition, as they use more energy reserves to travel, and survival, as they increase exposure to predation. 4.2 Methods 4.2.1 Site Selection We selected two wetlands in the southeast region of the province near Cranbrook, BC, on the traditional territory of the Ktunaxa and Secwepemc peoples for our experiment (Figure 4.13). Both wetlands are classified under British Columbiaâs Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (BEC) system as part of the Very DryâVery Hot Interior Douglas-fir biogeoclimatic subzone (IDFxx2; Meidinger & Pojar, 1991), which is characterized by arid conditions and pronounced fluctuations in vegetation and water levels driven by variable snowmelt and precipitation. Land use around the wetlands includes timber harvesting, cattle grazing, and irrigation and the lands are publicly used for hunting, ATV use, horseback riding, and birdwatching. The first wetland, âMayookâ, served as both the control site and the release location for the short-distance treatment, with translocation distances â¤1 km. Mayook is a 29.5-hectare wetland part of the Kootenay River Floodplain (Figure 4.1) and has been managed by Ducks Unlimited Canada since the 1970s and currently supports waterfowl, marsh birds, Western painted turtles (Chrysemys picta bellii; Intermountain - Rocky Mountain population), Long-toed salamanders (Ambystoma macrodactylum) and CSF (LGL Technical Report, 2021). Mayook was selected as the control site because it supported a large CSF population. Mayook was also selected as the short-distance translocation treatment due to a lack of habitat availability in the immediate surrounding areas and to emulate projects that may capture and relocated animals within the project area (BC Best Management Practices, 2016). The second wetland, âUnnamed wetlandâ, is located 5 km away from Mayook and was used for our long-distance treatment (Figure 4.1) which emulates projects where animals are relocated outside of the project area (BC Best Management Practices, 2016). The Unnamed wetland was accidentally created around 30 years ago when a farmer pumped water from a nearby water body into the area and the wetland 48 has maintained adequate water levels and marsh vegetation since. We selected the Unnamed wetland because it was the next closest wetland to Mayook that possessed similar habitat features as recommended by the BC Best Management Practices (2016). An initial survey indicated the presence of waterfowl, marsh birds, Western painted turtles, Long-toed salamanders, and Western toads (Anaxyrus boreas), although we could not confirm the presence of CSF before this experiment. Figure 4.13. Map of study sites for Columbia spotted frog translocations near Cranbrook, British Columbia. All frogs were captured at Mayook wetland; control frogs were released at their capture location and short-distance translocation frogs were released 1 km away within Mayook. The Unnamed wetland, located 5 km from Mayook, served as the long-distance release site. The bottom left insert shows the location of both wetlands highlighted in blue. Map created in QGIS 3.36.2 (QGIS Development Team, 2023) using satellite imagery from Google Earth / Landsat-Copernicus (Google, 2023). Projection: EPSG:3005, NAD83 / BC Albers.49 4.2.2 Frog Capture and Biological Characteristics We captured and recaptured Columbia spotted frogs (CSF) using visual encounter surveys in Mayook between April-August 2023, with additional recaptures occurring in April and May 2024. Frogs were captured by hand opportunistically by scanning the edge of the wetland during the mid-day when CSF are likely to be basking (Lingo, 2013; Patla & Keinath, 2005). We recorded the weight (g), snout-to-vent length (SVL) (mm), right shank (mm) and sex of all captured frogs (Bull, 2005). Sexes were determined by size and the presence of nuptial pads (males) or gravid appearance (females), smaller frogs with neither were considered juveniles. Any captured CSF with a mass greater than 8g or with an SVL equal to or greater than 35mm were tagged with an 8mm Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tag (Biomark Mini HPT8 8mm FDX- B, Biomark, Boise, ID, USA; British Columbia Oregon Spotted Frog Recovery Team, 2016) and deliberately translocated to one of our treatments: control (no translocation), shortâdistance translocation (1 km, SD), or longâdistance translocation (5 km, LD). For all recaptured CSF, we recorded the PIT tag number, location using a Global Positioning System (GPS) and remeasured the weight, SVL and right shank. Body condition often correlates with survival and reproduction (Jackob et al., 1996) therefore, we evaluated individual condition both pre- and post- treatment using following formula (Peig & Green, 2009): ððð¼ð = ðð â (ððð¿Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì ððð¿ð)ðððð´ where ðð and ððð¿ð are the mass and snoutâvent length of individual ð, ððð¿Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì is the population mean snout-to-vent length, and ðððð´ is the scaling exponent. The last known mass and snout-vent length was recorded for each frog as the post-treatment body condition. Differences in body condition (SMIi) before and after translocation were assessed within each treatment using paired t-tests. 4.2.3 Model Selection and Apparent Survival We used CormackâJollyâSeber (CJS) models for open populations (Cormack 1964, Jolly 1965, Seber 1965) to estimate the monthly apparent survival (Φ) and recapture probabilities (Ï) of all PIT 50 tagged CSF. Apparent survival was not estimated by year, as 2024 sample sizes were insufficient for year-specific analysis. The CJS model determines the probabilities of death or emigration (termed apparent survival), and the probability of detecting a surviving individual between each month (White & Burnham 1999). We developed a set of candidate CJS models in the Program MARK via the RMark package (Laake, 2013) to test whether apparent survival and recapture probabilities are constant, time-dependent, or dependent upon sex or treatment. We tested all additive and interactive combinations of these variables in our model set (n = 20 total models; Table C1: Appendix C). Model selection focused on sex and treatment because of known sex-specific and translocation distance differences in survivorship (Chelgren et al., 2008; Randall et al., 2018; Choquette et al., 2023). We chose the best model with the lowest Akaikeâs Information Criterion corrected for small sample sizes (AICc), with the highest weight and a relative deviation of less than two (ÎAICc < 2; Burnham & Anderson 1998). When apparent survival estimates reached the upper boundary (1.00), we applied a likelihoodâratio test (α = 0.05) to evaluate whether the estimate was significantly different from 1.00 (Burnham & Anderson, 2002). 4.2.4 Movement and Habitat Use of Tracked Frogs Translocation often causes hyper-dispersal, whereby individuals exhibit greater-than-expected movement distances or rates away from the release site, following release (Bilby & Moseby, 2024) but can be minimized if animals are released into appropriate habitats (Gustafson et al., 2016). Therefore, we equipped a subset of 11 PIT-tagged CSF in the control, 13 in the SD, and 13 in the LD treatment (n = 37 total) with radio transmitters to determine post-release movement rates and habitat use. We attached radio transmitters (Model BD-2N, Holohil Systems Ltd., Carp, Ontario, Canada) using Magic Stretch tubing and glass beads around the frogâs waist (Altobelli et al., 2022; Figure C1: Appendix C). The total mass of the transmitter and belt did not exceed 5% of the frogsâ body weight and the beltâs design allowed CSF to slip free if tangled or caught. When a transmitter could no longer be detected, we searched intensively for at least two additional days within a 500 m radius of its last known location before abandoning the search. We tracked CSF with an R-1000 handheld VHF transceiver and Yagi directional antenna by homing in on the strongest signal during tracking sessions conducted at random times during daylight 51 hours every 1â3 days throughout June and August 2023. We determined a frogâs location when it was visually observed or when its position was determined within a 1 m radius (Groff et al., 2017; Hinderer et al., 2021; Watson et al., 2009). We tracked 24 frogs for 1â3 weeks in June and 18 frogs (five of which were frogs originally captured and tracked in June) for 2â3 weeks in August. Upon locating a CSF, we centered a 50 Ã 50 cm quadrat over the frog and recorded microhabitat features that can influence CSF thermoregulation, predator avoidance, and foraging success, which can in turn impact post-release survival and movement patterns (Pilliod et al., 2002). Within each quadrat we recorded water cover (%) visually estimated to the nearest 5%, water depth (cm) beneath the frog using a 1 cm-graduated ruler, surface-water temperature (°C) using a handheld YSI ProQuatro handheld multiparameter digital water quality meter, the substrate type (mud, sand or gravel), vegetation type and percentage cover. We grouped vegetation species into plant functional types (categories) for ease of analysis (Smith et al., 1993). Categories include algae, emergent (e.g., cattail, common spike rush, horsetail), grasses (e.g., northwest territory sedge, reed canary grass), submergent (e.g., Coonstail, fennel-leaf pondweed), detritus, floating (e.g., Duckweed, floating leaf pond weed), herbaceous and woody vegetation (Table C2: Appendix C). Vegetation percentage was recorded as absolute vegetation cover; as a result, the total percentage cover for all species may exceed 100% due to overlap. At the end of tracking, re-captured CSF were measured and weighed before their transmitter was removed and the frog released. This research was carried out under UBC Animal Ethics permit, A23-0020 and BC Wildlife Act permit, CB23-791702. We calculated individual movement rates (m/day) as the linear distance between successive fixes divided by elapsed time (Sinsch, 1990), then aggregated these rates by treatment and reported the mean ± SD for each group. Microhabitat variables (e.g., percent water cover, water depth) were sampled each time a frog was tracked; we then averaged those measurements to yield one value per variable per individual and summarized those individual means by treatment. We examined differences in movement rates and habitat use among treatments using nonparametric KruskalâWallis tests, with post hoc Dunnâs tests and Bonferroni adjustments applied for pairwise comparisons when significant differences were 52 detected (Bonferroni, 1936; Dunn, 1964). All analyses were conducted using R statistical software (version 4.4.2; R Core Team, 2025), with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. 4.3 Results 4.3.1 Frog Capture and Biological Characteristics We captured and PIT tagged a total of 81 frogs in the Mayook wetland from April to August 2023. Body mass across all CSF ranged from 7.1 to 60.0 g (M = 26.5 ± 1.4 g, SD). Shank length ranged from 22.9 to 48.3 mm (M = 33.2 ± 0.6 mm, SD), and snoutâvent length (SVL) ranged from 37.0 to 78.0 mm (M = 60.4 ± 1.1 mm, SD). We assigned 37 frogs as controls (â = 14, â = 5, juvenile = 18), 24 frogs to the SD treatment (â = 2, â = 8, juvenile = 14) and 20 frogs to the LD treatment (â = 6, â = 7, juvenile = 7). We recaptured 64% (n=53) of all PIT-tagged CSF at least once from April to August 2023 or April to May 2024 (Table C3: Appendix C). We recorded the change in pre- and post-translocation treatment SMIi for 87% of recaptured PIT tagged CSF (n = 46/53). Although CSF in the LD treatment showed a slight average increase in SMIi (M = 3.0 ± 7.27, SD) compared to the control (M = -0.05 ± 4.06, SD) and SD treatment (M = -0.34 ± 2.71, SD), pre- and post-translocation SMIi was not significantly different between treatments, t (45) = -0.90, p = .375 (Figure 4.14). 53 Figure 4.14. Boxplot showing the change in SMIi for Columbia spotted frogs post- translocation for control (n = 34), short distance (n = 34) and long-distance treatments (n = 24). The center line represents the median (50th percentile), the box spans the interquartile range (25thâ75th percentiles), and the black whiskers indicate the 5th and 95th percentiles. 4.3.2 Model Selection and Apparent Survival Of our candidate models, the best model included a sex effect on overall apparent survival and a time effect on detection probability (Sex Φ, Ï(t); AICc = 223.60, Akaike weight = 0.60; Error! Reference source not found.). In the best model, apparent survival was lowest for juveniles (Φ = 0.62 ± 0.09; 95% CI [0.43â0.78]), slightly higher for males (Φ = 0.68 ± 0.12; 95% CI [0.42â0.86]), and highest for females (Φ = 1.00; 95% CI [1.00, 1.00]; Figure 4.15a). A likelihoodâratio test comparing the model with female Ï fixed at 1 versus no boundary yielded ÎD = 0 (df = 1), p = 1.00, indicating no evidence to reject the apparent survival estimate of females. Capture probabilities under the best model were dependent on time and lia reflection of capture effort and surveyors training, with the lowest detection of surviving individuals in the early spring months (May 2023; 3.41 Ã 10â»â¸ ± 7.80 Ã 10â»â¶) to a maximum of 0.57 ± 0.10 in the summer months (July 2023; Figure 4.15b). No candidate model that included treatment showed a ÎAICc < 2, indicating that treatment was not a primary predictor of survival (Figure 4.3c). 54 Table 4.4. Top ten Cormack-Jolly Seber candidate model selections based on AICc in Program MARK, where Φ = survival and Ï = detectability. Other model notations are (t)= time dependent, (.)=constant time. All models are found in Table C1: Appendix C. Model AICc ÎAICc Weights Deviance Number of Parameters Sex Φ Ï(t) 223.60 0.00 0.600 122.29 9 Time + Sex Φ Ï(.) 225.86 2.26 0.194 124.55 9 Sex + Treatment Φ Ï(t) 226.64 3.04 0.131 120.56 11 Time + Sex + Treatment Φ Ï(.) 229.78 6.19 0.027 123.70 11 Time + Sex Φ Ï(t) 230.37 6.77 0.020 116.79 14 Sex Ã Treatment Φ Ï(t) 231.45 7.86 0.012 115.29 15 Time Φ Ï(.) 233.14 9.55 0.005 136.45 7 Φ Ï(t) 233.22 9.63 0.005 136.54 7 Time + Sex + Treatment Φ Ï(t) 234.95 11.35 0.002 116.14 16 Treatment Φ Ï(t) 235.37 11.77 0.002 134.06 9 55 Figure 4.15. Apparent survival and capture probability estimates for Columbia spotted frogs. (a) Apparent survival probability (Ï) by sex (female, male, juvenile) estimated from the best CormackâJollyâSeber model (Φ(Sex), p(t)). (b) Capture probability (p) across survey months (April 2023âMay 2024) from the same model. (c) Apparent survival probability (Ï) by treatment (control, short distance, long distance) and sex from a model with additive sex and treatment effects on survival and time on recapture (Φ (Sex + Treatment), p(t)). Bars and error bars show ± SE in all graphs. 56 4.3.3 Movement and Habitat Use of Tracked Frogs Of the 37 CSF we tracked, three frogs died of natural causes, one died of unknown causes, two transmitters failed, and one frog slipped out of its belt; over half of these frogs were in the control group (n=5/7; Table C4: Appendix C). The remaining 30 frogs were tracked on average 15 ± 5 days (mean ± SD). Over the tracking period, the movement rate (m/day) of CSF in the control group averaged 13.7 ± 13.1.2 m (mean ± SD; n = 5; Figure 4.16. Figure 4.16). All CSF in the LD treatment stayed within the Unnamed wetland for the entirety of the study and had mean movement rates similar to that of the control frogs (M = 13.90 ± 8.50 m, SD; n = 13). In contrast, CSF in the SD treatment had the highest mean movement rates of 18.5 ± 17.8 m (mean ± SD; n = 12) with 33% of frogs returning to their original point of capture within the time tracked (n = 4 frogs) and one frog moving an average of 69.7 ± 86.0 m (mean ± SD). However, there was no significant difference between treatments (ÏÂ² (2) = 0.47, p = .79). A map of each frogâs movement by treatment can be found in Figure C2: Appendix C. Figure 4.16. Box plot of individual movement rates (m/day) for tracked Columbia spotted frogs in the control (n =5), short distance (n = 12) and long distance (n = 13) treatments post-translocation. Short distance frogs were moved 1km away from their original capture point and long-distance frogs were moved 5km. One outlier (>50 m/day) from the short-distance group was removed. The centre line denotes the median value (50th percentile), the box contains the 25th to 75th percentiles and the black whiskers mark the 5th and 95th percentiles. Individual points are plotted for each frog. 57 Across all treatments, CSF were almost exclusively using aquatic habitat with muddy substrates; 86% of observations (n = 456 of 531 observations) occurred in water and the remaining 14% of terrestrial sightings were located a mean distance of 3.19 ± 5.83 m (mean ± SD) from the waterâs edge. Microhabitat features used by the tracked CSF did not differ greatly between control and SD treatment at Mayook wetland; however, frogs in the LD treatment at the Unnamed wetland were found in significantly deeper water (ÏÂ²(2) = 29.70, p < 0.001), hotter surface temperatures (ÏÂ²(2) = 34.13, p < 0.001) and in vegetation with lower percent cover (ÏÂ²(2) = 37.90, p < 0.001). Mean water depth used by CSF was deepest in the LD treatment (M = 18.6 ± 10.2 cm, SD) compared to the control (12.0 ± 9.65 cm, SD; adjusted p < 0.001) and the SD treatment (M = 16.6 ± 17.6 cm, SD; adjusted p < .001). Similarly, mean surface water temperature used by CSF was highest in the LD treatment (M = 23.5 ± 4.67°C, SD), followed by the SD treatment (M = 22.0 ± 4.01°C, SD) and then control (M = 19.6 ± 4.59°C, SD; all pairwise p < 0.01). In the control and SD treatments, CSF were primarily associated with submergent vegetation, whereas individuals in the LD treatment most frequently used floating vegetation (Figure 4.17). The proportion of time spent in floating vegetation differed significantly among treatments (ÏÂ² = 12.06, p = < .01), with post hoc tests indicating greater use in the LD treatment compared to SD (adjusted p = < .01). Similarly, use of submergent vegetation also varied by treatment (ÏÂ² = 7.65, p = .02), with LD frogs using it significantly less than SD frogs (adjusted p = < .01). In contrast, the proportions of CSF using other vegetation categories, including detritus, emergent, grasses, herbaceous and woody vegetation, did not differ significantly across treatments. The mean percent cover of vegetation in the LD treatment was significantly lower than the control (Z = â4.39, adjusted p < 0.001) and SD treatment (Z = 5.63, adjusted p < 0.001). No significant difference was detected between the control and SD treatment (Z = 0.31, p = 1.00). 58 Figure 4.17. Proportion of tracked Columbia spotted frogs that used each vegetation category in the control, short distance and long-distance treatments post-translocation. Short distance frogs were moved 1km away from their original capture point and long-distance frogs were moved 5km (see Table C2). Vegetation category definitions can be found in Appendix C. 59 4.4 Discussion This is the first study in BC to examine potential impacts of mitigation translocation on CSF, a native amphibian. Our preliminary findings suggest sex of the frog was influential in apparent survival, and finding surviving individuals was dependent on time. We found that translocating to either distance did not significantly affect body condition, movement rates or survival despite notable differences in aquatic habitat features between the LD treatment at the Unnamed wetland and the control and SD treatment at Mayook wetland. While we cannot yet determine whether this translocation was successful without additional monitoring and data collection, these findings contribute to understanding the complexity of translocation and provide an important starting point for future research. We expected translocation distance (treatments) to have a larger effect on survival following translocation, regardless of sex, given recommendations by best management practices to move animalsâ short distances (BMP, 2016; Randall et al., 2018) and recent studies specifically with reptiles which highlight the difference in translocation outcome based on the distance moved (Brown et al., 2009; Choquette et al., 2023). However, translocation distance was not the primary explanatory variable in our models; sex was the driving factor, with females having the highest apparent survival of 100% and males and juveniles with the lowest apparent survival of 68% and 62%, respectively. The high female survivorship can be attributed to our sample size and timing of capture. We captured and recaptured more males and juveniles than females throughout the study (Figure C3: Appendix C) and, when females were captured and recaptured, it was closer to the end of the study. Therefore, females were handled less often, and the model could not accurately predict survival without longer monitoring (Figure C4: Appendix C). In conjunction with the small sample size, this could explain why females had the highest apparent survival of 100%. Juveniles and males, however, had similar but low apparent survival. With our study carried out immediately following the breeding season, the reduced survival rate for both juveniles and males may reflect the impact of translocation, predation and post-breeding mortality. The low apparent survival of 60 juveniles in our study could be attributed to their natural low survivorship from stress and increased predation (Denver, 1997; Werner, 1986) and for males, the costly nature of breeding on their energy reserves which can reduce overall fitness (Ryser, 1989; Chelgren et al., 2008; Reading & Jofré, 2021). Sex-specific differences in apparent survival between females, males and juveniles in our study are similar to patterns noted in other amphibian translocation studies (Nissen et al., 2023; Kraus et al., 2017). For example, Chelgren et al. (2008) conducted a mark-recapture study on a relocated population of Oregon spotted frogs (Rana pretiosa) for mitigation purposesâa close relative species to CSFâand found that apparent survival varied by sex, with the lowest apparent survival in males and females maintaining significantly higher survival. However, the lack of comparative literature restricts our ability to interpret our results, as the only BC post-translocation monitoring report (Malt, 2011) did not involve CSF or include sex-specific survival analyses, and no other CSF mitigation translocation outcomes have been publicly documented either provincially or across the speciesâ range. Our results did not show many CSF hyper dispersing post release as only 33% in the short distance treatment moved back and all CSF moved 5 km away, stayed in the Unnamed wetland. We initially predicted post-translocation movement would play a larger role in our translocation outcome in part due to all herpetofaunaâs known site fidelity behaviour to use the same habitat each year (Pechmann et al., 1991; Brown et al., 2009; Richardson, 2011; Marchand, 2017), and large dispersal rates post-translocation recorded in other studies (Marchand et al., 2017; Nash & Griffiths, 2018; Castellón et al., 2022; Gould et al., 2023; Otten et al., 2023). Site fidelity for CSF is high for breeding and overwintering habitats and lower for summer foraging sites (Pilliod et al., 2002). Our study was conducted during the summer and could explain why only 33% of our tracked frogs returned to their original capture point. If we had completed our study during the breeding season or just before overwintering, we may have seen different results. However, we expected CSF in the LD treatment would at least attempt to return to their original wetland or venture into the two nearby wetlands during the study. Yet, all stayed in the Unnamed wetland. While CSF typically stay within 500 m of their aquatic summer-foraging habitat (B.C. CDC, 2004), there 61 are records of spotted frogs moving 1 to 6.5 km in one year or more and across steep slopes between breeding, summer and overwintering sites (Reaser, 1996; Engle, 2001; Pilliod, 2002; Funk et al., 2005). Therefore, it is not unlikely that CSF moved 5 km away would be unable to return to the original wetland. Habitat selection plays a vital role in the survival, growth, and reproduction of relocated individuals (Griffith et al., 1989; Miller et al., 2014; Bubac et al., 2019; Cayuela et al., 2019; Parker & Fitzgerald, 2024). Several habitat-related factors may therefore explain why treatment did not have a greater effect on survival. Mayook was used for the control and SD treatment therefore, habitat is unlikely to have been influential in movement or survival in this scenario because habitat features and use between these treatments were similar. While we chose the Unnamed wetland because it is similar to Mayook, it still differed in some microhabitat features (e.g., water depth and temperature). However, CSF are adaptable and can thrive in various ecosystems, including wetlands, forests, grasslands, sagebrush areas, and even alpine tundra (BC Ministry of Environment, 2016); therefore, differences in water temperature, depth and cover may not have impacted their ability to survive in the Unnamed wetland. Additionally, because we did not observe CSF utilizing the Unnamed wetland prior to the translocation, the new habitat may have offered reduced conspecific competition and increased food availability compared to Mayook, encouraging CSF to stay in the wetland. Returning to Mayook would also require CSF to venture over a large amount of solely terrestrial habitat as the landscape in which our experiment took place lacks suitable 'stepping-stone' habitat between wetlands (Saura et al., 2014). This presents a challenge for a species that typically stays close to or within water (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2015). However, definitive conclusions remain challenging without longer-term monitoring and larger sample size. At the end of our May 2024 recapture events, we found only one gravid female in the Unnamed Wetland. She was captured after breeding at Mayook had concluded and tadpoles had already emerged. This suggests that although the LD treatment habitat may have supported summer foraging and possibly overwintering, at least for the one female frog we found, it may have lacked suitable breeding and overwintering sites for 62 most translocated individuals, particularly males, which may explain why the female remained gravid even after breeding at Mayook had concluded. We did not detect a significant change in body condition following translocation to either treatment, potentially due to limited movement rates post-release. Since we anticipated extensive post-translocation movements in CSF, we initially expected body condition to decline across all treatments. Instead, control and SD frogs remained fairly similar in their body conditions and frogs in the LD treatment experienced a slight increase post-translocation. The increase in body condition at the LD treatment may reflect the reduced competition and greater food availability as no CSF were known to occupy the Unnamed wetland prior to our study and the additional weight of the one gravid female. However, increases in body condition during the first-year post-translocation have been reported in other amphibian studies (Bell et al., 2010; Bodinof et al., 2012) and body mass can fluctuate markedly over short intervals (Tarszisz et al., 2014). 4.5 Study Limitation and Next Steps We were limited in our ability to draw conclusions due to an overall small sample size, limited recapture occasions, and the conditions under which the translocation took place. Due to the small sample size and issues with transmitters and predation, we were unable to further analyze how sex and treatment played a role in survival, movement or body condition post-translocation. Amphibians are also cryptic and ectothermic making them difficult to find within a short period of time and, populations can fluctuate year to year (Pilliod et al., 2022) therefore, surveying for one full season does not provide a reliable estimate of the true apparent survival post-translocation. Lastly, this experiment was completed as a hypothetical mitigation translocation, no construction was taking place at the time of release. Therefore, these results do not account for how frogs may change their behaviour if the original habitat was altered, destroyed or under active construction. This study highlights the need for more research into the effectiveness of mitigation translocation and how species, sex and translocation distance influence outcomes. Research may consider including more 63 sites, more animals, a better balance in numbers and demography among treatments and monitoring using Before vs After translocation (BACI). In addition, we need baseline survival and movement rates for amphibian populations in unmanipulated habitats, because without that information it is difficult to separate the effects of translocation from natural mortality, seasonal shifts in habitat use and environmental variation. Specifically for our experiment, we require larger sample sizes and longer-term monitoring to capture delayed mortality, demographic trends and habitat use beyond the first-year post-release. In addition, we need to investigate more deeply how varying translocation distances affect the success of relocations, and how habitat conditions can improve survival and movement outcomes. Lastly, given the pronounced sex-specific survival patterns we observed, targeted studies on male, female and juvenile responses are essential. Addressing these gaps will strengthen best management practices and improve conservation outcomes for CSF and other native amphibians. 4.6 Management Implications In our study, sex emerged as the most influential factor determining apparent survival with males and juveniles exhibiting lower rates (62â68 %) than females and translocation distance having limited influence on body condition and movement. Although our sample size and monitoring duration constrain broad inference, these results suggest that management protocols need to develop species- and life-stage-specific translocation protocols that account for sex differences in survival, establish clear guidelines for appropriate release distances, define habitat selection criteria that promote long-term persistence of both translocated and resident populations and include long-term monitoring. Given the widespread use of mitigation translocation in BC and the current lack of efficacy data, prioritizing targeted research to fill these gaps is essential for refining best management practices and ensuring the conservation success of herpetofauna in the province. 64 Chapter Five: Conclusions and Management Considerations 5.1 Thesis Summary The successful translocation of herpetofauna is complex. When we assessed translocation success on a global scale from 313 case studies published between 2007 and 2023 in our first chapter, we saw similar results noted in past literature reviews (Dodd & Seigel, 1991, Germano & Bishop, 2009). Our results showed most published efforts were conservation-driven and were primarily focused on the recovery of reptiles. However, the success of conservation-related studies had declined to 19% from 41% in Germano & Bishopâs (2009) review. Likely from a variety of factors surrounding not only the difficulty of translocation but the newly adapted rigours definition of success, increase in publishing efforts towards non-successful translocations and the sheer number of translocations evaluated in our review compared to past reviews. Mitigation translocation, however, only saw a 6% success rate and stressed the need to improve how we approach mitigation translocations or move away from the tactic all together. In the second chapter we focused on BC and the extent to which mitigation translocations are used in the province. Our review of translocations confirmed the provinceâs reliance of mitigation translocation and noted the 5,134,254 individuals translocated from 2019 to 2022âmost of which were larval Western toads from linear development projects such as oil and gas. However, understanding the effectiveness of mitigation translocation in BC is unknown. Therefore, in chapter three we set out to evaluate post-translocation survival, body condition, and movement rates of Columbia spotted frogs relocated 1 km and 5 km from their capture locations. While we were able to identify potential differences in survival based on sex, we could not determine whether the distance of translocation impacted the outcomes noting that the time of year during translocation and the habitat at the release site could have influenced our results. Nevertheless, these findings emphasize the limited information available about herpetofauna in BC and particularly their responses to translocation, serving as a promising starting point for future research. 65 5.2 Suitability of Herpetofauna for Translocation One of the main questions that started this thesis is whether herpetofauna are truly suitable for translocation. At a crucial time when climate change is causing increasingly intense wildfires, floods, and severe weather events (IPCC, 2022), exacerbating issues with herpetofauna survival, we should strive to understand and assist in how animals move across landscapes. However, after reviewing the current global status of translocations in chapter one, I would argue translocations, specifically conservation translocations, should only be considered when no other option is feasible. Our review shows how conservation translocations can be effective with the appropriate research and steps taken prior to translocation which include removing threats at the release site (e.g., removal of invasive species or improvement of habitat for breeding or overwintering requirements), understanding species-specific needs prior to and during release and monitoring long enough to be able to adapt and address necessary changes to work towards a successful translocation. Each of these necessary steps taking years of research, monitoring and financial support to complete. Thus, while there is support for the use of conservation translocation as a last resort option, this same thought is not applicable to mitigation translocation for herpetofauna. The scientific community has urged caution against the use of mitigation translocation for over a decade (Sullivan et al., 2014; Germano et al., 2015; Bradley et al., 2022), and our review only solidifies this position. The limited research and monitoring invested into mitigation translocations, and the frequent failure of these projects, suggest that threats at release sites may not always be adequately addressed and species-specific needs may be overlooked. This points to an urgent need to either invest in research and apply the same standards used in conservation translocations, or shift investments into habitat protection, restoration, and alternatives to mitigation translocation. In BC, prior to the review presented in chapter two, it was well known amongst consultants and government staff that mitigation translocation was occurring across the province; however, the sheer scale for our four-year review, involving over 5.1 million native herpetofauna, was not. With a new understanding of how many individuals can be translocated within a relatively short period of time, and with Canada entering a new phase of economic expansion, the province faces a critical choice: invest in 66 research to implement rigorous, evidence-based relocation protocols, or reallocate resources toward habitat protection, restoration, and non-translocation alternatives. 5.3 Should Mitigation Translocation Continue in British Columbia, Canada? If the province decides to keep mitigation translocation as a mitigation tactic, translocations need to be monitored and adequate investments need to be made into understanding species and life stage requirements, impacts of long and short distance relocations, the suitability and availability of habitat for relocations and, how translocations can impact population dynamics and the transmission of diseases within release sites. Reporting standards ought to include release site coordinates alongside the number of individuals and life stage, and, at a minimum, require all large-scale developments, particularly those for linear developments (oil and gas pipelines), to monitor translocation outcomes to assist in building a dataset. Addressing the identified knowledge gaps will take time; however, prioritizing species-specific data for herpetofauna over other knowledge gaps is crucial. Currently, BC has limited knowledge of its herpetofauna regardless of the species status (SARA, 2002; i.e., Not at Risk, Special Concern, Threatened, Endangered). The push for species-specific knowledge stems from the challenges presented in my third chapter. In this chapter, we attempted to understand how mitigation translocation affects a native amphibian, Columbia spotted frog, but encountered challenges with interpreting some of the results, as assessing its effectiveness requires a broader understanding of the species along with a larger sample size (e.g., typical movement within their habitat, habitat quality thresholds, and survival between life stages and sexes) which is currently unavailable. Therefore, without a broader understanding of the species themselves, understanding translocation outcomes will be difficult to interpret. Resources for species recovery in British Columbia are limited, particularly for non-charismatic groups like herpetofauna. Conducting the research needed to fill critical knowledge gaps therefore requires increased financial support, which is currently lacking. For instance, funding for the recovery of 'Canada's most endangered frog,' Oregon spotted frog (OSF), has been minimalâapproximately $1.2 67 million has been invested over the past two decades (personal communication, B. Hunter, OSF Coordinator, June 6, 2024). The lack of funding means only essential steps are taken to maintain the population, and research into the species itself, including its movement and habitat requirements, is minimal. The limited funding for OSF is one case amongst many managing at-risk herpetofauna in BC. In contrast, federal and provincial governments invest substantial resourcesâamounting to hundreds of millions of dollarsâinto species such as salmonids and charismatic megafauna (DFO, 2023; Province of BC, 2023). Given the ecological overlap of habitats shared by herpetofauna, salmonids, and mammals in both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, it would be beneficial for restoration initiatives to adopt a multi-species approach (Kehoe et al. 2020). If the province continues using mitigation translocation, I recommend finding ways to improve research initiatives through multi-species funding and encourage decision makers to require, at a minimum, large development projects to monitor outcomes of translocation impacts. Otherwise, we need to find ways to avoid translocation. 5.4 Moving Away from Translocation If the option to continue translocations with proper research and financial support is not feasible, we need to find alternatives. Alternatives can include prioritizing habitat protection, restoration, and exploring ways to avoid translocation altogether. Habitat loss is the main issue driving the need for translocations and must be addressed to reduce or prevent them. Mitigation translocation is used to mitigate harm when habitat is lost due to human activities. However, habitat loss continues to be one of the primary factors contributing to the decline of herpetofauna populations worldwide (IUCN, 2021). Consequently, conservation translocation is often implemented after a habitat has been lost to aid in the recovery of species. Regardless of the translocation strategy used, addressing the root causeâhabitat lossâremains crucial. However, how we combat habitat loss, is its own battle and one experienced by all those working in environmental sectors. Detailed management of habitat loss lies beyond the scope of my thesis, but numerous publications offer strategies to address it and restoration approaches after habitat is lost. For example, Williams et al. (2021) examine 68 proactive measures to prevent habitat loss from agricultural expansion; Levings (2020) reviews compensation and mitigation techniques for habitat in estuaries; Carlson et al. (2019) apply land-use simulation to optimize protected-area selection; and Tozer et al. (2018) present multi-species frameworks for wetland management and restoration that benefit amphibian communities Alternatives to mitigation translocation are beginning to be explored and have the potential to deliver improved outcomes for wildlife. These alternatives include creating new habitats and facilitating natural colonization by wildlife, thereby avoiding direct translocation interventions (Pechmann et al., 2001; Herbert et al., 2023) or employing structures such as fencing to direct animals safely away from construction areas (Laskin et al., 2020). These approaches aim to minimize human intervention and mitigate the inherent risks associated with translocation efforts. These alternatives are only a starting point but globally, as those push away from mitigation translocations, more innovative approaches are likely to arise. 69 Bibliography Armstrong, D. P., & Seddon, P. J. (2008). Directions in reintroduction biology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(1), 20â25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.10.003 Allen, C., Gonzales, R., & Parrott, L. (2020). Modelling the contribution of ephemeral wetlands to landscape connectivity. Ecological Modelling, 419, 108944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.108944 Altobelli, J. T., Dickinson, K. J., Godfrey, S. S., & Bishop, P. J. (2022). Methods in amphibian biotelemetry: Two decades in review. Austral Ecology, 47(7), 1382â1395. Armstrong, D. P., & Reynolds, J. D. (2012). Evaluating postârelease stress responses in reptiles: Implications for translocation success. Journal of Wildlife Management, 76(3), 539â548. Armstrong, D. P., & Seddon, P. J. (2008). Directions in reintroduction biology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(1), 20â25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.10.003 Armstrong, D., & Seddon, P. (2008). Directions in reintroduction biology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(1), 20â25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.10.003 B.C. Conservation Data Centre (CDC). (2004). Species summary: Rana luteiventris [Online database]. B.C. Ministry of Environment. Retrieved April 28, 2025, from https://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/speciesSummary.do?id=18779 Becker, C. G., Fonseca, C. R., Haddad, C. F. B., Batista, R. F., & Prado, P. I. (2007). Habitat Split and the Global Decline of Amphibians. Science, 318(5857), 1775â1777. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1149374 Bell, B. D., Bishop, P. J., Germano, J. M., & Wellington, P. O. (2010). Lessons learned from a series of translocations of the archaic Hamiltonâs frog and Maud Island frog in central New Zealand. 70 GLOBAL RE-INTRODUCTION PERSPECTIVES: Additional case-studies from around the globe, 81. Bell, D. M., Smith, R. J., & Turner, P. A. (2010). Postârelease survival and recapture rates in translocated reptiles: Implications for conservation. Herpetological Conservation and Biology, 5(1), 34â45. Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289â300. Bellis, J., Bourke, D., Williams, C., & Dalrymple, S. (2019). Identifying factors associated with the success and failure of terrestrial insect translocations. Biological Conservation, 236, 29-36. BergerâTal, O., Blumstein, D. T., & Swaisgood, R. R. (2020). Conservation translocations: A review of common difficulties and promising directions. Animal Conservation, 23(2), 121â131. Bilby, J., & Moseby, K. (2024). Review of hyperdispersal in wildlife translocations. Conservation Biology, 38(1), e14083. Bodinof, C. M., Briggler, J. T., Junge, R. E., Mong, T., Beringer, J., Wanner, M. D., ... & Millspaugh, J. J. (2012). Survival and body condition of captive-reared juvenile Ozark hellbenders (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis bishopi) following translocation to the wild. Copeia, 2012(1), 150-159. Boivin, N., Crassard, R., & Petraglia, M. (2017). Human Dispersal and Species Movement: From Prehistory to the Present. Cambridge University Press. Bonferroni, C. (1936). Teoria statistica delle classi e calcolo delle probabilità . Pubblicazioni del R Istituto Superiore di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali di Firenze, 8, 3â62. Bonferroni, C. E. (1936). Teoria statistica delle classi e calcolo delle probabilità . Pubblicazioni del R Istituto Superiore di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali di Firenze. 71 Boyer, D. A., & Brown, D. E. (1988). A survey of translocation of mammals in the United States, 1985. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference, 13, 265â272. Boyle, C. A., Lavkulich, L., Schreier, H., & Kiss, E. (1997). Changes in land cover and subsequent effects on Lower Fraser Basin ecosystems from 1827 to 1990. Environmental Management, 21(2), 185-196. Bradley, H. S., Tomlinson, S., Craig, M. D., Cross, A. T., & Bateman, P. W. (2022). Mitigation translocation as a management tool. Conservation Biology, 36(1), e13667. Bradley, H. S., Tomlinson, S., Craig, M. D., Cross, A. T., & Bateman, P. W. (2022). Mitigation translocation as a management tool. Conservation Biology, 36(1), e13667. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13667 Bradley, K., Germano, J., Bishop, P. J., & Bell, B. D. (2022). A review of amphibian and reptile translocations: 50 years of global trends and challenges. Conservation Biology, 36(2), e13850. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13850 British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. (2019). Reduced risk work windows for fish and wildlife: Lower Mainland region. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/air-land-water/water/working-around-water/work_windows_low_main.pdf British Columbia Ministry of Environment. (2015). Management plan for the Western Toad (Anaxyrus boreas) in British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Environment. https://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/westerntoad.pdf British Columbia Oregon Spotted Frog Recovery Team. (2016, July). Frog handling protocols: BCOSFRT protocols (version 1.0). Prepared by Balance Ecological. Fraser Valley Conservancy. 72 https://fraservalleyconservancy.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/BCOSFRT-Frog-Processing-v1.0-Jul-2016_web.pdf Brown, J. R., Bishop, C. A., & Brooks, R. J. (2009). Effectiveness of shortâdistance translocation and its effects on western rattlesnakes. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 73(3), 419â425. Bubac, C. M., Johnson, A. C., Fox, J. A., & Cullingham, C. I. (2019). Conservation translocations and post-release monitoring: Identifying trends in failures, biases, and challenges from around the world. Biological Conservation, 238, 108239. Bull, E. L. (2005). Ecology of the Columbia spotted frog in northeastern Oregon (Vol. 640). US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach (2nd ed.). Springer. Canadian Council on Animal Care. (2004a). CCAC guidelines on: Amphibians. https://ccac.ca/Documents/Standards/Guidelines/CCAC_Guidelines-Amphibians.pdf Canadian Council on Animal Care. (2004b). CCAC guidelines on: Reptiles. https://ccac.ca/Documents/Standards/Guidelines/Vol2/reptiles.pdf Carlson, M., Browne, D., & Callaghan, C. (2019). Application of land-use simulation to protected area selection for efficient avoidance of biodiversity loss in Canadaâs western boreal region. Land use policy, 82, 821-831. Castellón, T. D., Deyle, A. C., Farmer, A. L., Bauder, J. M., Roznik, E. A., & Johnson, S. A. (2022). Effects of translocation on gopher frog survival and movement. Herpetologica, 78(3), 161â168. Cayuela, H., Gillet, L., Laudelout, A., Besnard, A., Bonnaire, E., Pichenot, J., â¦ & Joly, P. (2019). Survival cost to relocation does not reduce population self-sustainability in an amphibian. Ecological Applications, 29(4). 73 Chelgren, N. D., Pearl, C. A., Adams, M. J., & Bowerman, J. (2008). Demography and movement in a relocated population of Oregon spotted frogs (Rana pretiosa): Influence of season and gender. Copeia, 2008(4), 742â751. Choquette, J. D., Litzgus, J. D., Gui, J. X. Y., & Pitcher, T. E. (2023). A systematic review of snake translocations to identify potential tactics for reducing postrelease effects. Conservation Biology, 37(1), e14016. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14016 Coristine, L. E., & Kerr, J. T. (2011). Habitat loss, climate change, and emerging conservation challenges in Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 89(5), 435â451. Cormack, R. M. (1964). Estimates of survival from the sighting of marked animals. Biometrika, 51, 429â438. Cushman, S. A. (2006). Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: A review and prospectus. Biological Conservation, 128(2), 231â240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.031 Daigle, P. (2010). A summary of the environmental impacts of roads, management responses, and research gaps: A literature review. Journal of Ecosystems and Management, 10(3). de Miranda, E. B. (2017). The plight of reptiles as ecological actors in the tropics. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 5, 159. Denver, R. J. (1997). Environmental stress as a developmental cue: Corticotropin-releasing hormone is a proximate mediator of adaptive phenotypic plasticity in amphibian metamorphosis. Hormones and Behavior, 31(2), 169â179. https://doi.org/10.1006/hbeh.1997.1383 Devan-Song, A., Martelli, P., Dudgeon, D., Crow, P., Ades, G., & Karraker, N. E. (2016). Is long-distance translocation an effective mitigation tool for white-lipped pit vipers (Trimeresurus albolabris) in South China? Biological Conservation, 204, 212â220. 74 DFO, 2023: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (2023). British Columbia Salmon Restoration and Innovation Fund. Dickens, M. J., Delehanty, D. J., & Michael Romero, L. (2010). Stress: An inevitable component of animal translocation. Biological Conservation, 143(6), 1329â1341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.032 Dickens, M. J., Delehanty, D. J., & Romero, L. M. (2009). Stress and translocation: Alterations in the stress physiology of translocated birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276(1664), 2051â2056. Dickens, M. J., Delehanty, D. J., & Romero, L. M. (2010). Stress: An inevitable component of animal translocation. Biological Conservation, 143(6), 1329â1341. Dickens, M. J., Delehanty, D. J., & Romero, L. M. (2010). Stress: An inevitable component of animal translocation. Biological Conservation, 143(6), 1329â1341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.032 Dodd, C. K., & Seigel, R. A. (1991). Relocation, repatriation, and translocation of amphibians and reptiles: Are they conservation strategies that work? Herpetologica, 47(3), 336â350. Dodd, C. K., & Seigel, R. A. (1991). Relocation, repatriation, and translocation of amphibians and reptiles: Are they conservation strategies that work? Herpetologica, 47, 336â350. Doyle, C. A., Garrard, G. E., Martin, J. K., & Ooi, M. K. (2024). Mitigation and conservation plant translocations: Do perspectives of practice, funding and success vary between sectors? Biological Conservation, 293, 110596. Engle, J. C. (2001). Population biology and natural history of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) in the Owyhee uplands of southwest Idaho: Implications for monitoring and management (Masterâs thesis). Boise State University. 75 Environment and Climate Change Canada (2016) Management Plan for the Western Toad (Anaxyrus boreas) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa. iv + 38 pp. Environmental Reporting BC. (2018). Trends in B.C.'s Population Size & Distribution. State of Environment Reporting, Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, British Columbia, Canada. Ewen, J. G., Soorae, P. S., & Canessa, S. (2014). Reintroduction objectives, decisions and outcomes: Global perspectives from the herpetofauna. Animal Conservation, 17, 74â81. Fair Mining Collaborative. (2023). The Dirty Dozen report: 12 issues with mining in British Columbia. Retrieved December 23, 2024, from https://reformbcmining.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/BCMLR-Dirty-Dozen-report-2023-web.pdf Finn, R. J., Chalifour, L., Gergel, S. E., Hinch, S. G., Scott, D. C., & Martin, T. G. (2021). Quantifying lost and inaccessible habitat for Pacific salmon in Canadaâs Lower Fraser River. Ecosphere, 12(7), e03646. Fischer, J., & Lindenmayer, D. B. (2000). An assessment of the published results of animal relocations. Biological Conservation, 96(1), 1â11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00048-3 Fisher, R. A. (1922). On the interpretation of ÏÂ² from contingency tables, and the calculation of P. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 85(1), 87â94. Fitzgerald, L. A., Chyn, K., & Angeli, N. (2004). Urban herpetology: Nuisance management strategies for venomous snakes in residential areas. Herpetological Conservation, 3, 45â53. Forest Planning and Practices Regulation, B.C. Reg. 14/2004. (2004). Retrieved from https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/14_2004 76 Funk, W. C., Greene, A. E., Corn, P. S., & Allendorf, F. W. (2005). High dispersal in a frog suggests that it is vulnerable to habitat fragmentation. Biology Letters, 1, 13â16. Germano, J. M., & Bishop, P. J. (2009). Suitability of amphibians and reptiles for translocation. Conservation Biology, 23(1), 7â15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01123 Germano, J. M., & Bishop, P. J. (2009). Suitability of Amphibians and Reptiles for Translocation. Conservation Biology, 23(1), 7â15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01123.x Germano, J. M., & Bishop, P. J. (2009). Suitability of amphibians and reptiles for translocation. Conservation Biology, 23, 7â15. Germano, J. M., Field, K. J., Griffiths, R. A., Clulow, S., Foster, J., Harding, G., & Swaisgood, R. R. (2015). Mitigation-driven translocations: Are we moving wildlife in the right direction? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 13(2), 100â105. Gibbons, J. W., Scott, D. E., Ryan, T. J., Buhlmann, K. A., Tuberville, T. D., Metts, B. S., â¦ & Winne, C. T. (2000). The global decline of reptiles, déjà vu amphibians. BioScience, 50(8), 653â666. Golder Associates Ltd. (2020). CLBMON-42A: Monitoring stranding of juvenile fish in the Lower Columbia RiverâComprehensive report (Version 1.0, September 2020). Prepared for BC Hydro. Retrieved from https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/BCHydro/customer-portal/documents/corporate/environment-sustainability/water-use-planning/southern-interior/clbmon-42A-comprehensive-report-2020-09-29.pdf Google. (2023). Google Earth [Satellite imagery]. https://earth.google.com Gould, J., Callen, A., Knibb, G., Schmahl, K., Donelly, R., Davies, B., & McHenry, C. (2023). Moved frogs donât settle: Evaluating the impact of translocation on the movement behaviour of a threatened frog. Journal for Nature Conservation, 76, 126512. 77 Gould, J., Callen, A., Knibb, G., Schmahl, K., Donnelly, R., Davies, B., & McHenry, C. (2023). Moved frogs donât settle: Evaluating the impact of translocation on the movement behaviour of a threatened frog. Journal for Nature Conservation, 76, 126512. Government of British Columbia, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. (n.d.). Columbia spotted frog recovery plan. Retrieved March 9, 2025, from https://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/columbia.pdf Government of British Columbia. (2014). Environmental mitigation procedures. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-policy-legislation/environmental-mitigation-policy/em_procedures_may27_2014.pdf Government of British Columbia. (2014). Environmental mitigation procedures. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-policy-legislation/environmental-mitigation-policy/em_procedures_may27_2014.pdf Graham, K. L., & Powell, G. L. (1999). Status of the Long-toed Salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum) in Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection. Griffiths, R. A., & Pavajeau, L. (2008). Captive breeding, reintroduction, and the conservation of amphibians. Conservation Biology, 22(4), 852â861. Groff, L. A., Calhoun, A. J. K., & Loftin, C. S. (2017). Amphibian terrestrial habitat selection and movement patterns vary with annual life-history period. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 95(6), 433â442. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjz-2016-0148 Gustafson, D. H., Blicharska, M., & MikusiÅski, G. (2016). When development and amphibians meet: a case study of a translocation of great crested newts (Triturus cristatus) in Sweden. Herpetological conservation and biology, 11(3), 552-562. 78 Harald, C. (1946). Mathematical methods of statistics (Chapter 21: The two-dimensional case, p. 282). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Harding, L. E., & McCullum, E. (1997). Ecosystem response to climate change in British Columbia and Yukon: Threats and opportunities for biodiversity. In Responding to global climate change in British Columbia and Yukon (Vol. 1, pp. 9-1). Harding, L. E., & McCullum, E. (1997). Ecosystem response to climate change in British Columbia and Yukon: threats and opportunities for biodiversity. Responding to global climate change in British Columbia and Yukon, 1, 9-1. Hinderer, R. K., Litt, A. R., & McCaffery, M. (2021). Habitat selection by a threatened desert amphibian. Ecology and Evolution, 11(1), 536â546. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7074 Hinderle, D., Lewison, R. L., Walde, A. D., Deutschman, D., & Boarman, W. I. (2015). The effects of homing and movement behaviors on translocation: desert tortoises in the western Mojave Desert. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 79(1), 137-147. Hof, C., Araújo, M. B., Jetz, W., & Rahbek, C. (2011). Additive threats from pathogens, climate and land-use change for global amphibian diversity. Nature, 480(7378), Article 7378. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10650 Holmes, J. (2010). The forestry industry. The State of Research on Work, Employment and Climate Change in Canada. Howell, P. E., Muths, E., Sigafus, B. H., & Hossack, B. R. (2020). Survival estimates for the invasive American bullfrog. Amphibia-Reptilia, 41(4), 559â564. IPCC, 2022: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2022). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. IUCN, 2021: International Union for Conservation of Nature. (2021). Global Amphibian Assessment. 79 IUCN. (2024). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2024-1. Retrieved May 7, 2025, from https://www.iucnredlist.org IUCN/SSC. (2013). Guidelines for reintroductions and other conservation translocations (Version 1.0). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Species Survival Commission. viii + 57 pp. IUCN/SSC. (2013). Guidelines for reintroductions and other conservation translocations. IUCN Species Survival Commission, Gland, Switzerland. Jakob, E. M., Marshall, S. D., & Uetz, G. W. (1996). Estimating fitness: a comparison of body condition indices. Oikos, 61-67. Jolly, G. M. (1965). Explicit estimates from captureârecapture data with both death and immigration stochastic variation within and between samples. Biometrika, 52(1â2), 225â247. Kehoe, L. J., Lund, J., Chalifour, L., Asadian, Y., Balke, E., Boyd, S., ... & Martin, T. G. (2021). Conservation in heavily urbanized biodiverse regions requires urgent management action and attention to governance. Conservation Science and Practice, 3(2), e310. Kraus, B. T., McCallen, E. B., & Williams, R. N. (2017). Evaluating the survival of translocated adult and captive-reared juvenile eastern hellbenders (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis). Herpetologica, 73(4), 271â276. Kruskal, W. H., & Wallis, W. A. (1952). Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47(260), 583â621. Laake, J. L. (2013). RMark: An R interface for analysis of captureârecapture data with MARK. Journal of Statistical Software, 53(10), 1â23. Letty, J., Marchandeau, S., & Aubineau, J. (2007). Problems encountered by individuals in animal translocations: lessons from field studies. Ecoscience, 14(4), 420-431. 80 Levings, C. D. (2020). An overview assessment of compensation and mitigation techniques used to assist fish habitat management in British Columbia estuaries. sustainable fisheries management, 341-347. LGL Limited Environmental Research Associates. (2021). Ducks Unlimited Canada East Kootenay Conservation Areas: Baseline wildlife surveys and assessment of project effects for Mayook Marsh and [title truncated]. Licht, L. E. (1974). Survival of embryos, tadpoles, and adults of the frogs Rana aurora aurora and Rana pretiosa pretiosa sympatric in southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 52(4), 613â627. Linhoff, L. J., Soorae, P. S., Harding, G., Donnelly, M. A., Germano, J. M., Hunter, D. A., McFadden, M., Mendelson III, J. R., Pessier, A. P., Sredl, M. J., & Eckstut, M. E. (Eds.). (2021). IUCN Guidelines for amphibian reintroductions and other conservation translocations (1st ed.). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Linhoff, L. J., Soorae, P. S., Harding, G., Donnelly, M. A., Germano, J. M., Hunter, D. A., McFadden, M., Mendelson III, J. R., Pessier, A. P., Sredl, M. J., & Eckstut, M. E. (Eds.). (2021). IUCN guidelines for amphibian reintroductions and other conservation translocations (First edition). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Linhoff, L. J., Soorae, P. S., Harding, G., Donnelly, M. A., Germano, J. M., Hunter, D. A., McFadden, M., Mendelson III, J. R., Pessier, A. P., Sredl, M. J., & Eckstut, M. E. (Eds.). (2021). IUCN guidelines for amphibian reintroductions and other conservation translocations (1st ed.). IUCN. Linnell, J. D., Aanes, R., & Andersen, R. (1997). Translocation of carnivores as a method for managing problem animals: A review. Biodiversity & Conservation, 6(9), 1245â1257. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018382001467 81 Linnell, J., AANES, R., Swenson, J., Odden, J., & SMITH, M. (1997). Translocation of carnivores as a method for managing problem animals: A review. Biodiv. Conserv., 6, 1245â1257. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BIOC.0000034011.05412.cd Lloyd, B.D. & Powlesland, R.G. (1994). The decline of kakapo Strigops habroptilus and attempts at conservation by translocation. Biol. Conserv., 69, pp. 75-85 Loë, R. D. (2000). Floodplain management in Canada: Overview and prospects. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien, 44(4), 355-368. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2000.tb00718.x Malt, J. (2011). Effectiveness of amphibian mitigation on the Sea to Sky Highway. Maran, A., Parrella, M. P., Caroppo, C., & Gaetano, L. (2009). Reproductive challenges in translocated amphibian populations. Journal of Herpetology, 43(4), 718â724. Marchand, P., Boenke, M., & Green, D. M. (2017). A stochastic movement model reproduces patterns of site fidelity and long-distance dispersal in a population of Fowlerâs toads (Anaxyrus fowleri). Ecological Modelling, 360, 63-69. Marchand, P., Boenke, M., & Green, D. M. (2017). A stochastic movement model reproduces patterns of site fidelity and long-distance dispersal in a population of Fowlerâs toads (Anaxyrus fowleri). Ecological Modelling, 360, 63â69. Matthews, K. R., & Preisler, H. K. (2010). Site fidelity of the declining amphibian Rana sierrae (Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 67(2), 243-255. Mazerolle, M. J., & Desrochers, A. (2005). Landscape resistance to frog movements. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 83(3), 455â464. https://doi.org/10.1139/z05-033 McKinney, M. L. (2002). Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. BioScience, 52(10), 883â890. 82 Meidinger, D., & Pojar, J. (1991). Ecosystems of British Columbia. Miller, B., Ralls, K., Reading, R. P., Scott, J. M., & Estes, J. (1999). Biological and technical considerations of carnivore translocation: A review. Animal Conservation, 2, 59â68. Miller, K. A., Bell, T. P., & Germano, J. M. (2014). Understanding publication bias in reintroduction biology by assessing translocations of New Zealandâs herpetofauna. Conservation Biology, 28(4), 1045â1056. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12254 Miller, K. A., Bell, T. P., & Germano, J. M. (2014). Understanding publication bias in reintroduction biology by assessing translocations of New Zealandâs herpetofauna. Conservation Biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 28(4), 1045â1056. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12254 Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations. (2016). Best Management Practices for Amphibian and Reptile Salvages in British Columbia (Version 1.0). Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/laws-policies-standards-guidance/best-management-practices Nash, D. J. (2017). An assessment of mitigation translocations for reptiles at development sites (Doctoral dissertation). University of Kent, Canterbury. Nash, D. J., & Griffiths, R. A. (2018). Ranging behaviour of adders (Vipera berus) translocated from a development site. Herpetological Journal, 28(4), 155â159. Nash, D. J., and R. A. Griffiths (2018). "Ranging behaviour of adders (Vipera berus) translocated from a development site." Herpetological Journal 28(4): 155-159. Newt Conservation Partnership. (2025). Newt Conservation Partnership monitoring report 2024. Freshwater Habitats Trust. https://freshwaterhabitats.b-cdn.net/app/uploads/2025/01/Newt-Conservation-Partnership-Monitoring-Report-2024.pdf 83 Nissen, B. D., Freake, M. J., Nolan, E., Hardman, R. H., & Sutton, W. B. (2023). Evaluating translocation success of wild eastern hellbenders (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis) in Blue Ridge Ecoregion streams using pre- and post-translocation home range sizes and movement metrics. Nowak, E. M., Hare, T., & McNally, J. (2002). Management of ânuisanceâ vipers: Effects of translocation on Western Diamondâback Rattlesnakes (Crotalus atrox). In Biology of the Vipers (pp. 533â560). Eagle Mountain Publishing. Nussear, K. E., Harris, J. L., & Fisher, G. (2012). Monitoring challenges in amphibian translocations: Evidence of low recapture and high mortality rates. Herpetological Conservation and Biology, 7(2), 123â134. Otten, J. G., Williams, L., & Refsnider, J. M. (2023). Assessing translocation success and long-distance homing in riverine turtles 10 years after a freshwater oil spill. Conservation Science and Practice, 5(4), e12922. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12922 Otten, J. G., Williams, L., & Refsnider, J. M. (2023). Assessing translocation success and longâdistance homing in riverine turtles 10â¯years after a freshwater oil spill. Conservation Science and Practice, 5(4), n/a. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12922 Parker, K. A., Dickens, M. J., Clarke, R. H., & Lovegrove, T. G. (2012). The theory and practice of catching, holding, moving and releasing animals. In J. G. Ewen, D. P. Armstrong, K. A. Parker, & P. J. Seddon (Eds.), Reintroduction Biology: Integrating Science and Management (pp. 105â137). Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Parker, M. R., & Fitzgerald, L. A. (2024). Using life history to predict outcomes of conservation translocations of herpetofauna. Animal Conservation. 84 Pašukonis, A., Loretto, M.-C., Landler, L., Ringler, M., & Hödl, W. (2014). Homing trajectories and initial orientation in a Neotropical territorial frog, Allobates femoralis (Dendrobatidae). Frontiers in Zoology, 11(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-9994-11-29 Patla, D. A., Keinath, D. A., McGee, M., & Pilliod, D. S. (2005). Species assessment for Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) in Wyoming. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office. Pearson, K. (1896). Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution. III. Regression, heredity, and panmixia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, 187, 253â318. Pechmann, J. H. K., Scott, D. E., Semlitsch, R. D., Caldwell, J. P., Vitt, L. J., & Gibbons, J. W. (1991). Declining amphibian populations: The problem of separating human impacts from natural fluctuations. Science, 253(5022), 892â895. Peig, J., & Green, A. J. (2009). New perspectives for estimating body condition from mass/length data: The scaled mass index as an alternative method. Oikos, 118(12), 1883â1891. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.17643 Phillips, J. B., Adler, K., & Borland, S. C. (1995). True navigation by an amphibian. Animal Behaviour, 50(4), 855â861. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(95)80142-1 Pickett, E. J., Stockwell, M. P., Bower, D. S., Garnham, J. I., Pollard, C. J., Clulow, J., & Mahony, M. J. (2013). Achieving no net loss in habitat offset of a threatened frog required high offset ratio and intensive monitoring. Biological Conservation, 157, 156-162. Pilliod, D. S., McCaffery, R. M., Arkle, R. S., Scherer, R. D., Cupples, J. B., Eby, L. A., â¦ & Van Horne, R. (2022). Importance of local weather and environmental gradients on demography of a broadly distributed temperate frog. Ecological Indicators, 136, 108648. 85 Pilliod, D. S., Peterson, C. R., & Ritson, P. I. (2002). Seasonal migration of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) among complementary resources in a high mountain basin. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 80(11), 1849â1862. Province of BC, 2023: Province of British Columbia. (2023). Wildlife and mammal conservation funding announcement. QGIS Development Team. (2023). QGIS Geographic Information System (Version 3.36.2) [Computer software]. Open Source Geospatial Foundation. https://qgis.org Randall, L., Lloyd, N., & Moehrenschlager, A. (2018). Guidelines for mitigation translocations of amphibians: Applications for Canadaâs prairie provinces (Version 1.0). Center for Conservation Research, Calgary Zoological Society Randall, L., Lloyd, N., & Moehrenschlager, A. (2018). Guidelines for mitigation translocations of amphibians: Applications for Canadaâs Prairie Provinces (Version 1.0). Centre for Conservation Research, Calgary Zoological Society. Randall, L., Lloyd, N., & Moehrenschlager, A. (2018). Guidelines for mitigation translocations of amphibians: Applications for Canadaâs Prairie Provinces (Version 1.0). Centre for Conservation Research, Calgary Zoological Society. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 94 pp. Reading, C. J., & Jofré, G. M. (2021). The cost of breeding for male common toads. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 134(3), 568â576. Reaser, J. K. (1996). Rana pretiosa (spotted frog) vagility. Herpetological Review, 27, 196â197. Redpath, S. M., Young, J., Evely, A., Adams, W. M., Sutherland, W. J., Whitehouse, A., â¦ & Taggart, M. A. (2013). Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28(2), 100â109. 86 Reinert, H. K., & Rupert Jr., R. R. (1999). Impacts of translocation on behavior and survival of timber rattlesnakes, Crotalus horridus. Journal of Herpetology, 33, 45â61. Richardson, J. (2011). Movement, habitat use, and dispersal of juvenile Oregon spotted frogs (Rana pretiosa) on Joint Base LewisâMcChord (Doctoral dissertation). The Evergreen State College. Richardson, M. L., Wilson, B. A., Aiuto, D. A., Crosby, J. E., Alonso, A., Dallmeier, F., & Golinski, G. K. (2017). A review of the impact of pipelines and power lines on biodiversity and strategies for mitigation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 26, 1801-1815. Ryser, J. (1989). Weight loss, reproductive output, and the cost of reproduction in the common frog, Rana temporaria. Oecologia, 78(2), 264â268. Sarmento, J.â¯d.â¯S. (2022). Avaliação dos programas de resgate e afugentamento de fauna em hidrelétricas (Trabalho de conclusão de curso, Bacharelado em Ciências Biológicas). Instituto de Biociências, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil. Saura, S., Bodin, Ã., & Fortin, M.-J. (2014). Stepping stones are crucial for speciesâ long-distance dispersal and range expansion through habitat networks. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51(1), 171â182. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12179 Scargle, J. D. (2000). Publication bias: The âfileâdrawerâ problem in scientific inference. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 14, 91â106. Schooler, J. (2011). Unpublished results hide the decline effect. Nature, 470(7335), 437. Seber, G. A. F. (1965). A note on the multiple-recapture census. Biometrika, 52, 249â259. Seddon, P. J. (1999). Persistence without intervention: Assessing success in wildlife reintroductions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 14(12), 503. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(99)01720-6 87 Seddon, P. J. (2010). From reintroduction to assisted colonization: Moving along the conservation translocation spectrum. Restoration Ecology, 18(6), 796â802. Seddon, P. J., Armstrong, D. P., & Maloney, R. F. (2007). Developing the science of reintroduction biology. Conservation Biology, 21(2), 303â312. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00627.x Seddon, P. J., Griffiths, C. J., Soorae, P. S., & Armstrong, D. P. (2014). Reversing defaunation: Restoring species in a changing world. Science, 345(6195), 406â412. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251818 Seddon, P.J. (1999). Persistence without intervention: assessing success in wildlife reintroductions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 503. Semlitsch, R. D., Scott, D. E., Pechmann, J. H. K., & Ketchum, J. (2003). Reintroductions of amphibians: Brief reviews and guidelines. Biological Conservation, 111(2), 243â253. Shaffer, H. B., GidiÅ, M., McCartney-Melstad, E., Neal, K. M., Oyamaguchi, H. M., Tellez, M., & Toffelmier, E. M. (2015). Conservation Genetics and Genomics of Amphibians and Reptiles. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences, 3(1), 113â138. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-animal-022114-110920 Silcock, J. L., Simmons, C. L., Monks, L., Dillon, R., Reiter, N., Jusaitis, M., Vesk, P. A., Byrne, M., & Coates, D. J. (2019). Threatened plant translocation in Australia: A review. Biological Conservation, 236, 211â222. Sinsch, U. (1990). Migration and orientation in anuran amphibians. Ethology Ecology & Evolution, 2(1), 65â79. Smith, T. M., Shugart, H. H., Woodward, F. I., & Burton, P. J. (1993). Plant functional types. In Vegetation dynamics & global change (pp. 272â292). Springer US. 88 Species at Risk Act, S.C. 2002, c. 29. Schedule 1: List of Wildlife Species at Risk. Government of Canada. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/species-risk-public-registry.html Stuart, S. N., Chanson, J. S., Cox, N. A., Young, B. E., Rodrigues, A. S. L., Fischman, D. L., & Waller, R. W. (2004). Status and Trends of Amphibian Declines and Extinctions Worldwide. Science, 306(5702), 1783â1786. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1103538 Sullivan, B. K., Kwiatkowski, M. A., & Schuett, G. W. (2004). Translocation of urban Gila Monsters: A problematic conservation tool. Biological Conservation, 117(3), 235â242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2003.07.002 Sullivan, B. K., Kwiatkowski, M. A., & Schuett, G. W. (2004). Translocation of urban Gila monsters: A problematic conservation tool. Biological Conservation, 117, 235â242. Sullivan, B., Nowak, E., & Kwiatkowski, M. (2014). Problems with Mitigation Translocation of Herpetofauna. Conservation Biology, 29. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12336 Tarszisz, E., Dickman, C. R., & Munn, A. J. (2014). Physiology in conservation translocations. Conservation Physiology, 2(1), cou054. Teixeira, C. P., De Araujo, A. C., Mendl, M., Cipreste, C. F., & Young, R. J. (2007). Revisiting translocation and reintroduction programmes: The importance of considering stress. Animal Conservation, 10(3), 235â240. Teixeira, C. P., de Azevedo, C. S., Mendl, M., Cipreste, C. F., & Young, R. J. (2007). Revisiting translocation and reintroduction programmes: The importance of considering stress. Animal Behaviour, 73(1), 1â13. 89 Teixeira, C. P., de Azevedo, C. S., Mendl, M., Cipreste, C. F., & Young, R. J. (2007). Revisiting translocation and reintroduction programmes: The importance of considering stress. Animal Behaviour, 73(1), 1â13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.06.002 Teixeira, C. P., de Azevedo, C. S., Mendl, M., Cipreste, C. F., & Young, R. J. (2007). Revisiting translocation and reintroduction programmes: The importance of considering stress. Animal Behaviour, 73, 1â13. Thomas, S., van der Merwe, V., Carvalho, W. D., Adania, C. H., GomerÄiÄ, T., Krofel, M., ... & Farhadinia, M. S. (2023). Evaluating the performance of conservation translocations in large carnivores across the world. Biological Conservation, 279, 109909. Tozer, D. C., Steele, O., & Gloutney, M. (2018). Multispecies benefits of wetland conservation for marsh birds, frogs, and species at risk. Journal of Environmental Management, 212, 160-168. Trans Mountain - Trans Mountain Marks the Start of Pipeline Construction. (2019). https://www.transmountain.com/news/2019/trans-mountain-marks-the-start-of-pipeline-construction Tuberville, T. D., Clark, E. E., Buhlmann, K. A., & Gibbons, J. W. (2005, November). Translocation as a conservation tool: Site fidelity and movement of repatriated gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus). In Animal Conservation Forum, 8(4), 349â358. Cambridge University Press. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2015). Species status assessment report for the Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris), Great Basin distinct population segment (vii + 86 pp.). Reno, NV: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Watson, J., McAllister, K., & Pierce, D. (2009). Home ranges, movements, and habitat selection of Oregon spotted frogs (Rana pretiosa). Journal of Herpetology, 37, 292â300. 90 Werner, E. E. (1986). Amphibian metamorphosis: Growth rate, predation risk, and the optimal size at transformation. The American Naturalist, 128(3), 319â341. https://doi.org/10.1086/284565 White, G. C., & Burnham, K. P. (1999). Program MARK: Survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study, 46(Supp. 1), S120âS139. Williams, D. R., Clark, M., Buchanan, G. M., Ficetola, G. F., Rondinini, C., & Tilman, D. (2021). Proactive conservation to prevent habitat losses to agricultural expansion. Nature sustainability, 4(4), 314-322. Winand, M., Isaac, L. A., Govindarajulu, P., Anderson, L., & Martin, T. G. (2025b). Scale of herpetofauna mitigation translocation in British Columbia, Canada [Manuscript in preparation]. Department of Conservation and Forest Science, University of British Columbia. Winand, M., Wren, S., Martin, T., Germano., J. (2025). Reevaluating the suitability of amphibians and reptiles for translocation. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Conservation and Forest Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Winand, M., Wren, S., Saffarzadeh, M., Woodley, M., Martin, T., & Germano, J. M. (2025a). Reevaluating the suitability of amphibians and reptiles for translocation [Manuscript in preparation]. Department of Conservation and Forest Science, University of British Columbia. Wolf, C. M., Griffith, B., Reed, C., & Temple, S. A. (1996). Avian and mammalian translocations: Update and reanalysis of 1987 survey data. Conservation Biology, 10(4), 1142â1154. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10041142.x Wolfe, A. K., Fleming, P. A., & Bateman, P. W. (2018). Impacts of translocation on a large urbanâadapted venomous snake. Wildlife Research, 45(4), 316â324. 91 Wood, K. V., Nichols, J. D., Percival, H. F., & Hines, J. E. (1998). Size-sex variation in survival rates and abundance of pig frogs, Rana grylio, in northern Florida wetlands. Journal of Herpetology, 32(2), 527â535. 92 Appendices A: Chapter Two Figure A18. Frequency of success criteria used by authors from 256 case studies in a systematic literature review of herpetofauna translocations conducted between 2007 and 2023. Success criteria are split by translocation motive and defined in Table 1. Authors often employed more than one success criterion, so the total frequency of cases exceeds the total number of cases reviewed. 93 Figure A19. Frequency of Authors success and success stages to show how effective authors are at evaluating their own translocation for conservation-related translocations. 94 Figure A20. Frequency of Authors success and success stages to show how effective authors are at evaluating their own translocation for mitigation-related translocations. 95 Appendices B: Chapter Three Table B5. Number of identifiable native amphibian and reptile species translocated (n=5,119,975) from mitigation translocations in British Columbia, Canada between January 2019-December 2022 (n=227). Species at Risk (2002) status and invasive species are accurate as of December 20, 2024. Common name Species name Species at Risk (2002) status Life stage Number translocated Total translocated Boreal chorus frog Pseudacris maculata Not at Risk Adults 1 869 Juveniles 12 Larvae 176 Unclassified 680 Coastal giant salamander Dicamptodon tenebrosus Threatened Unclassified 2 2 Coastal tailed frog Ascaphus truei Special Concern Adults 1,062 28,445 Juveniles 406 Larvae 26,777 Eggs 187 Unclassified 13 Coeur d'Alene salamander Plethodon idahoensis Special Concern Adults 18 47 Juveniles 19 Unclassified 10 Columbia spotted frog Rana luteiventris Not at Risk Adults 9,468 70,032 Juveniles 14,896 Larvae 17,490 Eggs 28,069 Unclassified 109 Common gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis Not at Risk Adults 314 738 Juveniles 221 Unclassified 203 Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii Not at Risk Adults 27 40 Juveniles 7 Larvae 1 Unclassified 5 Threatened Adults 49 93 96 Great basin gophersnake Pituophis catenifer deserticola Juveniles 26 Unclassified 18 Great basin spadefoot Spea intermontana Threatened Adults 24 54 Juveniles 9 Unclassified 21 Long-toed salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Not at Risk Adults 5,593 245,055 Juveniles 10,261 Larvae 120,362 Eggs 106,728 Unclassified 2,111 Northern alligator lizard Elgaria coerulea Not at Risk Adults 235 344 Juveniles 105 Unclassified 4 Northern leopard frog Lithobates pipiens Endangered Adults 1 14 Eggs 13 Northern red-legged frog Rana aurora Special Concern Adults 938 942 Juveniles 570 Larvae 223 Eggs 2 Unclassified 109 Northern rubber boa Charina bottae Special Concern Adults 26 36 Juveniles 3 Unclassified 7 Northwestern gartersnake Thamnophis ordinoides Not at Risk Adults 7 15 Juveniles 2 Unclassified 6 Northwestern salamander Ambystoma gracile Not at Risk Adults 3,741 94,013 Juveniles 34,076 Larvae 46,219 Eggs 34,076 Unclassified 5,602 Rana pretiosa Endangered Adults 58 77 97 Oregon spotted frog Juveniles 3 Unclassified 16 Pacific tree frog Pseudacris regilla Not at Risk Adults 1,240 15,718 Juveniles 10,590 Larvae 2,220 Eggs 1,478 Unclassified 190 Rough-skinned newt Taricha granulosa Not at Risk Adults 1,073 5,183 Juveniles 211 Larvae 3,506 Eggs 374 Unclassified 19 Wandering salamander Aneides vagrans Special Concern Adults 2 4 Juveniles 2 Western painted turtle1 Chrysemys picta Threatened or Special Concern Adults 65 91 Juveniles 21 Unclassified 5 Western rattlesnake Crotalus oreganus Threatened Adults 20 31 Unclassified 11 Western redback salamander Plethodon vehiculum Not at Risk Adults 261 338 Juveniles 67 Unclassified 10 Western skink Plestiodon skiltonianus Special Concern Adults 2 2 Western terrestrial gartersnake Thamnophis elegans vagrans Not at Risk Adults 224 1,520 Juveniles 155 Unclassified 1,141 Western toad Anaxyrus boreas Special Concern Adults 6,433 4,638,073 Juveniles 703,871 Larvae 2,660,777 1 Western Painted Turtles fall into two populations: Pacific Coast and Intermountain-Rocky Mountain. Both populations are reported as translocated in this review. The Pacific Coast population is federally listed as Threatened and the Intermountain-Rocky Mountain population is listed as Special Concern. 98 Eggs 1,250,902 Unclassified 16,090 Wood frog Lithobates sylvaticus Not at Risk Adults 1,278 18,054 Juveniles 3,227 Larvae 13,073 Eggs 465 Unclassified 11 Yellow-bellied racer Coluber constrictor mormon Threatened Adults 59 145 Juveniles 16 Unclassified 70 Total 5,119,975 99 Figure B21. Proportions of all native amphibians translocated for various project types identified during a review of mitigation translocations in British Columbia, Canada from 2019-2022 (n = 277). 100 Figure B22. Proportions of all native reptiles translocated for various project types identified during a review of mitigation translocations in British Columbia, Canada from 2019-2022 (n = 277). 101 Appendices C: Chapter Four Table C6. Full list of Cormack-Jolly Seber candidate model selections based on AICc in Program MARK, where Φ = survival and Ï = detectability. Other model notations are (t)= time dependent, (.)=constant time. Model AICc ÎAICc Weights Deviance Number of Parameters Sex Φ Ï(t) 223.60 0.00 0.600 122.29 9 Time + Sex Φ Ï(.) 225.86 2.26 0.194 124.55 9 Sex + Treatment Φ Ï(t) 226.64 3.04 0.131 120.56 11 Time + Sex + Treatment Φ Ï(.) 229.78 6.19 0.027 123.70 11 Time + Sex Φ Ï(t) 230.37 6.77 0.020 116.79 14 Sex Ã Treatment Φ Ï(t) 231.45 7.86 0.012 115.29 15 Time Φ Ï(.) 233.14 9.55 0.005 136.45 7 Φ Ï(t) 233.22 9.63 0.005 136.54 7 Time + Sex + Treatment Φ Ï(t) 234.95 11.35 0.002 116.14 16 Treatment Φ Ï(t) 235.37 11.77 0.002 134.06 9 Time + Treatment Φ Ï(.) 236.39 12.79 0.001 135.09 9 Time Φ Ï(t) 237.20 13.61 0.001 128.67 12 Time + Treatment Φ Ï(t) 240.93 17.33 < 0.001 127.35 14 Sex Φ Ï(.) 245.28 21.69 < 0.001 155.22 4 Sex + Treatment Φ Ï(.) 248.90 25.31 < 0.001 154.46 6 Φ Ï(.) 250.62 27.03 < 0.001 164.80 2 Sex Ã Treatment Φ Ï(.) 253.07 29.48 < 0.001 149.40 10 Treatment Φ Ï(.) 254.28 30.69 < 0.001 164.22 4 Sex Ã Treatment Ã Time Φ Ï(.) 382.65 159.06 < 0.001 100.34 55 Sex Ã Treatment Ã Time Φ Ï(t) 406.54 182.94 < 0.001 88.63 60 Sex Ã Treatment Ã Time Φ Ï(t) 406.54 182.94 < 0.001 88.63 60 102 Table C7. Species of vegetation tracked Columbia spotted frog used post-translocation arranged into plant functional type categories for ease of analysis. Plant Functional Type Categories Vegetation Species Algae Algae Detritus Leaf litter, logs, sticks Emergent Cattail, common spike rush, horsetail, marestail, northern water plantain, smartweed, soft-stemmed bulrush, unbranched burr-reed, water plantain Floating Duckweed, floating leaf pond weed, ivy-leaved duckweed Grasses American and boreal manna grass, Kentucky bluegrass, northwest territory sedge, reed canary grass, timothy grass, unknown grass Herbaceous Forbes, moss, thistle Submergent Coonstail, fennel-leaf pondweed, opposite stonewort, Siberian milfoil, thread-leaved water crowfoot Woody Alder, prickly rose, red osier dogwood Table C8. A list of all pit-tagged Columbia spotted frogs, including tag number, initial capture date (month and year), sex, experimental treatment (control, short distance and long distance), and total number of times each frog was recaptured from April to August 2023 and April to May 2024. Tag Number Capture Date Sex Treatment Number of Times Recaptured 856 June 2023 Male Control 2 857 August 2023 Male Control 2 859 May 2023 Male Control 2 866 August 2023 Female Control 1 867 June 2023 Juvenile Control 1 872 May 2023 Juvenile Control 2 878 August 2023 Male Control 1 879 July 2023 Juvenile Control 1 880 August 2023 Female Control 1 883 July 2023 Juvenile Control 2 884 June 2023 Juvenile Control 1 887 August 2023 Female Control 1 103 889 July 2023 Juvenile Control 1 890 August 2023 Female Control 1 893 July 2023 Juvenile Control 1 894 April 2023 Juvenile Control 2 896 July 2023 Juvenile Control 1 899 June 2023 Juvenile Control 2 900 August 2023 Juvenile Control 1 901 August 2023 Juvenile Control 2 903 August 2023 Juvenile Control 1 905 August 2023 Female Control 1 907 June 2023 Female Control 3 909 June 2023 Female Control 3 914 July 2023 Female Control 1 915 June 2023 Juvenile Control 1 918 July 2023 Juvenile Control 1 924 August 2023 Female Control 1 925 April 2023 Female Control 3 928 May 2023 Juvenile Control 1 930 May 2023 Female Control 3 931 August 2023 Female Control 1 934 August 2023 Female Control 1 942 August 2023 Female Control 1 949 June 2023 Juvenile Control 3 952 July 2023 Juvenile Control 2 953 August 2023 Male Control 1 863 June 2023 Juvenile Short Distance 2 865 August 2023 Male Short Distance 1 104 868 June 2023 Juvenile Short Distance 1 871 July 2023 Male Short Distance 1 873 June 2023 Juvenile Short Distance 2 882 July 2023 Juvenile Short Distance 2 885 June 2023 Juvenile Short Distance 2 888 June 2023 Juvenile Short Distance 3 897 June 2023 Male Short Distance 1 898 June 2023 Juvenile Short Distance 3 904 June 2023 Juvenile Short Distance 1 906 June 2023 Juvenile Short Distance 1 912 June 2023 Male Short Distance 1 916 June 2023 Male Short Distance 1 919 April 2023 Juvenile Short Distance 1 932 June 2023 Male Short Distance 1 935 June 2023 Male Short Distance 3 936 August 2023 Female Short Distance 3 937 June 2023 Juvenile Short Distance 2 940 June 2023 Juvenile Short Distance 1 943 June 2023 Juvenile Short Distance 1 946 August 2023 Juvenile Short Distance 1 947 May 2023 Male Short Distance 1 950 June 2023 Female Short Distance 2 858 June 2023 Juvenile Long Distance 2 861 August 2023 Juvenile Long Distance 1 862 May 2023 Juvenile Long Distance 1 864 June 2023 Male Long Distance 2 869 June 2023 Female Long Distance 3 105 Table C9. A list of all tracked Columbia spotted frogs throughout the experiment. Sex is defined as M = Male, F = Female, J = Juveniles (Unknown sex); treatment is C = Control, SD = Short distance and LD = Long distance. End point is defined as: C = signs of chafing therefore the belt was removed early, S = slipped out of belt, R = end of battery life therefore the transmitter was removed by researchers, BD = transmitter battery died before removal, E = eaten by predator, Uk = unknown death. Tag Number Sex Treatment Start Date End Date Time Tracked (days) End Point 856 M C 2023-06-18 2023-06-25 7 C 858 J LD 2023-06-18 2023-07-01 13 S 863 J SD 2023-06-06 2023-06-20 14 R 864 M LD 2023-06-06 2023-07-01 25 R 865 M SD 2023-08-05 2023-08-23 18 R 868 J SD 2023-06-08 2023-06-17 9 R 869 F LD 2023-06-14 2023-08-03 2023-07-03 2023-08-23 19 20 R R 875 June 2023 Female Long Distance 1 876 June 2023 Juvenile Long Distance 1 881 July 2023 Male Long Distance 2 886 June 2023 Female Long Distance 3 892 June 2023 Female Long Distance 2 902 August 2023 Male Long Distance 1 910 June 2023 Juvenile Long Distance 1 920 May 2023 Male Long Distance 4 923 May 2023 Female Long Distance 2 927 May 2023 Female Long Distance 3 929 June 2023 Male Long Distance 2 933 June 2023 Male Long Distance 1 938 June 2023 Juvenile Long Distance 1 939 June 2023 Male Long Distance 1 948 July 2023 Juvenile Long Distance 2 106 871 M SD 2023-07-31 - - BD 875 F LD 2023-06-08 2023-06-23 15 C 876 J LD 2023-06-16 2023-06-24 8 C 878 M C 2023-08-15 - - E 881 M LD 2023-07-31 2023-08-23 23 C 882 J SD 2023-07-30 2023-08-17 18 R 885 J SD 2023-06-16 2023-07-03 17 R 892 F LD 2023-06-08 2023-08-01 2023-06-23 2023-08-23 15 22 R R 894 J C 2023-08-02 - - E 897 M SD 2023-06-10 2023-06-24 14 R 898 F SD 2023-06-06 2023-07-31 2023-06-20 2023-08-23 14 23 R R 899 J C 2023-06-20 2023-07-03 13 R 902 M LD 2023-08-05 2023-08-23 18 R 907 F C 2023-06-20 2023-08-02 2023-07-03 2023-08-23 13 21 R R 909 F C 2023-06-19 2023-06-29 10 C 910 J LD 2023-06-16 2023-06-23 7 C 912 M SD 2023-06-18 2023-06-29 11 C 918 J C 2023-07-30 - - BD 924 F C 2023-08-06 2023-08-23 17 R 929 M LD 2023-06-08 2023-06-23 15 R 932 M SD 2023-06-08 2023-06-24 16 C 933 M LD 2023-06-09 2023-06-23 14 C 934 F C 2023-08-09 - - S 937 J SD 2023-06-16 2023-08-02 2023-06-25 2023-08-23 9 21 R R 939 M LD 2023-06-16 2023-06-23 7 C 942 F C 2023-08-03 - - E 943 J SD 2023-06-08 2023-06-24 16 R 948 J LD 2023-07-31 2023-08-17 17 R 950 F SD 2023-06-17 2023-06-25 8 C 107 953 M C 2023-08-03 - - Uk Figure C23. Columbia spotted frog with a radio transmitter attached using Magic Stretch tubing and glass beads. 108 Figure C24. Individual movement of tracked Columbia spotted frogs in, a) control (n=4), b) short distance treatment (< 1km; n = 13) and c) long-distance treatment (5 km; n = 13). 109 Figure C25. Capture probability estimates for Columbia spotted frogs by sex from May-August 2023 and April-May 2024. Females are represented as red dashed lines and circles (n = 22), juveniles are green dotted lines and triangles (n = 39) and males are blue solid line with squares (n = 20). 110 Figure C26. Recapture events for all female Columbia spotted frogs (n = 22) in our experiment. Recapture events are grouped by months; April-August 2023 and April-May 2024. A notation of 0 = not recaptured and 1 = recaptured.
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Forestry
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Martin, T. G. (Tara G.)
Understanding the extent and effectiveness of mitigation translocation for herpetofauna
Text