Northern Leopard Frog Survey, 2005 - Alberta2… · Leopard Frog Recovery Team (ANLFRT) followed...

Northern Leopard Frog Survey, 2005

CONSERVATIONCONSERVATION

REPORT REPORT

SERIESSERIES

CONSERVATIONCONSERVATION

REPORT REPORT

SERIESSERIES 25% Post Consumer Fibre

When separated, both the binding and paper in this document are recyclable

The Alberta Conservation Association is a Delegated Administrative Organization under Alberta’s Wildlife Act.

Alberta Northern Leopard Frog Survey, 2005

Kris Kendell1, Scott Stevens2, and Dave Prescott2 1Alberta Conservation Association

101 ‐ 9 Chippewa Road Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada T8A 6J7

2Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division

404 ‐ 4911 51st Street Red Deer, Alberta, Canada T4N 6V4

i

Report Series Editor PETER AKU KELLEY J. KISSNER Alberta Conservation Association 59 Hidden Green NW 101 ‐ 9 Chippewa Road Calgary, AB T3A 5K6 Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada T8A 6J7 Conservation Report Series Type Data, Technical ISBN printed: 978‐0‐7785‐6551‐2 ISBN online: 978‐0‐7785‐6552‐9 Publication No.: T/157 Disclaimer: This document is an independent report prepared by the Alberta Conservation Association. The authors are solely responsible for the interpretations of data and statements made within this report. Reproduction and Availability: This report and its contents may be reproduced in whole, or in part, provided that this title page is included with such reproduction and/or appropriate acknowledgements are provided to the authors and sponsors of this project. Suggested Citation: Kendell, K., Stevens, S., and D. Prescott. 2007. Alberta northern leopard frog survey,

2005. Technical Report, T‐2007‐001, produced by Alberta Conservation Association, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 17 pp + App.

Cover photo credit: David Fairless Digital copies of conservation reports can be obtained from: Alberta Conservation Association #101, 9 Chippewa Rd Sherwood Park, AB T8A 6J7 Toll Free: 1‐877‐969‐9091 Tel: (780) 410‐1998 Fax: (780) 464‐0990 Email: info@ab‐conservation.com Website: www.ab‐conservation.com

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Over the last 40 years, northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) populations have declined

dramatically over much of their North American range, including in Alberta. Although

little‐studied, the decline in Alberta populations appears to be the result of several

factors including habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, and water diversion.

The northern leopard frog is designated as a “Threatened” species in Alberta and in

2004, the Minister of Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD) established a

recovery team for the species to ensure that populations are restored and maintained.

This team prepared an action‐oriented recovery plan in 2005 with an overall goal to

achieve well‐distributed and self‐sustaining populations of northern leopard frogs

throughout their historical range in Alberta. In 2005, the Alberta Conservation

Association (ACA) and ASRD, in partnership with the Habitat Stewardship Program

(HSP) and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), undertook a

northern leopard frog provincial inventory and habitat assessment project as a first step

toward the recovery of this species. This report details key findings from the 2005

provincial inventory and habitat assessment project.

Through the course of the survey, 177 historically occupied northern leopard frog sites

were investigated. Northern leopard frogs of at least one age class were observed at 73

of these sites, and at an additional three sites that were reported by the public. The

largest concentrations of frogs occurred in the Brooks, Cypress Hills, Medicine Hat, and

Strathmore areas of the province. Breeding sites were found at 13 of the locations

surveyed.

Habitat quality was higher at occupied than at unoccupied sites and threats to habitat

occurred at approximately two thirds of northern leopard frog sites; the most common

threat was cattle damage to pond edge and shoreline. Occupied northern leopard frog

sites tended to occur more often in areas of native prairie.

In total, 172 landowners were contacted throughout the course of the survey. Most had

positive attitudes with respect to wildlife, the Species at Risk program, and

stewardship.

ii

Data from this survey provides valuable baseline information for future reintroductions

of northern leopard frogs and for the formation of stewardship agreements at sites with

habitat threats.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the following agencies for their funding contributions to the project: the

Alberta Conservation Association (ACA), Alberta Sustainable Resource Development

(SRD), the Habitat Stewardship Program (HSP), and the North American Waterfowl

Management Plan (NAWMP). The following agencies and organizations assisted in

delivering the project: Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (AFRD),

Alberta Public Lands and Forest Division (APLFD), the Calgary Zoo, Canadian Forces

Base Suffield, Ducks Unlimited Canada, the Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC),

Parks Canada, and the University of Calgary

We also thank Ian Gazeley (ACA) and Amanda Krowski (ACA) for collecting the

majority of field data, and the many landowners that allowed access to their property.

The following people were also instrumental in the collection of field data and

contributed information used in this report: Steve Brechtel, Ken Froggatt, Edward

Hofman, Ed Karpuk, Don Page, Joel Nicholson, Dave Prescott and Pat Young (all of

ASRD), Delaney Burton (CFB Suffield), Doug Collister (URSUS Ecosystem

Management), Brandy Downey, Lance Engley, Julie Landry‐BeBoer, Jim Potter, Roy

Schmelzeisen, Callie Smith, Amanda Rezansoff, Corey Skiftun and Michelle Thibodeau

(all of ACA), Lynne Fraser (Calgary Zoo), Marcie Gareau, Gerry Haekel (APLFD),

Tawnya Hewitt, Eileen Miranda and Cyndi Smith (all of Parks Canada), Kim Pearson

(NCC), Janey Podlubny, Larry Powell (University of Calgary), Nik Barnes, Lloyd

Bennett, and Amber Kreft. Peter Aku (ACA) provided editorial comments for this

report.

CONSERVATIONCONSERVATIONREPORT REPORT SERIESSERIES

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................... iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................................... v

LIST OF PLATES....................................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... vii

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................1

2.0 STUDY AREA...................................................................................................................2

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS .....................................................................................3 3.1 Identification of study sites.............................................................................................3 3.2 General field methods .....................................................................................................4

4.0 RESULTS ...........................................................................................................................6 4.1 Survey sites .......................................................................................................................6 4.2 Northern leopard frog observations..............................................................................6 4.3 Habitat suitability.............................................................................................................9 4.4 Adjacent land use...........................................................................................................10 4.5 Water quality ..................................................................................................................11 4.6 Habitat threats ................................................................................................................11 4.7 Outreach ..........................................................................................................................11

5.0 DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................12 5.1 Distribution and relative numbers ..............................................................................12 5.2 Habitat .............................................................................................................................13 5.3 Outreach ..........................................................................................................................14 5.4 Moving forward .............................................................................................................14

6.0 LITERATURE CITED ....................................................................................................16

7.0 PLATES............................................................................................................................18

8.0 APPENDIX......................................................................................................................19

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Historic and present northern leopard frog range in Alberta based on

Kendell (2002b). ...................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2. Major watersheds where northern leopard frogs have been known to occur. Watershed designations follow Alberta Environment...................................... 3

Figure 3. Distribution and abundance of the northern leopard frog in central and southern Alberta based on number of frogs/hr of search time during the 2005 survey.............................................................................................................. 8

Figure 4. Northern leopard frog habitat suitability at all sites evaluated, at ʺActiveʺ sites, and at sites where frogs were not observed (“Not Active”)................... 9

Figure 5. Comparison of land use within 200 m of feature locations ............................ 10

Figure 6. Summary of landowner attitudes toward wildlife, Species at Risk (SAR), and stewardship. .................................................................................................. 12

vi

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 1. Adult northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) ...................................................... 18

vii

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1. Northern leopard frog sites surveyed in 2005 (prioritized into three

categories, A to C) and associated number of frog observations and population index (frogs/person‐hr) at each site..................................... 19

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens—Plate 1) was once a widespread and abundant

species in central and southern Alberta (Roberts 1981). However, abrupt population

declines occurred in many areas of its range in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Roberts

1981, 1987, 1994, Wershler 1991). Remaining populations are small and fragmented

(Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2003). The species has been considered

“At Risk” in Alberta since 1991, and was designated as “Threatened” under Alberta’s

Wildlife Act in 1996 (Alberta Environmental Protection 1996). The Committee on the

Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) lists the prairie population of the

northern leopard frog as a species of “Special Concern” (COSEWIC 2002).

In February 2004, the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development reaffirmed the

listing of the northern leopard frog as Threatened in Alberta, and formally initiated

recovery efforts for the species in the province. The formation of the Alberta Northern

Leopard Frog Recovery Team (ANLFRT) followed shortly thereafter, and the Alberta

Northern Leopard Frog Recovery Plan 2005 – 2010 (ANLFRT 2005) was approved for

implementation in 2005. The plan aims to restore viable populations of northern

leopard frogs throughout their historical range in Alberta. Habitat management for

extant populations, information and education initiatives, reintroduction of populations

into vacant areas of the range, and research are all important components of the plan.

Before management actions could be initiated, a detailed population survey

documenting the current distribution and size of northern leopard frog populations in

Alberta was necessary. In 2005, a northern leopard frog provincial inventory was

undertaken and included an evaluation of habitat health (i.e., habitat threats) at

occupied sites as well as identification of potential source sites for reintroduction stock.

The 2005 survey provided current information on the status of northern leopard frog

populations in Alberta as well as habitat assessments which will set the stage for future

management and research activities listed in the recovery plan (e.g., stewardship,

habitat improvements and protection, reintroductions, habitat suitability model).

A similar provincial survey was conducted in 2000 – 2001 (Kendell 2002b) that focussed

on occupancy of historical and more recent northern leopard frog sites. Results of that

1

survey indicated that northern leopard frog populations in Alberta were small and

fragmented, and were still declining in some areas (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Historic and present northern leopard frog range in Alberta based on Kendell (2002b).

2.0 STUDY AREA

Primary watersheds surveyed for northern leopard frogs included the Bow, Milk,

Oldman, Red Deer, and South Saskatchewan River drainages. Some historical locations

in the Battle River, North Saskatchewan River, and Sounding Creek drainages were

also surveyed (Figure 2). In the extreme northeast portion of the province, apparently

isolated populations in the Slave River and Lake Athabasca watersheds were assessed.

2

Figure 2. Major watersheds where northern leopard frogs have been known to occur.

Watershed designations follow Alberta Environment (Government of Alberta 2006).

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Identification of study sites

The 2005 survey focused on revisiting sites that were known to support northern

leopard frog populations in the past. A query of Alberta’s Fish and Wildlife

Management Information System (FWMIS) database for the period 1901 to 2004

revealed 1053 northern leopard frog records, several of which represented records at

the same place in multiple years, or at sites along the same waterbody or watercourse.

To condense FWMIS observations into a smaller number of meaningful sites, records

occurring within 1 km of each other were merged. A centroid latitude/longitude

coordinate was then assigned to each of the 380 resulting sites to facilitate their

identification in the field. 3

Sites to be surveyed were prioritized into three categories: “A” priority sites

(occurrence records since 2000), “B” priority sites (occurrence records from 1990

through 1999), and “C” priority sites (occurrence records prior to 1990). In general, the

higher priority sites had more reliable coordinates and species identification. Following

the merging of sites and prioritization, a total of 99 “A” priority sites (including two

reintroduction sites), 120 “B” priority sites, and 161 “C” priority sites, were identified

for surveys. Field personnel were directed to visit all “A” priority sites and as many

“B” priority sites as possible. “C” priority sites were generally only visited if they were

in close proximity to higher‐priority sites, or along travel routes between higher

priority sites.

3.2 General field methods

Surveys were conducted between late April and August 2005 during appropriate

weather conditions and in suitable habitats that were believed to support northern

leopard frogs. Field personnel without prior experience undertaking amphibian

surveys were trained by experienced amphibian biologists to search for and identify

northern leopard frogs.

Field personnel were assigned to sites and instructed to survey all habitats where frogs

were likely to occur, and to follow survey guidelines described in Kendell (2002a). It

was recommended that sites be visited for a minimum of four person‐hrs, unless

habitat was completely unsuitable for northern leopard frogs, or where suitable habitat

was restricted (e.g., a single dugout) and could be thoroughly surveyed in less time.

All northern leopard frogs were counted (Appendix 1), but a population index

(frogs/person‐hr) was based only on adult and sub‐adult observations (i.e., young of the

year observed later in the summer were not included in the population index). The

location of breeding sites, based on the presence of northern leopard frog egg masses or

tadpoles, were also recorded as were the presence of other amphibian species.

Field personnel recorded latitude/longitude coordinates (NAD 83) of key wetland

features within sites such as ponds, reservoirs, marshes, oxbows, etc.; especially if frogs

4

were present or the feature was impacted by human activities. Thus, each “site” could

contain multiple “features”.

Each site was also assessed for apparent northern leopard frog habitat suitability (high,

medium, low, zero) based on the presence of breeding waterbodies, summer foraging

habitat, over‐wintering waterbodies, and connectivity between aforementioned habitats

(see Kendell 2002a, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2003 for preferred and

required critical northern leopard frog habitat). This assessment allowed vacant

(termed “not active”) sites to be evaluated for potential reintroduction and to assess the

range of perceived habitat suitability in which northern leopard frogs can occur.

Habitat was assessed further by categorizing adjacent land use as presence of the

following land uses within 200 m of feature locations: active pasture, brushland, crop,

native prairie, unused pasture, woodland, and urban. Proportions of habitat features

present at “active” and “not active” sites were compared using a chi square test.

Basic water chemistry (pH and conductivity) and water quality data (visual assessment

of water colour as “clear” or “stained” and water turbidity as “clear” or “turbid”) were

collected at most features. Proportions of clarity and turbidity were compared between

“active” and “not active” sites using a chi square test.

In order to acquire information for future stewardship initiatives, threats to northern

leopard frog habitat were assessed and categorized as cattle, human, or natural.

Human threats included irrigation, oil and gas, urban development, and pollution;

natural threats included drought and flooding. Photographs of sites were taken for

future reference.

Field personnel were also instructed to contact landowners and lessees whenever

possible in order to gauge their awareness of northern leopard frogs, their attitudes

towards the Species at Risk program (Government of Canada 2002) and general wildlife

conservation, and their willingness to engage in stewardship activities. Land users

were offered brochures and other amphibian outreach materials.

5

4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Survey sites

A total of 200 pre‐identified sites were visited during the 2005 inventory (Appendix 1).

Five of these sites could not be surveyed because of flooding or impassable roads, and

access onto private land was denied at four sites. A further 14 sites visited were not

associated with northern leopard frog habitat and were omitted from analysis. Thus,

surveys for northern leopard frogs were conducted at a total of 177 pre‐identified sites;

85 “A” sites, 78 “B” sites, and 14 “C” sites. Three additional sites where adult northern

leopard frogs were reported by the public in 2005 were also visited. A previous

reintroduction site (Ducks Unlimited, Hummer Property), was also included in the

analysis because it was surveyed in 2004 under the same protocols.

4.2 Northern leopard frog observations

In total, 37 field personnel spent approximately 563 hr surveying for northern leopard

frogs in 2005. The average time spent at each site was 2.6 hr (range 0 – 30 hr). The

discrepancy in time spent at a site was due to high variation in site quality and

complexity as well as the amount of habitat potentially used by northern leopard frogs.

Northern leopard frogs of at least one life‐history stage (adults, young of the year,

and/or eggs/tadpoles) were found at 73 pre‐identified sites, including 56% (48 of 85) of

“A” sites and 32% (25 of 78) of “B” sites. Additional observations were confirmed at

the three new sites reported by the public in 2005. Northern leopard frogs were not

observed at any “C” priority sites.

The number of adult/subadult northern leopard frogs observed at sites ranged between

zero to 41 frogs/hr, and for young‐of‐the‐year (YOY) ranged between zero to 423

frogs/hr (Appendix 1). Of the 72 sites where adult/sub‐adult frogs were encountered

(Figure 3; Appendix 1), observations ranged from 0.17 to 41.3 frogs/hr (mean ± SE = 6.0

± 1.0 frogs/hr). The highest encounter rate of adult northern leopard frogs occurred at

Prince’s Spring, near Bindloss (41.3 frogs/hr). Other sites that exceeded 20.0 frogs/hr

were Scandia (37.6 frogs/hr), McKay Creek, south of Walsh (33.0 frogs/hr), Lodge

6

Creek, south of Cypress Hills (21.2 frogs/hr), and one site on the South Saskatchewan

River north of Medicine Hat (20.5 frogs/hr). Egg masses or tadpoles were confirmed at

a total of 13 sites (Appendix 1).

In general, the largest concentration of frogs occurred in areas around the Cypress

Hills, the South Saskatchewan River valley north of Medicine Hat, the lower Red Deer

River valley downstream of Drumheller to the Saskatchewan border, Serviceberry

Creek north of Strathmore, the area around Brooks, and a few areas south of Calgary

(Sheep/Highwood Rivers and Willow Creek) (Figure 3). Isolated populations were also

confirmed in the Lake Athabasca and Slave River drainages in northeastern Alberta.

Northern leopard frogs were not observed in the North Saskatchewan River, Battle

River, or Sounding Creek drainages. Thus, unoccupied sites appear most prevalent

throughout central Alberta, but were also common in the Bow River drainage near

Calgary and the Milk River drainage in the southern portion of the province (Figure 3).

7

Figure 3. Distribution and abundance of the northern leopard frog in central and

southern Alberta based on number of frogs/hr of search time during the 2005 survey. Data include only adults and subadults.

8

4.3 Habitat suitability

Habitat suitability was evaluated at 160 of 181 sites. Only 18% (29 of 160) of sites were

assessed as highly suitable; the most common assessment was “Low” habitat suitability

(Figure 4). Where northern leopard frogs were encountered (active sites) and habitat

assessed, 38% of sites (24 of 63) were deemed highly suitable. “Zero” habitat suitability

occurred at only two sites, both extremely isolated and cattle damaged dugouts where

one frog was observed.

Of the 97 sites where northern leopard frogs were not observed (non‐active) and where

habitat suitability was assessed, only 5% were deemed highly suitable. Most non‐active

sites were assessed “Low” or “Zero” habitat suitability (Figure 4). Thus, in general,

habitat suitability was perceived as being higher at currently active northern leopard

frog sites than at sites where northern leopard frogs were not observed.

0

10

20

30

40

50

All Sites ʺActiveʺ ʺNotActiveʺ

Site Category

Habita

t Suitability (%

)

HighMediumLowZero

n = 97n = 63n = 160

Figure 4. Northern leopard frog habitat suitability at all sites evaluated, at ʺActiveʺ sites, and at sites where frogs were not observed (“Not Active”).

9

4.4 Adjacent land use

Adjacent land use was recorded at 198 and 177 features associated with active sites and

non‐active sites, respectively. In general, northern leopard frog locations, both active

and non‐active, occurred more often in native prairie or pasture and less commonly in

crop, urban areas, and woodlands (Figure 5). However, the distribution of land use

types differed between occupied and unoccupied features (Χ2 = 14.7, p < 0.025). Active

northern leopard frog features tended to be associated more often with native prairie

and unused pasture and less often with brushland, cropland, and woodland than non‐

active features (Figure 5).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

AP BR CR NP UP UR WO

Land Use

Num

ber o

f features ʺActiveʺ Sites

ʺNot Activeʺ Sites

Figure 5. Comparison of land use within 200 m of feature locations. AP = active

pasture; BR = brushland; CR = crop; NP = native prairie; UP = unused pasture; UR = urban; WO = woodland.

10

4.5 Water quality

Water pH did not differ (t = 0.71, p = 0.48) between active (mean ± SE = 8.35 ± 0.062, n =

109) and non‐active sites (8.28 ± 0.071, n = 67). However, water conductivity was

significantly lower (t = 2.75, p < 0.01) at active (mean ± SE = 1.07 ± 0.072, n = 86) than

non‐active features (mean ± SE = 2.00 ± 0.44, n = 47). The proportion of features

classified as “clear” for water color tended to be higher where northern leopard frogs

were observed (70.2%, n = 191, versus 60.9%, n = 156; X2 = 3.28, p = 0.07). For water

turbidity, the proportion of “clear” features was higher where frogs were observed

(83.2%, n = 191, versus 71.2%, n = 156; X2 = 7.13, p = 0.01).

4.6 Habitat threats

Human or naturally induced habitat threats were evaluated at 177 sites overall; 68% of

those were associated with an identified habitat threat. Habitat was listed as threatened

at 63% (49 of 76) of active sites and 12% (6 of 49) of those had multiple threats

identified. The most common threat was cattle (34%; 26 of 76 sites), followed by human

(16%; 12 of 76 sites) and natural (14%; 11 of 76 sites) threats.

At northern leopard frog breeding sites, 69% (9 of 13) were assessed as threatened and

33% (3 of 9) of those were reported as having multiple threats. Again, cattle were the

most common threat (38%; 5 of 13 sites) followed by human (23%; 3 of 13 sites) and

natural (8%; 1 of 13 sites) threats.

4.7 Outreach

In total, 63% (108 of 172) of landowners contacted were familiar with the northern

leopard frog. However, only 45% were aware of northern leopard frogs on their

property. Brochures were given to 81 interested landowners. Informal discussions

with landowners on the topic of wildlife, the Species at Risk program, and stewardship

revealed that more than 50% had positive attitudes while less than 10% had negative

attitudes (Figure 6). At sites where northern leopard frogs were observed and

landowner attitudes toward stewardship were assessed, 67% (36 of 54) had positive

11

attitudes, 25% (16 of 54) were neutral, and only 4% (2 of 54) had negative attitudes

toward stewardship.

01020304050607080

Wildlife SAR Stewardship

Land

owner A

ttitude

s (%

)

Positive

Neutral

Negative

n = 143

n = 144 n = 132

Figure 6. Summary of landowner attitudes toward wildlife, Species at Risk (SAR), and stewardship.

5.0 DISCUSSION 5.1 Distribution and relative numbers

Results of the 2005 Alberta northern leopard frog survey indicate that populations were

undetectable at more than half of the sites that once supported the species. Some of

these vacant northern leopard frog sites were “C” priority sites reported prior to 1990

and as early as 1901, and were thus, less likely to currently support frogs for a variety of

reasons (e.g., agricultural and urban development, water diversion, poor location data,

etc.). However, the fact that numerous “B” and “A” priority sites now also appear to be

devoid of northern leopard frogs is of concern, given that these sites supported

populations within the last 15 years. In general, the largest concentration of frogs

occurred in areas around the Cypress Hills, the South Saskatchewan River valley north

of Medicine Hat, the lower Red Deer River valley downstream of Drumheller to the

Saskatchewan border, Serviceberry Creek north of Strathmore, and the area around

Brooks. The abundance of frogs in these areas suggests that populations at the core of

the range appear to be relatively healthy. However, it should be noted that many of

12

these populations are isolated from each other and thus, could be at significant risk if

current land use or habitat quality changes.

Historically occupied drainages such as the Battle River, North Saskatchewan River,

and Sounding Creek basins appear to be devoid of northern leopard frogs. In order to

re‐populate those drainages, it appears that inter‐basin transfers of northern leopard

frogs, through reintroductions, will be necessary.

5.2 Habitat

Habitat suitability was generally higher at active northern leopard frog sites than at

vacant sites suggesting that habitat quality has deteriorated at vacant sites since

northern leopard frogs were last observed there. This is particularly alarming given the

vast majority of these locations had northern leopard frogs as recently as 1990 (“B” and

“A” priority sites). Although northern leopard frogs were associated to some degree

with all categories of land use, vacant sites tended to be more common in areas of

agricultural or urban development. This information suggests that reintroduction into

these areas may be difficult and that these factors should be critically evaluated at any

potential reintroduction site.

Field personnel identified cattle as the most common threat to northern leopard frog

sites. These threats most often consisted of moderate impacts on wetland littoral zones

and riparian areas from the watering and grazing activities of livestock. Although the

northern leopard frog was frequently observed in many areas used by livestock,

breeding habitat appeared to be most negatively impacted. Field personnel often

reported that sites could benefit from some degree of cattle management, such as

fencing, off‐site watering, or deferred grazing. The greatest threat to northern leopard

frog populations is likely habitat loss, either through human activities or extended and

prolonged drought. Field personnel reported that, in the southern third of the

province, landowners were in agreement that a period of “drier than average” years left

many wetlands, springs, and creeks unviable as northern leopard frog habitat. Many of

these areas either no longer contain or have greatly reduced populations of northern

leopard frogs. The future occurrence or maintenance of northern leopard frogs at these

sites will likely depend on the connectivity of available habitats to source populations

13

and the return of wetter conditions. Reintroduction may be the only means to re‐

establish northern leopard frogs in vacant areas that are separated from source

populations by unsuitable habitats.

Flooding was widespread during 2005 and appeared to primarily impact northern

leopard frog breeding habitats that occurred in close proximity of creeks or rivers.

Although the short‐ and long‐term effects of the flooding are unknown at this time, the

impact of low breeding success may exacerbate declines in areas where northern

leopard frog populations are already low or declining.

5.3 Outreach

Attitudes varied among landowners with respect to the Species at Risk program,

stewardship activities, and general awareness about northern leopard frogs, but the

vast majority had a high respect for wildlife. Throughout the survey, basic contact

information was acquired for many landowners, discussions about northern leopard

frogs were held between field personnel and landowners, and dozens of northern

leopard frog brochures were distributed to landowners and members of the public.

5.4 Moving forward Population and habitat assessment data collected in 2005 provides valuable baseline

information that will help guide future northern leopard frog reintroductions. Data

collected in 2005 provides information on healthy populations that can withstand the

collection of eggs for recovery efforts. In addition, data collected on vacant northern

leopard frog sites can be used for the identification of potential reintroduction sites.

Identification of additional breeding sites and further assessment of potential

reintroduction sites will be a primary goal for the 2006 field season.

The northern leopard frog relies on a combination of habitat types to meet its annual

life history requirements for breeding, foraging, and over‐wintering. It is therefore

important to integrate management of these key habitat elements for the preservation

and growth of populations. Location information from the 2005 survey, acquired for

current and extirpated populations, is being integrated with geographical information

14

15

systems (GIS) data to generate a northern leopard frog habitat model. This model will

become a valuable tool in the selection process of potential reintroduction sites,

identification of previously unknown leopard frog sites, and the identification of

potential egg mass source sites that will support future reintroductions.

Habitat assessments and landowner information collected in 2005 will be used in 2006

to commence stewardship discussions and activities at a minimum of two northern

leopard frog breeding sites that are impacted by cattle. Fencing and off‐site watering

are possible means by which to increase productivity at threatened breeding sites.

6.0 LITERATURE CITED

Alberta Environmental Protection. 1996. The Wildlife Act. Alberta Environmental

Protection, Natural Resource Service, Edmonton, Alberta. 212 pp.

Alberta Northern Leopard Frog Recovery Team. 2005. Alberta northern leopard frog

recovery plan, 2005‐2010. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and

Wildlife Division, Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 7, Edmonton,

Alberta. 26 pp.

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2003. Status of the northern leopard frog

in Alberta: Update 2003. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and

Wildlife Division, and Alberta Conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report

No. 9 (Update 2003), Edmonton, Alberta. 61 pp.

COSEWIC. 2002. Canadian species at risk, May 2002. Committee on the Status of

Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. 32 pp.

Government of Alberta. 2006. URL: www.gov.ab.ca/home.

Government of Canada. 2002. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/S‐15.3/276773.html

Kendell, K. 2002a. Survey protocol for the northern leopard frog. Alberta Sustainable

Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Species at Risk

Report No. 43, Edmonton, Alberta. 30 pp.

Kendell, K. 2002b. Alberta inventory for the northern leopard frog (2000‐2001).

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta

Species at Risk Report No. 44, Edmonton, Alberta. 29 pp.

Roberts, W.E. 1981. What happened to the northern leopard frog? Alberta Naturalist

11: 1‐4.

16

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/S-15.3/276773.html

17

Roberts, W.E. 1987. The northern leopard frog endangered in Alberta. Pp. 137‐138. In:

G.L. Holroyd, W.B. McGillivray, P.H. Stepney, D.M. Ealey, G.C. Trottier, and

K.E. Eberhart. Endangered species in the prairie provinces. Provincial Museum

of Alberta Natural History Occasional Paper No. 9. Provincial Museum of

Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. 367 pp.

Roberts, W.E. 1994. Amphibian decline? Maybe, maybe not. Environment Network

News Jan/Feb: 11‐13.

Wershler, C.R. 1991. Status of the northern leopard frog in Alberta ‐ 1990.

Unpublished report by Sweetgrass Consultants Ltd. for World Wildlife.

7.0 PLATES

Plate 1. Adult northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) – K. Kendell (ACA).

18

8.0 APPENDIX

Appendix 1. Northern leopard frog sites surveyed in 2005 (prioritized into three categories, A to C) and associated number of frog observations and population index (frogs/person‐hr) at each site.

Priority Site Watershed Visit Code Latitude Longitude

Time (hr) Adults Adults/hr

Young‐of‐the‐Year YOY/hr Breed Habitat

A 30 Athabasca VSS 59.3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.3 10.00

A 6 Bow VSS 50.9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐114.0 0.33 3

A 33 Bow VSS 50.2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.8 0.50 1 2.00 3

A 34 Bow VSS 50.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.7 2.92 20 6.86 2

A 51 Bow VSS 51.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.4 2.42 2

A 186 Bow VSS 50.6 ‐ ‐111.9 2.00 19 9.50 2 1.00 4

A 202 Bow VSS 50.3 ‐ ‐ ‐112.2 3.50 5 1.43 58 16.57

A 243 Bow VSS 50.3 ‐ ‐ ‐112.2 1.25 47 37.60 19 15.20

A 248 Bow VSS 50.7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.9 2.40 11 4.58 2

A 255 Bow VSS 50.4 ‐ ‐ ‐112.2 30.00 77 2.57 418 13.93

A 268 Bow VSS 50.8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.1 2.00 3 1.50 3

A 272 Bow VSS 50.0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.6 1.67 2 1.20 2

A 324 Bow VSS 50.6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.9 4.00 3

A 251 N. Sask. VSS 51.6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.8 1.53 3

A 254 N. Sask. VSS 51.3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.0 2.58 2 A 117 Missouri VSS 49.0 ‐112.1 14.00 65 4.64 426 30.43 E (8) 1 A 203 Missouri VSS 49.1 ‐111.7 4.00 4 1.00 17 4.25 T (1) 1 A 213 Missouri VSS 49.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.3 1.17 3 A 231 Missouri VSS 49.3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.3 1.67 1 0.60 3

19




A 237 Missouri VSS 49.3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.7 3.00 1 0.33 3 A 250 Missouri VSS 49.0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.2 3.00 3 A 261 Missouri VSS 49.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.7 2.00 2 A 262 Missouri VSS 49.0 ‐ ‐110.7 4.00 27 6.75 80 20.00 1 A 263 Missouri VSS 49.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.0 4.00 3 A 265 Missouri VSS 49.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.8 0.67 4 A 273 Missouri VSS 49.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.9 11.25 8 0.71 2 A 274 Missouri VSS 49.0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.7 1.00A 283 Missouri VSS 49.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.6 9.00A 302 Missouri VSS 49.6 ‐ ‐110.4 8.00 6 0.75 60 75.00 2 A 303 Missouri VSS 49.4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.3 4.17 22 5.28 1 A 345 Missouri VSS 49.2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.3 4.00 19 4.75 1 A 350 Missouri VSS 49.7 ‐ ‐ ‐110.1 4.50 24 5.33 T (1) 2 A 3 Oldman VSS 50.0 ‐ ‐ ‐113.9 5.42 5 0.92 E (2) 1 A 4 Oldman VSS 49.8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.0 0.42 4 A 5 Oldman VSS 49.9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.1 1.00 4 A 10 Oldman VSS 49.9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.0 1.50 4 A 230 Oldman VSS 49.9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐114.3 1.75 4 A 232 Oldman VSS 50.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.7 2.58 3 A 233 Oldman VSS 50.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.8 3.25 3 A 234 Oldman VSS 49.8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.3 3.00 3 1.00 1 A 235 Oldman VNH 49.7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.4 0.25 4 A 236 Oldman VSS 49.3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.8 2.33 5 2.14 1 A 244 Oldman RIS 49.4 ‐ ‐112.9 5.33 32 6.00 2254 422.63 1 A 249 Oldman VSS 50.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.8 1.50 6 4.00 2

20




A 252 Oldman VSS 50.0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.8 1.08 4 A 284 Oldman VSS 49.8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.2 2.17 3 1.38 3 A 287 Oldman VSS 50.3 ‐ ‐ ‐112.3 2.00 9 4.50 18 9.00A 309 Oldman VSS 49.8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.5 2.50 E (2) 2 A 311 Oldman VSS 50.0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.7 5.08 3 A 312 Oldman VSS 50.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.9 4.42 1 0.23 3 A 313 Oldman VSS 50.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.8 6.00 1 0.17 2 A 2 Red Deer VSS 51.4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐114.5 1.00 3

A 28 Red Deer VSS 50.9 ‐ ‐ ‐111.1 4.42 13 2.94T

(500) 1 A 157 Red Deer VSS 50.8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.5 0.50 4 A 187 Red Deer VSS 51.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.9 3.67 2 A 223 Red Deer VSS 51.3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.5 1.67 18 10.80 2 A 271 Red Deer VSS 51.0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.2 3.75 23 6.13 1 A 285 Red Deer VSS 51.0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.0 5.75 5 0.87 2 A 293 Red Deer VSS 51.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.1 14.75 97 6.58 1 A 295 Red Deer VSS 50.7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.7 4.00 3 0.75 3 A 307 Red Deer VSS 50.8 ‐110.4 4.17 172 41.28 843 202.32 T (15) 1 A 310 Red Deer VSS 51.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.1 2.00 2 A 340 Red Deer RIS 52.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐114.7 22.50 2 A 378 Red Deer VSS 51.2 ‐ ‐ ‐113.2 3.58 58 16.19 12 3.35A 8 S. Sask. VSS 50.0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.9 1.00 4 A 29 S. Sask. VSS 49.3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.8 1.50 3 A 76 S. Sask. VSS 50.6 ‐ ‐110.4 3.67 53 14.45 397 108.27 1 A 80 S. Sask. VSS 50.5 ‐ ‐110.6 3.00 5 1.67 38 12.67 2 A 99 S. Sask. VSS 49.9 ‐ ‐ ‐110.1 1.67 24 14.40 T 2

21




(750)

A 159 S. Sask. VSS 50.0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.5 0.17 3 A 184 S. Sask. VSS 49.4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.6 1.00 3 A 240 S. Sask. VSS 50.4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.6 6.33 10 1.58 3 A 241 S. Sask. VSS 49.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.7 0.33 4 A 245 S. Sask. VSS 50.0 ‐ ‐110.7 3.83 29 7.57 60 15.65 2 A 246 S. Sask. VSS 50.4 ‐ ‐110.4 5.25 60 11.43 7 1.33 1 A 247 S. Sask. VSS 50.2 ‐ ‐ ‐110.7 8.00 21 2.63 95 11.88A 253 S. Sask. VSS 49.9 ‐ ‐110.0 2.00 37 18.50 7 3.50 2 A 256 S. Sask. VSS 50.4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.4 4.00 4 A 257 S. Sask. VNH 50.0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.6 4 A 258 S. Sask. VSS 50.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.3 2.00A 259 S. Sask. VNH 49.8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.7 4 A 260 S. Sask. VSS 49.9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.6 5.33 2 A 264 S. Sask. VSS 49.2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.7 0.17 4 A 266 S. Sask. VSS 49.2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.9 0.17 4 A 286 S. Sask. VSS 52.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐115.0 11.50 3 A 301 S. Sask. VSS 49.9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.1 1.50 2 1.33 3 A 325 S. Sask. VSS 50.0 ‐ ‐ ‐110.7 7.75 21 2.71 T (5) 1 A 31 Slave VSS 59.9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.0 3.42 29 8.49B 27 Battle VSS 52.9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.0 2.33 3 B 125 Battle NV0 52.6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.6B 13 Bow VSS 50.8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐114.4 0.17 4 B 17 Bow VSS 51.2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐114.5 1.00 4 B 20 Bow VSS 51.4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐114.6 2.33 2

22




B 128 Bow VSS 51.0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐114.6 0.67 3 B 142 Bow VSS 51.0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐114.2 0.83 2 B 148 Bow VSS 51.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐114.3 1.00 3 B 149 Bow VSS 50.9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.1 0.25 3 B 154 Bow VSS 51.2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐114.6 1.50 2 B 191 Bow VSS 51.4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐114.1 1.83 2 B 198 Bow VNH 51.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐114.2 4 B 212 Bow VSS 50.5 ‐ ‐112.2 1.00 6 6.00 4 4.00 4 B 216 Bow VNH 50.8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.6 4 B 218 Bow VSS 50.2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.9 1.25 2 1.60 3 B 224 Bow VNH 50.2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.0 1.00 3 B 225 Bow VSS 50.4 ‐ ‐ ‐112.1 1.50 4 2.67 1 0.67B 275 Bow VSS 51.3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐114.5 0.42 3 B 279 Bow VSS 50.3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.1 2.00 2 1.00B 288 Bow VSS 50.4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.3 2.00 11 5.50B 289 Bow VSS 50.4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.3 2.00B 290 Bow VSS 50.4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.3 1.00 90 90.00B 291 Bow VSS 50.4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.3 2.00 3 1.50 T (1)B 294 Bow VSS 50.7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.9 3.00 2 B 141 N. Sask. VSS 53.4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.0 5.00 1 B 153 N. Sask. VSS 53.4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.9 5.00 1 B 139 N. Sask. VSS 52.6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.0 1.00 3 B 137 Missouri VSS 49.3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.0 4.00 2 B 197 Missouri VNH 49.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.8 3 B 204 Missouri VSS 49.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.2 4.00 3

23




B 205 Missouri VSS 49.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.6 6.50 2 B 206 Missouri VNH 49.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.1 0.67 4 B 214 Missouri VSS 49.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.9 2.00 3 B 229 Missouri VSS 49.0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.1 4.00 3 B 281 Missouri VNH 49.2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.0 4 B 321 Missouri VSS 49.2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.1 2.17 3 B 336 Missouri NV0 49.1 ‐110.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ B 356 Missouri VSS 49.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.9 2.00 1 B 360 Missouri VSS 49.5 ‐ ‐110.3 2.50 53 21.20 641 256.40 1 B 182 Oldman VSS 49.4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.1 0.83 4 B 196 Oldman VSS 50.0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐114.0 3.33 2 B 199 Oldman VSS 49.8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐114.0 2.00 3 B 200 Oldman VAI 49.9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.7 0.50B 210 Oldman VSS 49.8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.9 2.00 3 B 217 Oldman VSS 50.0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.8 2.25 1 0.44 3 B 222 Oldman VSS 50.2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.9 4.08 2 B 269 Oldman VSS 50.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.7 7.50 2 B 270 Oldman VSS 50.0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.6 3.67 2 B 278 Oldman VSS 49.8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.7 1.00 4 B 11 Red Deer VSS 51.2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.0 6.37 9 1.41 2 B 14 Red Deer VSS 50.7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.0 3.00 4 B 23 Red Deer VSS 50.9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.2 0.25 4 B 127 Red Deer NV0 52.4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.8B 130 Red Deer NV0 52.2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.8B 132 Red Deer VSS 51.2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.2 1.67 4

24




B 136 Red Deer NV0 52.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.8B 138 Red Deer NV0 52.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.9B 140 Red Deer NV0 52.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐114.0B 144 Red Deer VSS 51.3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.9 2.53B 146 Red Deer VSS 51.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.7 0.17 3 B 150 Red Deer VSS 51.2 ‐ ‐ ‐113.1 3.25 56 17.23 34 10.46B 151 Red Deer VSS 51.2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.2 2.50 2 B 185 Red Deer VSS 50.9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.0 1.33 1 B 193 Red Deer VSS 50.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.8 1.00 4 B 201 Red Deer VSS 50.9 ‐ ‐ ‐111.1 2.25 6 2.67 T (4) 1 B 211 Red Deer VSS 50.7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.5 1.00 4 B 219 Red Deer VSS 51.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.0 2.58 3 B 220 Red Deer VSS 51.4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.1 0.42 3 B 221 Red Deer VSS 50.7 ‐ ‐111.8 3.00 17 5.67 16 5.33 3 B 226 Red Deer VSS 50.9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.6 2.25 1 B 227 Red Deer VNH 50.7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.6 4 B 228 Red Deer VSS 50.6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.8 2.00 2 1.00 2 B 282 Red Deer VSS 51.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.0 0.33 1 3.00 3 B 379 Red Deer VSS 50.9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.2 0.67 13 19.50 2 B 19 S. Sask. VSS 50.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.6 2.67 1 0.38 3 B 24 S. Sask. VSS 50.8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.0 1.33 4 B 25 S. Sask. VSS 49.3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.5 0.50 3 B 38 S. Sask. VSS 50.6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.6 3.50 3 B 77 S. Sask. VSS 50.5 ‐ ‐110.5 3.60 4 1.11 14 3.89 2 B 126 S. Sask. VSS 49.4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.7 3.50 3

25




B 129 S. Sask. VSS 50.3 ‐ ‐110.6 4.00 82 20.50 131 32.75 1 B 143 S. Sask. VSS 49.8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.4 0.33 4 B 152 S. Sask. VSS 50.4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.5 0.75 4 B 164 S. Sask. VSS 49.2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.6 1.00 3

B 183 S. Sask. VSS 49.9 ‐ ‐ ‐110.0 1.67 55 33.00T

(250) 1 B 192 S. Sask. VSS 50.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.9 1.00 3 3.00 2 B 208 S. Sask. VSS 49.3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.7 1.33 4 B 209 S. Sask. VNH 49.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.9 4 B 215 S. Sask. VSS 49.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.4 0.83 3 B 239 S. Sask. VSS 49.7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.5 4.58 13 2.84 1 B 267 S. Sask. VSS 50.8 ‐ ‐ ‐111.0 1.75 6 3.43 T (20) 1 B 299 S. Sask. VSS 49.3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.5 1.67 3 B 300 S. Sask. VSS 49.3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.5 4.00 7 1.75 2 B 277 Slave VSS 59.4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.1 3.50 7 2.00 1 C 107 Missouri VNH 49.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.9 4 C 109 Missouri VSS 49.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.9 2.00 Unknown C 296 Missouri VSS 49.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐111.3 1.75 3 C 359 Missouri VSS 49.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.3 2.50 3 C 87 Oldman VSS 49.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.7 5.00 3 C 120 Oldman VSS 49.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.9 6.00 3 C 304 Oldman VNH 49.7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.8C 305 Oldman VSS 49.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.8 4.25 3 C 366 Oldman VSS 49.3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.1 1.08 3 C 165 Red Deer VSS 51.7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.0 0.50 4 C 166 Red Deer NV0 51.7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.1 4

26

27




C 169 Red Deer VSS 51.2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.2 1.00 4 C 171 Red Deer VNH 51.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.9C 173 Red Deer VSS 52.3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.1 3.00 2 C 347 Red Deer VSS 51.4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐112.2 1.50 3 C 358 Red Deer VSS 50.9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.5 2.00 4 C 316 S. Sask. VSS 49.6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.3 2.00 3 C 361 S. Sask. VSS 49.7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐110.2 4.00 3 New_C Missouri NEW 49.0 110.7 1.00 6 6.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 Hummer Red Deer RIS 52.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.3 4.50 New_A Bow NEW 50.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.8 4.00 3 0.75 1 New_B Oldman NEW 50.7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐113.9 0.50 2 4.00 3

Visit Code: NEW = New Site; NVO = Not Visited, assumed 0 based on recent knowledge; RIS = Reintroduction site; VAD = Visit, access denied; VAI = Visit, access impossible; VER = Visit, error in description/coordinates; VNH = Visit, no habitat; VSS = Visited, successfully surveyed. Breed: (T) denotes approximate number of tadpoles observed; (E) denotes number of egg masses observed. Habitat: 1 = high habitat quality; 2 = medium habitat quality; 3 = low habitat quality; 4 = ”zero” habitat quality.

CONSERVATIONCONSERVATIONREPORT REPORT SERIESSERIES

The Alberta Conservation Association acknowledges the following partner for their generous support of

this project

paku

Alberta logo

kkissner

Placed Image

kkissner

Placed Image

kkissner

Placed Image

kkissner

Placed Image

kkissner

Placed Image

kkissner

Placed Image

kkissner

Placed Image

kkissner

Placed Image

kkissner

Placed Image

Northern Leopard Frog Survey, 2005 - Alberta2… · Leopard Frog Recovery Team (ANLFRT) followed...

Documents

Transcript of Northern Leopard Frog Survey, 2005 - Alberta2… · Leopard Frog Recovery Team (ANLFRT) followed...