Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Northern Leopard Frog in the Western United States as Threatened, 61896-61931 [2011-25498]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 5, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61896-61931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25498]



[[Page 61895]]

Vol. 76

Wednesday,

No. 193

October 5, 2011

Part V





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





 Fish and Wildlife Service





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





50 CFR Part 17





 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 
Petition To List the Northern Leopard Frog in the Western United States 
as Threatened; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 61896]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2009-0030; 92210-1111-FY08-B2]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding 
on a Petition To List the Northern Leopard Frog in the Western United 
States as Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a 12-month 
finding on a petition to list the northern leopard frog (Lithobates 
(=Rana) pipiens) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(Act). After review of the best scientific and commercial information, 
we find that listing the northern leopard frog is not warranted at this 
time. However, we ask the public to submit to us any new information 
that becomes available concerning threats to the northern leopard frog 
or its habitat at any time.

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on October 5, 
2011.

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R2-ES-2009-0030. Supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Office, 2321 
West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021. Please submit any 
new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this 
finding to the above street address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven L. Spangle, Field Supervisor, 
Arizona Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES); by telephone at 
(602) 242-0210; or by facsimile at (602) 242-2513. If you use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires 
that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or 
commercial information that listing the species may be warranted, we 
make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition. 
In our finding, we are required to determine if the petitioned action 
is: (a) Not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but the 
immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action 
is precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether species 
are endangered or threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to 
add or remove qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act 
requires that we treat a petition for which the requested action is 
found to be warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date 
of such finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made 
within 12 months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the 
Federal Register.

Previous Federal Actions

    On June 5, 2006, we received a petition from the Center for Native 
Ecosystems, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Defenders of Black 
Hills, Forest Guardians, Center for Biological Diversity, The Ark 
Initiative, Native Ecosystems Council, Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action, 
and Mr. Jeremy Nichols requesting that the northern leopard frog 
(Lithobates (=Rana) pipiens) occurring in the western United States 
(Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, 
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South 
Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming) be listed as a threatened 
distinct population segment (DPS) under the Act. The petition contained 
detailed information on the natural history, biology, current status, 
and distribution of the western population of the northern leopard 
frog. It also contained information on what the petitioners reported as 
potential threats to the western population of the northern leopard 
frog such as habitat loss and degradation, predation and competition by 
nonnative species, disease, water pollution, climate change, and other 
factors. We acknowledged the receipt of the petition in a letter to the 
petitioners dated August 7, 2006. That letter explained that we would 
not be able to address their petition at that time. The reason for this 
delay was that responding to court orders and settlement agreements for 
other listing actions required nearly all of our listing funding.
    In reviewing the petition, there were two issues for which the 
Service requested clarification from the petitioners. We were 
petitioned to list the population west of the Mississippi River and the 
Great Lakes region in the United States and south of the international 
boundary between the United States and Canada. However, although 
Wisconsin is located west of the Great Lakes region, the petition map 
did not show Wisconsin as a part of the petition, and the status of the 
species is not mentioned in that State. Therefore, we requested that 
the petitioners clarify whether they intended to include or exclude 
Wisconsin from the petitioned DPS. We also sought clarification as to 
whether the petitioners were requesting that we review only the western 
U.S. population of the northern leopard frog as a DPS or if they were 
also requesting us to consider listing the entire species or a 
significant portion of the range of the species. The petitioners 
responded to our clarification request in a letter dated February 8, 
2008, requesting we review whether Wisconsin should be included in the 
western U.S. population of the northern leopard frog. In addition, the 
petitioners clarified that, if we find that listing the western U.S. 
population of northern leopard frogs as a DPS is not warranted, we 
review whether listing the entire species is warranted because of 
threats in a significant portion of its range.
    On July 1, 2009, we published our 90-day finding (74 FR 31389) that 
the petition presented substantial scientific information indicating 
that listing the western population of the northern leopard frog may be 
warranted, and we initiated a status review to determine if listing the 
species as a DPS or throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range is warranted. Our July 1, 2009, 90-day finding opened a 60-day 
period to send us information for our status review. On October 28, 
2009, we reopened this information solicitation period for our status 
review for an additional 30 days, ending November 27, 2009 (74 FR 
55525). This notice constitutes our 12-month finding on the February 8, 
2008, petition to list the northern leopard frog.

Species Information

    Below we provide information relevant to understanding the analysis 
of information pertaining to the five factors. See Rorabaugh (2005) for 
a more complete description of the distribution and life history of the 
northern leopard frog.
Taxonomy
    The northern leopard frog is in the family Ranidae (Lannoo 2005, p. 
371), the true frogs, and is one of about 28 species within the genus 
Lithobates (formerly Rana (Frost et al. 2006, p. 10;

[[Page 61897]]

Frost et al. 2008, pp. 7-8)) that occur in North America (Lannoo 2005, 
p. 371). For more than a century, nomenclatural and taxonomic confusion 
has surrounded members of the Lithobates (=Rana) complex (Moore 1944, 
p. 349; Pace 1974, pp. 11-16; Merrell 1977, pp. 1-2; Hillis et al. 
1983, p. 132 among others), and there is a wealth of literature from 
the late 1800s to present day that has attempted to accurately describe 
the different species and geographic variation within the complex. 
Until recently, all North American ranid frogs (frogs in the family 
Ranidae) were included within the single genus Rana. However, Frost et 
al. (2006, p. 10) placed most of these species into the genus 
Lithobates. This change is recognized by the Committee on Standard 
English and Scientific Names, which is the official names list of the 
American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, the 
Herpetologists' League, and the Society for the Study of Amphibians and 
Reptiles (Frost et al. 2008, pp. 7-8). Accordingly, the Service also 
recognizes and accepts Frost et al.'s (2008) Lithobates classification.
Physical Description
    The northern leopard frog is a slim, smooth-skinned green, brown, 
or sometimes yellow-green frog with webbed hind feet. The frog is 
covered with large, oval dark spots, each of which is surrounded by a 
lighter halo or border (Stebbins 2003, pp. 234-235). The snout (nose) 
is pointed and the tympanum (eardrum) is round and approximately equal 
in diameter to the eye (Baxter and Stone 1980, p. 41). Northern leopard 
frogs have a white stripe on the upper jaw and the dorsolateral folds 
(paired, glandular ridges that run along each side of the back from 
behind the eyes to the rear) are light cream to yellow and are 
continuous (not broken posteriorly). The belly is white to cream-
colored, and the posterior thigh has a light background color with dark 
spots. There are two different color morphs (variants) of the northern 
leopard frog that most often occur in western Minnesota, eastern North 
Dakota, and South Dakota (Rorabaugh 2005, p. 570; McKinnel1 et al. 
2005, p. 7). These color morphs do occur in other locations (for 
example, see Ammon 2002, p. 11), but they are most prevalent in 
Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota, as described above. The 
burnsi morph lacks dorsal spots and the kandiyohi morph has mottled 
pigment patches (speckles) between the dorsal spots. Adult body lengths 
(snout-vent) range from 2 to 4.5 inches (in) (5 to 11 centimeters (cm)) 
(Stebbins 2003, p. 234). Females average slightly larger than males 
(Leonard et al. 1993, p. 138; Werner et al. 2004, p. 97). Subadult, or 
recently metamorphosed frogs (see Biology section below), range in 
length from 1 to 2 in (2 to 5 cm) (Merrell 1977, pp. 10-11). During the 
breeding season, males have enlarged or swollen thumbs (innermost 
digit) on forefeet, and vocal sacs are not apparent except when the 
frog is calling (Baxter and Stone 1980, p. 41; Hammerson 1999, p. 145). 
The typical breeding call is a prolonged ``snore'' followed by a series 
of stuttering croaks or chuckles that tend to accelerate towards the 
end (Hammerson 1999, p. 145). These vocalizations may be interspersed 
with chuckling sounds (Stebbins 2003, p. 235).
    Northern leopard frogs deposit their egg masses underwater in 
clusters, which they attach to vegetation. Eggs are laid in a single 
orange- to grapefruit-sized globular clump, and may be laid 
individually or communally in groups (Nussbaum et al. 1983, p. 182). 
Each egg mass may contain 645 to 7,648 individual eggs (Rorabaugh 2005, 
p. 572). The eggs hatch into tadpoles. Tadpoles (the larval stage in 
the lifecycle of the frog) are dark green to brown above with metallic 
flecking, and a cream to white translucent underside (Werner et al. 
2004, p. 97). Tadpoles metamorphose into young frogs. For a detailed 
description of northern leopard frog tadpoles, see Scott and Jennings 
(1985, pp. 4-16).
Distribution
    The northern leopard frog historically ranged from Newfoundland and 
southern Quebec, south through the northeast portions of the United 
States to West Virginia, west across the Canadian provinces and 
northern and central portions of the United States to British Columbia, 
Oregon, Washington, and northern California, and south to Arizona, New 
Mexico, and extreme western Texas (Rorabaugh 2005, p. 570).
    Current range maps tend to show an extensive and connected 
distribution for the northern leopard frog; however, its actual 
distribution is sparse and fragmented in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, 
California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, western 
Montana, and western Wyoming in the western United States (Rorabaugh 
2005, pp. 570-571), throughout New England (New Hampshire Fish and Game 
Department 2005, pp. A208-A209), and in British Columbia, Northern 
Territories, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and parts of Manitoba in Canada 
(Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada 2009, p. 
iii).
Habitat
    The northern leopard frog is an amphibian (a cold-blooded 
vertebrate that spends some time on land, but must breed and develop 
into an adult in water) and as such is ectothermic (incapable of 
generating their own body heat) (Wells 2007, p. 2). They have highly 
permeable skin, which allows for rapid passage of water and gases so 
that they can use their external environment to regulate body 
temperature and moisture loss (Wells 2007, pp. 2-3). As part of its 
complex life history, the northern leopard frog requires a mosaic of 
habitats, which includes aquatic overwintering and breeding habitats, 
and upland post-breeding habitats, as well as habitat linkages, to meet 
the requirements of all of its life stages (Pope et al. 2000, p. 2505; 
Smith 2003, pp. 6-15; Rorabaugh 2005, pp. 571-575). Although aquatic 
breeding habitat is required for long-term population survival, upland 
foraging, dispersal, and overwintering habitats are critical if 
individual leopard frogs are to survive to reproductive maturity. For 
example, researchers noted an area near Chicago that had low northern 
leopard frog abundance, but extensive potential aquatic breeding 
habitat. It was not until habitat surrounding the ponds was restored 
from scrub forest to grasslands that leopard frog numbers increased 
dramatically (K.S. Mierzwa, pers. comm. in Pope et al. 2000, p. 2506). 
These complex habitat requirements make northern leopard frogs 
particularly vulnerable to the impacts of habitat loss and 
fragmentation. Reduction or removal of these habitats or loss of 
connectivity between habitat components could reduce the capacity of 
the landscape to support the species (Pope et al. 2000, p. 2505; Green 
2005, p. 31).
    Northern leopard frogs breed in a variety of aquatic habitats that 
include slow-moving or still water along streams and rivers, wetlands, 
permanent or temporary pools, beaver ponds, and human-constructed 
habitats such as earthen stock tanks and borrow pits (Rorabaugh 2005, 
p. 572). Successful breeding areas typically do not contain predaceous 
fish or other predators (Merrell 1968, p. 275; Hine et al. 1981, p. 12; 
Orr et al. 1998, p. 92; Smith 2003, pp. 19-21). Emergent vegetation, 
such as sedges and rushes, are important features of breeding and 
tadpole habitats (Gilbert et al. 1994, p. 468; Smith 2003, pp. 8-9), 
and tadpoles are most often found in backwaters and still pools 
(Rorabaugh 2005, p. 572).
    Sub-adult northern leopard frogs typically move from breeding areas 
to

[[Page 61898]]

feeding sites along the borders of larger, more permanent bodies of 
water, as smaller frogs are closely tied to water (Merrell 1970, p. 
49). Recently metamorphosed frogs will move up and down drainages and 
across land in an effort to disperse from breeding areas (Seburn et al. 
1997, p. 69) and may disperse more than 0.5 mile (mi) (800 meters (m)) 
from their place of metamorphosis (Dole 1971, p. 223). Dole (1971, p. 
226) found that dispersal in Michigan occurred on warm, rainy nights 
and that frogs dispersed overland; however, warm rains are not common 
in all parts of the species' range and other dispersal routes may be 
important as well. Streams are an important corridor for dispersing 
juvenile frogs (Seburn et al. 1997, pp. 68-69), and vegetated drainage 
ditches may also facilitate connectivity between seasonal habitats 
(Pope et al. 2000, p. 2505). In some areas of the western United 
States, subadults may remain in the breeding habitat within which they 
metamorphosed (Smith 2003, p. 10).
    In addition to the breeding habitats, adult northern leopard frogs 
require stream, pond, lake, or river habitats for overwintering and 
upland habitats adjacent to these areas for summer feeding. In summer, 
adults and juveniles commonly feed in open or semi-open wet meadows and 
fields with shorter vegetation, usually near the margins of water 
bodies, and seek escape cover underwater. Post-breeding summer habitats 
do not include barren ground, open sandy areas, heavily wooded areas, 
cultivated fields, heavily grazed pastures, or mowed lawns (Rorabaugh 
2005, p. 573). Buffer zones around wetland breeding sites should be 
maintained for movement to surrounding upland foraging habitat. 
Rittenhouse and Semlitsch (2007, p. 154) collected data from 13 
published radio telemetry and tagging studies looking at frog and 
salamander use of terrestrial habitat surrounding wetlands. They found 
that, on average, a buffer width of 1,877 ft (572 m) around the 
breeding site is needed to encompass the non-breeding habitat used by 
90 percent of the frogs in a given population (Rittenhouse and 
Semlitsch 2007, pp. 155-157).
    During winter, northern leopard frogs are thought to hibernate 
underwater in ponds, in lakes, or on the bottom of deeper streams or 
waters that do not freeze to the bottom and that are well-oxygenated 
(Nussbaum 1983, p. 181; Stewart et al. 2004, p. 72). Northern leopard 
frogs are intolerant of freezing and of waters that have severely 
reduced or complete loss of dissolved oxygen. If these conditions occur 
during hibernation, death of northern leopard frogs is likely 
(Rorabaugh 2005, p. 574).
    Based upon their research in Wisconsin, Hine et al. (1981) 
described the ideal ``breeding pond'' as having the following features:
    (1) The pond or wetland site should be located within approximately 
1.0 mile (mi) (1.6 kilometers (km)) of suitable overwintering habitat 
(larger bodies of water) so that adults can find the breeding habitat 
when they emerge in the spring and juvenile frogs are able to find 
overwintering sites in the fall.
    (2) In the spring, the water depth should be approximately 5 ft 
(1.5 m) or more so that there is balance of open water and vegetation 
cover.
    (3) Emergent vegetation (such as sedge, bulrush, and cattail) 
should occur along at least two-thirds of the pond or wetland to 
provide escape cover and places to attach egg masses.
    (4) The slope should be gradual to promote habitat for emergent 
vegetation.
    (5) Natural terrestrial habitats should be maintained peripheral to 
wetlands summer habitat for adults post-breeding, for juvenile growth, 
and for dispersal or movement corridors.
    (6) Water should be relatively permanent throughout the year, but 
should dry every decade or so in order to eliminate any predaceous fish 
that become established.
    Water quality and temperature are important determinants of 
northern leopard frog habitat. Because northern leopard frogs have 
permeable skin, which may transfer external contaminants to its 
internal organs, good (i.e., non-polluted) water quality is important 
at breeding locations. Chemical contamination of habitats can result in 
malformations, population declines, decreased growth rates, reduced 
activity, and other impacts to northern leopard frogs (Diana and 
Beasley 1998, pp. 267-276). Temperature plays an important role in both 
the springtime migratory and breeding behaviors of northern leopard 
frogs (Merrell 1970, pp. 50-51; Merrell 1977, pp. 5-6, 9). When ambient 
air temperature is greater than or equal to 50 degrees Fahrenheit 
([deg]F) (10 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)), northern leopard frogs move 
from their overwintering sites to their breeding sites (Merrell 1970, 
p. 50). The calling sites and areas where egg masses are deposited are 
not random and appear to be chosen based upon temperature as these 
activities tend to be located in the warmest portions of breeding ponds 
(Merrell 1977, p. 6).
Biology
    As soon as males leave overwintering sites, they travel to breeding 
ponds and call in shallow water (Smith 2003, p. 13). Breeding typically 
occurs during a short period in the spring beginning in early April 
(Pace 1974, p. 92; Corn and Livo 1989, p. 4); at higher elevations and 
more northern latitudes, the onset of breeding is late April to early 
May (Corn and Livo 1989, p. 5; Gilbert et al. 1994, p. 467). Most 
northern leopard frogs are sexually mature at age 2, although the age 
of sexual maturity may vary from age 1 to age 3 in any given population 
depending upon environmental conditions (Leclair and Castanet 1987, p. 
368; Gilbert et al. 1994, pp. 468-469). Male frogs attract females by 
calling from specific locations within a breeding pond when 
temperatures are close to 68 [deg]F (20 [deg]C) or more, with several 
males typically calling together to form a chorus (Merrell 1977, p. 7). 
Eggs are typically laid within breeding habitats, 2 to 3 days following 
the onset of chorusing (Corn and Livo 1989, p. 5). Eggs are laid in 
non-acidic, shallow (4 to 26 in (10 to 65 cm)), still water that is 
exposed to sunlight, and are usually attached to emergent vegetation 
just below the water surface (Merrell 1977, p. 6; Gilbert et al. 1994, 
pp. 467-468; Pope et al. 2000, p. 2505). Egg masses may include several 
hundred to several thousand eggs (Corn and Livo 1989, pp. 6-7) and are 
deposited in a tight, oval mass (Rorabaugh 2005, p. 572). Time to 
hatching is correlated with temperature and ranges from 2 days at 81 
[deg]F (27 [deg]C) to 17 days at approximately 53 [deg]F (12 [deg]C) 
(Nussbaum et al. 1983, p. 182).
    Tadpoles are the ephemeral, feeding, non-reproductive, completely 
aquatic larvae in the life cycle of the frog (McDiarmid and Altig 1999, 
p. 2). The length of time required for metamorphosis (the development 
of the aquatic tadpole to a frog) is variable, and depending upon 
temperature, may take 3 to 6 months from time of egg-laying (Merrell 
1977, p. 10; Hinshaw 1999, p. 105). Northern leopard frog tadpoles are 
predominantly generalist herbivores (plant eaters), typically eating 
attached and free-floating algae (Hoff et al.1999, p. 215); however 
they may feed on dead animals (Hendricks 1973, p. 100). Adult and 
subadult frogs are generalist insectivores (insect eaters) that feed on 
a variety of terrestrial invertebrates such as insect adults, larvae, 
spiders, and leeches (Merrell 1977, p. 15; Collier et al. 1998, p. 41; 
Smith 2003, p. 12; Rorabaugh 2005, p. 575). In addition, adult northern 
leopard frogs have also been known to prey upon small

[[Page 61899]]

northern leopard frogs, birds, and snakes (Merrell 1977, p. 15).
Status
    Northern leopard frogs, like many amphibian populations, are 
dynamic, and their individual numbers may naturally fluctuate in size 
within populations. However, across the range of the northern leopard 
frog, information suggests that there is an ongoing loss of populations 
throughout the species' range. The loss of populations across the 
landscape is what results in species' declines (Green 2005, p. 29). 
Population declines of northern leopard frogs are well-documented in 
the western United States and western Canada, but are also documented 
rangewide (through the Midwestern and Eastern United States), as 
described below.
    The most recent complete summary of distributional and abundance 
patterns of the northern leopard frog is from Rorabaugh (2005, pp. 570-
571), which documents a substantial contraction of the species' range, 
especially in the western two-thirds of the United States, where 
widespread extirpations have occurred. Other authors have also compiled 
summary data indicating population declines (e.g., Smith and Keinath 
2007, p. 14). Since the 1960s, the northern leopard frog has 
experienced significant declines and losses throughout its range (Gibbs 
et al. 1971, p. 1028), particularly in the western United States and 
western Canada, and tends to become less abundant the farther west one 
proceeds (Corn and Fogelman 1984, p. 150; Hayes and Jennings 1986, p. 
491; Clarkson and Rorabaugh 1989, p. 534; Corn et al. 1989, pp. 26-29; 
Koch and Peterson 1995, pp. 84-87; Corn et al. 1997, pp. 37-38; Weller 
and Green 1997, p. 323; Casper 1998, p. 199; Hammerson 1999, pp. 146-
147; Leonard et al. 1999, p. 51; Dixon 2000, p. 77; Smith 2003, pp. 4-
6; Jennings and Fuller 2004, pp. 125-127; Werner et al. 2004, pp. 97-
98; Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada 2009, p. 
v; Germaine and Hays 2009, p. 537; Johnson et al. 2011, p. 557).
    Based upon this and other information, the northern leopard frog 
appears to be declining, is considered rare, or is locally extirpated 
from many historical locations in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, 
Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, 
Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming (Hayes and 
Jennings 1986, p. 491; Stebbins and Cohen 1995, p. 220; Johnson and 
Batie 1996; Bowers et al. 1998, p. 372; Casper 1998, p. 199; Lannoo 
1998, p. xvi; Mossman et al. 1998, p. 198; Smith 2003, pp. 4-6; Smith 
and Keinath 2004, pp. 57-60; McCleod 2005, pp. 292-294; Rorabaugh 2005, 
p. 571; Johnson et al. 2011, p. 561). The species is nearly extirpated 
from almost 100 percent of its historical range in Texas, California, 
Oregon, and Washington (Stebbins and Cohen 1995, p. 220; McAllister et 
al. 1999, p. 15; Stebbins 2003, p. 235; Germaine and Hays 2009, p. 
537).
    Table 1 lists current NatureServe ranks for States and provinces in 
which the northern leopard frog is known to occur. NatureServe 
conservation status assessment procedures have different criteria, 
evidence requirements, purposes, and taxonomic coverage than the 
Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, and 
therefore, these rankings may not coincide with legal listing processes 
(NatureServe 2008, p. 1). However, for a species as widespread as the 
northern leopard frog, the NatureServe rankings aid in summarizing the 
relative risks facing the northern leopard frog throughout its range 
and are provided here for this reason.
    NatureServe lists Maryland and New Jersey as States where the 
northern leopard frog occurs. However, the Maryland Department of 
Natural Resources lists the northern leopard frog as an introduced 
species that occurs in one county (Maryland Department of Natural 
Resources 2011, p. 2), and the frog does not occur in New Jersey 
(Gessner and Stiles 2001, pp. 1-9; New Jersey Division of Fish and 
Wildlife 2006, pp. 1-2).

    Table 1--NatureServe and State, Province, and Territory Ranks for
   Northern Leopard Frogs in States and Provinces It Is Known To Occur
                        [NatureServe 2011, p. 1]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 State, province, territory     Natural heritage      State, province,
     or sovereign nation         program rank *        territory rank
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona.....................  S2 (Imperiled)......  Species of Greatest
                                                     Conservation Need.
California..................  S2 (Imperiled)......  Species of Greatest
                                                     Conservation Need.
Colorado....................  S3 (Vulnerable).....  Species of Greatest
                                                     Conservation Need,
                                                     Species of Special
                                                     Concern.
Connecticut.................  S2 (Imperiled)......  Special Concern
                                                     Species.
Idaho.......................  S3 (Vulnerable).....  Species of Greatest
                                                     Conservation Need.
Illinois....................  S5 (Secure).........  Non-game Indicator
                                                     Species.
Indiana.....................  S2 (Imperiled)......  Species of Greatest
                                                     Conservation Need.
Iowa........................  S5 (Secure).........  No ranking or
                                                     status.
Kentucky....................  S3 (Vulnerable).....  Species of Greatest
                                                     Conservation Need.
Maine.......................  S3 (Vulnerable).....  Species of Greatest
                                                     Conservation Need
                                                     (Priority 3).
Maryland....................  S4 (Apparently        No ranking or status
                               Secure), introduced   (considered an
                               spp.                  introduced
                                                     species).
Massachusetts...............  S3/S4 (Vulnerable/    Species of Special
                               Apparently Secure).   Concern, Species of
                                                     Greatest
                                                     Conservation Need.
Michigan....................  S5 (Secure).........  Species of Greatest
                                                     Conservation Need.
Minnesota...................  S4 (Apparently        No ranking or
                               Secure).              status.
Missouri....................  S2 (Imperiled)......  Species of
                                                     Conservation
                                                     Concern.
Montana.....................  S1/S3 (Critically     Species of Concern,
                               Imperiled/            Species of Greatest
                               Vulnerable).          Conservation Need.
Navajo Nation (NE Arizona,    S2 (Imperiled)......  Endangered.
 NW New Mexico, SE Utah).
Nebraska....................  S5 (Secure).........  At-Risk Species
                                                     (Tier II).
Nevada......................  S2/S3 (Imperiled/     Species of
                               Vulnerable).          Conservation
                                                     Priority.
New Hampshire...............  S3 (Vulnerable).....  Species of Concern.
New Jersey..................  SNR (Unranked),       Species not present.
                               species not present.

[[Page 61900]]

 
New Mexico..................  S1 (Critically        Species of Greatest
                               Imperiled).           Conservation Need.
New York....................  S5 (Secure).........  No ranking or
                                                     status.
North Dakota................  SNR (Unranked)......  No ranking or
                                                     status.
Ohio........................  SNR (Unranked)......  No ranking or
                                                     status.
Oregon......................  S1/S2 (Critically     Sensitive Critical,
                               Imperiled/            List 2 Species
                               Imperiled).           (threatened with
                                                     extinction or
                                                     presumed extinct).
Pennsylvania................  S2/S3 (Imperiled/     Priority
                               Vulnerable).          Conservation
                                                     Species (Tier 5).
Rhode Island................  S2 (Imperiled)......  Species of Greatest
                                                     Conservation Need.
South Dakota................  S5 (Secure).........  No ranking or
                                                     status.
Texas.......................  S1 (Critically        No ranking or status
                               Imperiled).           (likely
                                                     extirpated).
Utah........................  S3/S4 (Vulnerable/    Species of Concern
                               Apparently Secure).   (Tier III).
Vermont.....................  S4 (Vulnerable).....  No ranking or
                                                     status.
Washington..................  S1 (Critically        Endangered.
                               Imperiled).
West Virginia...............  S2 (Imperiled)......  Species in Greatest
                                                     Need of
                                                     Conservation.
Wisconsin...................  S4 (Vulnerable).....  No ranking or
                                                     status.
Wyoming.....................  S3 (Vulnerable).....  Species of Greatest
                                                     Conservation Need.
Alberta.....................  S2/S3 (Imperiled/     Threatened.
                               Vulnerable).
British Columbia............  S1 (Critically        Endangered.
                               Imperiled).
Labrador and Newfoundland...  S3/S4 (Vulnerable/    No ranking or
                               Apparently Secure).   status.
Manitoba....................  S4 (Vulnerable).....  No ranking or
                                                     status.
New Brunswick...............  S5 (Secure).........  No ranking or
                                                     status.
Northwest Territories.......  SNR (Unranked)......  No ranking or
                                                     status.
Nova Scotia.................  S5 (Secure).........  No ranking or
                                                     status.
Ontario.....................  S5 (Secure).........  Not at risk.
Prince Edward Island........  S4/S5 (Apparently     No ranking or
                               Secure/Secure).       status.
Quebec......................  S5 (Secure).........  No ranking or
                                                     status.
Saskatchewan................  S3 (Vulnerable).....  Interim Species at
                                                     Risk.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* S1 = Critically Imperiled: At very high risk of extinction due to
  extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or
  other factors.
S2 = Imperiled: At high risk of extinction due to restricted range, few
  populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors.
S3 = Vulnerable: At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted
  range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and
  widespread declines, or other factors. Such species are often rare or
  found locally in a restricted range.
S4 = Apparently Secure: Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term
  concern due to declines or other factors. Such species are likely to
  be quite rare in parts of their range, especially at the periphery.
S5 = Secure: Common; widespread and abundant. Such species are
  potentially rare in parts of their range, especially at the periphery.
SNR = Unranked. State or Province conservation status not yet assessed.

    The International Union for the Conservation of Nature's ``Red List 
Categories and Criteria'' were developed for classifying species at 
high risk of global extinction (IUCN 2003, p. 1), and as such have 
different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes, and taxonomic 
coverage than the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 
and Plants. However, just as with the NatureServe data, because we are 
reviewing the entire range of the northern leopard frog, the 
International Union for the Conservation of Nature assessment is useful 
in summarizing the current status of the northern leopard frog 
throughout its range.
    The International Union for the Conservation of Nature currently 
lists the northern leopard frog as a species of `least concern' in view 
of its wide distribution, tolerance to degree of habitat modification, 
and presumed large population (Hammerson et al. 2004, p. 2). The 
International Union for the Conservation of Nature states that the 
population trend is decreasing (Hammerson et al. 2004, p. 3), but the 
authors believe that the northern leopard frog is not declining fast 
enough to qualify for listing in a more threatened category (Hammerson 
et al. 2004, p. 2). The International Union for the Conservation of 
Nature reviewed Hammerson et al. (2004, pp. 1-6) in 2011, and no 
updates were made to the 2004 review. Since 2004, Rorabaugh (2005, pp. 
570-577) completed a status review for the northern leopard frog in the 
United States (Rorabaugh 2005, pp. 570-577), and the Committee on the 
Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada published the Assessment and 
Update Status Report for the Northern Leopard Frog in Canada (Committee 
on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada 2009, pp. 1-76). The 
Rorabaugh (2005, pp. 570-577) status review found that for a variety of 
reasons the northern leopard frog is declining throughout its range, 
but particularly in the western United States. The Committee on the 
Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (2009, pp. iii) assessment 
notes that there are continued declines for the northern leopard frog 
throughout the western provinces and evidence of declines in eastern 
Canada. The current International Union for the Conservation of Nature 
review does not cite either of these documents or provide any current 
threats assessment. The International Union for the Conservation of 
Nature analysis for the northern leopard frog also includes leopard 
frogs in Panama, which likely belong to the Lithobates complex, but do 
not belong to the same species as the northern leopard frog. Therefore, 
we do not consider the International Union for the Conservation of 
Nature review for the northern leopard frog a current assessment of the 
species' status in North America.
Western States
    Until the late 1970s, northern leopard frogs were widespread and 
abundant in much of northern Arizona (Apache, Coconino, Greenlee, 
Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai Counties) in springs, streams, rivers, 
stock tanks, and lakes throughout northern Arizona (Arizona Game and 
Fish Department 2009, p. 1).

[[Page 61901]]

Currently, there is one northern leopard frog population located near 
Seligman, Arizona; a metapopulation (several breeding locations in 
close proximity to one another) located south of Flagstaff, Arizona; 
and three refugial sites developed by the State and Service (and other 
partners) to assist in stocking northern leopard frogs to other 
locations in Arizona, north of the Colorado River. All of these 
locations are located in Coconino County. Outside of these locations, 
fairly rigorous visual encounter surveys conducted within the species' 
historical range, including Grand Canyon National Park and the Kaibab 
National Forest, have not located northern leopard frogs (Kaibab 
National Forest 2007, p. 1; Kaibab National Forest 2008, p. 1; Drost et 
al. 2008, p. 7). The species is listed as a Species of Greatest 
Conservation Need in the Arizona State Wildlife Action Plan (Arizona 
Game and Fish Department 2006, Appendix M, p. 153) and has a 
NatureServe rank of S2 (Imperiled) (NatureServe 2011, p. 1). In 
Arizona, there is no open season for northern leopard frog, and 
collecting is illegal except as authorized by State permit, effective 
January 1, 1993 (Commission Order 41). The northern leopard frog has 
also significantly declined on the Navajo Nation (which is situated in 
southeastern Utah, northeastern Arizona, and northwestern New Mexico) 
in the last century. Most remote desert populations of northern leopard 
frogs were lost between the 1920s and 1970s, and mountain populations 
were lost in the late 1980s. The Navajo Nation has listed the northern 
leopard frog as a ``Group 2--Endangered Species'' on the Navajo 
Endangered Species List, which means its prospects of survival or 
recruitment on the Navajo Nation are in jeopardy (Navajo Nation 
Department of Fish and Wildlife 2009, p. 3).
    The northern leopard frog is a State of California species of 
special concern and is listed as a Species of Special Concern (native 
populations only) (California Department of Fish and Game, Natural 
Diversity Database, 2009) and as a Species of Greatest Conservation 
Need in California Department of Fish and Game's State Wildlife Action 
Plan (California Department of Fish and Game 2007); however, the 
northern leopard frog is not listed under the California Endangered 
Species Act. The northern leopard frog may be taken under the authority 
of a sport fishing license, subject to restrictions (California Code of 
Regulations, Title 14, Section 5.05). The frog is ranked S2 (Imperiled) 
by NatureServe (NatureServe 2011, p. 1). Northern leopard frogs are 
likely native to the region east of the Sierra Nevada-Cascade crest in 
the following areas of California: upper Pit River basin (Shasta, 
Lassen, and Modoc counties), Surprise Valley (Modoc County), lower 
Klamath Lake basin (Siskiyou County), Lake Tahoe region (El Dorado 
County), Carson River drainage (Alpine County) and Owens River Valley 
(Mono and Inyo counties) (Jennings and Fuller 2004, p. 122). The 
northern leopard frog was introduced to at least 15 other sites in 
California, but most of these introductions have not resulted in 
naturalized populations that continue to exist today (Jennings and 
Hayes 1994, p. 80; Jennings and Fuller 2004, p. 119). There is a small, 
introduced population in Merced County, near the Merced National 
Wildlife Refuge (NWR) that persisted as recently as 2007 (Jennings and 
Fuller 2004, pp. 119, 127; Woolington 2009, pers. comm.). Since the 
1970s, northern leopard frogs have disappeared from most (approximately 
95 percent) of their historic range in California, (Jennings and Fuller 
2004, p. 119; Rorabaugh 2005, p. 571) and may be completely extirpated 
from these areas of the State as we are not aware of any recent 
confirmed sightings. Jennings and Hayes (1994, p. 82) knew of only two 
extant, native northern leopard frog populations as of the 1990s: one 
adult was observed at Tule Lake National NWR (Siskiyou County) in 1990, 
and 8 to 10 juveniles were found near Pine Creek in Round Valley near 
Bishop (Inyo County) in 1994. Northern leopard frogs are no longer 
found on Tule Lake NWR (Adams 2011, pers. comm.), and no northern 
leopard frogs have been observed during amphibian surveys conducted on 
the Klamath Falls NWR Complex, including Tule Lake NWR (Austin 2009, 
pers. comm.). Recent surveys conducted by the California Department of 
Fish and Game did not locate any northern leopard frogs in the Owens 
River Area (Becker 2011, pers. comm.). In addition, surveys found that 
sites previously considered to be northern leopard frog habitat now 
contain nonnative aquatic species, and the habitat has been extensively 
modified such that there are likely few areas of suitable habitat left 
in the Owens Valley (Becker 2011, pers. comm.). Northern leopard frogs 
have not been found in the Lake Tahoe basin for over 20 years, and the 
species is presumed to be extirpated from the area (Jennings and Fuller 
2004, p. 125). Jennings and Fuller (2004, p. 126) also report that a 
formerly isolated native northern leopard frog population on Hat Creek, 
Shasta County, is now apparently extirpated as well. Modoc NWR in 
northeastern California reported no known occurrences of northern 
leopard frogs on the refuge in recent times, and no northern leopard 
frogs were reported during numerous hours of amphibian survey time in 
2004, 2005, and 2010 (Bachman 2011, pers. comm.).
    The northern leopard frog was historically quite common throughout 
Colorado, but over the last 30 to 40 years, populations have declined 
and even been locally extirpated from portions of eastern and north-
central Colorado, including Rocky Mountain and Mesa Verde National 
Parks (Corn and Fogleman 1984, p. 148; Corn et al. 1989, p. 15; 
Stebbins and Cohen 1995, p. 220; Corn et al. 1997, pp. 37-38; Hammerson 
1999, pp. 146-147; Mesa Verde National Park 2009, p. 1; Johnson et al. 
2011, p. 561). The Colorado Division of Wildlife has designated the 
northern leopard frog a Species of Greatest Conservation Need as well 
as a Species of Special Concern due to low population status and a 
declining population trend (Colorado Division of Wildlife 2006, pp. 2, 
28, 305). These are not statutory categories; however, the northern 
leopard frog is classified as ``nongame'' wildlife and their 
harassment, taking, or possession is prohibited without a permit 
(Colorado Division of Wildlife 2009, p. 3). NatureServe ranks the 
northern leopard frog as S3 (Vulnerable) in Colorado (NatureServe 2011, 
p. 1). Intensive surveys conducted from 2007 through 2009 in the Front 
Range of Colorado indicate that northern leopard frogs there have 
become rare and documented losses are widespread (Johnson and McKenzie 
2009, p. 9; Keeley 2009, pp. 5-6; Johnson et al. 2011, p. 562). 
Historically, northern leopard frogs were found at high densities in 
this region (Johnson et al. 2011, p. 562). Along the Western Slope (the 
area west of the continental divide in Colorado), data suggest that 
northern leopard frog populations remain viable, especially in the 
northern region (Johnson and McKenzie 2009, p. 10). This supports 
information from Arapaho and Browns Park NWRs, both located in 
northwestern Colorado, that continue to support northern leopard frogs 
(Johnson 2009, pers. comm.; Smart 2009, pers. comm.). Northern leopard 
frogs were the most common amphibian in southwest Colorado until the 
late 1960s, but now they are rare (San Miguel 2009, pers. comm.). 
Despite conducting amphibian surveys for 15 years with an emphasis on 
locating northern leopard frogs, none have been detected within Mesa 
Verde National Park, Colorado. Historically,

[[Page 61902]]

this species was found abundantly along the Mancos River in the park 
and adjacent lands (San Miguel 2009, pers. comm.). However, the overall 
status of the northern leopard frog in western Colorado is not 
currently known (Johnson et al. 2011, p. 563).
    The Idaho Department of Fish and Game designated the northern 
leopard frog a Type 2 Species of Greatest Conservation Need (Idaho 
Department of Fish and Game 2005, Appendix B p. 6). A Type 2 species of 
greatest conservation need is defined as a rangewide or globally 
imperiled species that is experiencing significant declines throughout 
its range with a high likelihood of being listed in the foreseeable 
future due to its rarity (Idaho Department of Fish and Game 2005, 
Appendix B, p. 4). Reduced distribution and a declining population 
trend are noted in the Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 
Strategy as reasons for the designation (Idaho Department of Fish and 
Game 2005, Species Account, p. 1). The northern leopard frog is also a 
protected nongame species, which means take or possession of the 
species is prohibited without a permit (Idaho Administrative Code 
13.01.06-300.02). NatureServe ranks the northern leopard frog in Idaho 
as S3 (Vulnerable) (NatureServe 2011, p. 1). Both the Targhee National 
Forest and Kootenai NWR have records of northern leopard frogs from the 
1970s (Service 1972, p. 11; Stebbins and Cohen 1995, p. 220). However, 
surveys in 1992 at 98 sites on the Targhee National Forest did not 
locate northern leopard frogs (Stebbins and Cohen 1995, p. 220), and 
Kootenai NWR has no records of frogs for the last 30 years (Rose 2009, 
pers. comm.). Deer Flat NWR amphibian surveys have only detected 
American bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeiana). Northern leopard frogs are 
known to be present on Bear Lake, Grays Lake, and Minidoka NWRs, and 
presumed to be present on Camas NWR and Oxford Slough Wetland 
Protection Area (WPA) (Fisher and Mitchell 2009, p. 1).
    Localized declines of northern leopard frogs are documented in Iowa 
(Lannoo et al. 1994, pp. 317-318; Hemesath 1998, p. 216). Lannoo et al. 
1994 (p. 311) states, ``From descriptions of the turn-of-the-century 
commercial ``frogging'' industry in Dickinson County (Iowa), we 
estimate that the number of leopard frogs has declined by at least two, 
and probably three orders of magnitude.'' However, the northern leopard 
frog is ranked as Secure (S5) in Iowa by NatureServe (2011, p. 1) and 
is not considered a Species of Greatest Conservation Need (Iowa 
Department of Natural Resources 2006, p. 42). Currently, there is a 
continuous open season for northern leopard frogs in inland and 
boundary waters in Iowa, and up to 48 frogs can be collected per day 
(Iowa Department of Natural Resources 2011, p. 1). In 1991, the Iowa 
Department of Natural Resources initiated an annual anuran (frog and 
toad) survey. The survey is conducted by volunteers, and until 2007, 
volunteers were not required to distinguish between species of leopard 
frogs on the report forms (Iowa Department of Natural Resources 2009, 
p. 1). Survey data from 2007 and 2008 (when the species were separated) 
and older data from counties where it was thought only the northern 
leopard frog occurred were reviewed by the State. The analyses of this 
information suggest a possible downward trend in northern leopard frog 
presence, but the trend was not statistically significant (Iowa 
Department of Natural Resources 2009, p. 1).
    Northern leopard frog populations began declining in Minnesota in 
the late 1960s or early 1970s (Rittschof 1975, p. 103; Minnesota 
Department of Natural Resources 2011a, pp. 1-2). The declines of 
northern leopard frog populations from the past are thought to have 
been substantial, but information is not detailed enough to know if the 
population is now stable or if it is still declining in Minnesota 
(Moriarty 1998, p. 168). However, because the species is still 
considered to be fairly common, it is not considered a Species of 
Greatest Conservation Need in Minnesota's Comprehensive Wildlife 
Strategy (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2006, Appendix B p. 
9). The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' northern leopard 
frog fact page does indicate that the northern leopard frog is still 
declining (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2011a, p. 2). The 
species is ranked S4 (Apparently Secure) by NatureServe (NatureServe 
2011, p. 1). In Minnesota, from May 16 to March 31, licensed anglers 
and children under age 16 may take, use, buy, and sell an unlimited 
number of northern leopard frogs up to 6 inches long for bait 
(Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2011b, p. 70). A Minnesota 
Department of Natural Resources commercial license is required to take 
northern leopard frogs for purposes other than bait.
    Missouri is located on the periphery of the range for northern 
leopard frogs and the frog is currently only known to occur in two 
counties (Atchison and Mercer) that border Iowa (Missouri Department of 
Conservation 2009, p. 1). The northern leopard frog is listed as a 
Species of Conservation Concern by the Missouri Department of 
Conservation and NatureServe ranks it as Imperiled (S2) (Missouri 
Department of Conservation 2009, p. 1; NatureServe 2011, p. 1). This 
ranking is based upon the low number of known occurrences in Missouri 
and not based upon declining population trends (Missouri Department of 
Conservation 2009, p. 1). The Missouri Department of Conservation noted 
that it is likely that more populations are present in northern 
Missouri, but further surveys need to be completed to affirm this 
assumption (Missouri Department of Conservation 2009, p. 1). In 
Missouri, northern leopard frogs have regulatory protection from 
commercial take and non-resident collection. Missouri residents are 
allowed to possess up to five northern leopard frogs for education use 
(Wildlife Code Missouri 3CSR10-9.110); however, these five individuals 
cannot be sold, traded, shipped over State lines, or taken from public 
lands (Missouri Department of Conservation 2009, p. 2). Northern 
leopard frogs also cannot be used as live bait in Missouri (Wildlife 
Code Missouri 3CSR10-6.605).
    Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks classified the northern leopard 
frog as a Species of Concern in Montana and it is considered a Species 
of Greatest Conservation Need in their Wildlife Conservation Strategy 
(Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 2009, p. 1). Northern leopard frogs 
are protected from commercial collection in Montana (Montana Code 
Annotated 2009 87-5-116). Historically, northern leopard frogs occurred 
across the eastern plains of Montana and in the mountain valleys on 
both sides of the Continental Divide (Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 
2009, p. 1). However, since the 1990s, most previously known northern 
leopard frog populations on the west side of the Continental Divide in 
Montana are considered extirpated, and there has been a clear range 
contraction of northern leopard frogs (Werner 2003, p. 26; Montana 
Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 2009, p. 1). Currently, only two populations 
exist in western Montana. Surveys in the mid-1990s of historically 
occupied sites in central Montana, east of the Continental Divide, 
found only 19 percent of the sites to be occupied by northern leopard 
frogs (Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 2009, p. 1). NatureServe 
provides a split rank for the State that reflects the difference in 
status between western (S1 Critically Imperiled) and eastern (S3 
Vulnerable) Montana (NatureServe 2011, p. 1). Habitat restoration and 
survey efforts are being planned Statewide to provide

[[Page 61903]]

a current assessment of northern leopard frog distribution (Montana 
Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, 2009, p. 2).
    The northern leopard frog occurs commonly in the State of Nebraska 
(McLeod 2005, p. 292) and has a NatureServe rank of S5 (Secure) 
(NatureServe 2011, p. 1). However, surveys conducted in 1997 and 1998 
indicated a significant decline in northern leopard frog occurrences at 
the State level (McLeod 2005, p. 292). It is difficult to ascertain if 
this information represents a real decline or is representative of 
normal stochastic events, but data indicated significant differences 
from location data collected in the 1970s (McLeod 2005, p. 292). The 
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission identified the northern leopard frog 
as a Tier II At-Risk Species during development of the Nebraska Natural 
Legacy Project (2005, p. 319). Tier II species are typically those that 
are not at-risk from a global or national perspective, but are rare or 
imperiled within Nebraska. As of 2011, northern leopard frogs can no 
longer be commercially harvested or sold for bait in Nebraska; however, 
anglers can still collect them as bait for personal use (Nebraska Game 
and Parks Commission 2011, p. 5).
    In Nevada, northern leopard frogs are currently ranked S2/S3 
(Imperiled/Vulnerable) by NatureServe (NatureServe 2011, p. 1) and are 
on the Nevada Natural Heritage Program's Animal and Plant Watch List, 
which means they could be declining in Nevada or across much of their 
range, or may be less common than currently thought and could become 
at-risk in the future. The northern leopard frog is identified as a 
Species of Conservation Priority in the Nevada Wildlife Action Plan 
(Wildlife Action Plan Team 2006, p. 61). In addition, the northern 
leopard frog is a protected amphibian by Nevada statute (NAC 503.075) 
and cannot be collected for commercial, recreational, or educational 
purposes without a permit (Nevada Department of Wildlife 2009, p. 5). 
The Nevada Department of Wildlife notes that there is little historical 
or current information available to accurately assess the distribution 
and status of the northern leopard frog in Nevada (Nevada Department of 
Wildlife 2009, p. 1). However, recent surveys suggest that northern 
leopard frogs may no longer be abundant in Nevada and that there have 
been numerous local extirpations, for example, along the Truckee and 
Carson rivers in western Nevada and in springs of southern and eastern 
Nevada (Panik and Barrett 1993, p. 203; Hitchcock 2001, pp. 9, 109-
110). While historical records and anecdotal evidence indicated that 
northern leopard frogs were once widely distributed in the State, the 
current species distribution is much smaller than the historical 
distribution (Hitchcock 2001, pp. 9, 38, 48). In addition, suitable 
northern leopard frog habitat is patchily distributed in the State due 
to the aridity and isolated nature of many wetland systems, which 
results in a discontinuous and limited distribution (Nevada Department 
of Wildlife 2009, p. 1). Recent Nevada Department of Wildlife records 
document northern leopard frog populations in Ruby Valley (including 
Ruby Lakes NWR) and Lower Mary's River in Elko and White Pine Counties; 
Spring Valley and Lake Valley in White Pine County; Lake Valley and 
Pahranagat Valley (including Pahranagat NWR) in Lincoln County; Carson 
River near Carson City; the lower Truckee River and Truckee meadows in 
Washoe County; and a small number of additional sites in western and 
northeastern Nevada (Hitchcock 2001, pp. 96-102; Service 2009, pp. 1-2; 
Nevada Department of Wildlife 2009, p. 2). Efforts to restore northern 
leopard frog habitat and re-establish the species have occurred along 
the lower Truckee River in western Nevada and on Pahranagat NWR (Horton 
2010, pers. comm.; Rogers 2010, p. 7).
    Historically, the northern leopard frog was documented from a large 
area in the northern and western part of New Mexico and along the 
entire length of the Rio Grande River valley, except southern Elephant 
Butte and northern Caballo Reservoirs (New Mexico Department of Game 
and Fish 2009, p. 1). Declines in northern leopard frogs have been 
reported from the Lower Rio Grande (below Caballo Reservoir), in the 
Jemez Mountains, and in the Chuska Mountains (Christman 2009, p. 5; New 
Mexico Department of Game and Fish 2009, p. 2). The species is believed 
to be extirpated from the Rio Grande Valley, south of Albuquerque (New 
Mexico Department of Game and Fish 2009, p. 3). Recent survey efforts 
indicate that northern leopard frogs are persisting in northern New 
Mexico, but most occupied sites contained small numbers of frogs with 
very few robust populations (Christman 2009, p. 13). The northern 
leopard frog is not listed as endangered or threatened in New Mexico 
under the Wildlife Conservation Act, but was designated a Species of 
Greatest Conservation Need by the New Mexico Department of Game and 
Fish, and NatureServe ranks it as S1 (Critically Imperiled) in New 
Mexico (New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 2006, p. 540; 
NatureServe 2011, p. 1). The northern leopard frog is protected from 
commercial take (Section 17-1-14 NMSA); however, take by New Mexico 
State residents for pets or other uses are uncontrolled (New Mexico 
Department of Game and Fish 2009, p. 2).
    Historically, the northern leopard frog ranged Statewide in North 
Dakota and is still quite common today (North Dakota Game and Fish 
Department 2009, p. 1). Northern leopard frogs are widely distributed 
throughout the State and locally abundant in some locations (Newman 
2009, p. 1; Scherr 2009, pers. comm.) but surveys conducted by Bowers 
et al. (1998, p. 372) found that the range of the northern leopard frog 
was less extensive in the prairie potholes region of North Dakota than 
previously described. Because of its distribution and local abundance, 
the northern leopard frog has no special status in the State, and there 
are no conservation programs that specifically target the northern 
leopard frog (North Dakota Game and Fish Department 2009, p. 1). 
Commercial frog licenses are available for unlimited collection of 
northern leopard frogs (North Dakota Administrative Code 30-03-04). 
NatureServe does not have a current ranking for North Dakota as it is 
currently under review (NatureServe 2011, p. 1).
    The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ranks the northern 
leopard frog as a ``Sensitive Critical'' species, meaning that it is 
imperiled with extirpation from a specific geographic area of the State 
due to small population sizes, habitat loss or degradation, or 
immediate threats (Oregon Biodiversity Information Center 2010, p. 7, 
13). The sensitive species list is primarily a non-regulatory tool 
designed to provide a voluntary, proactive approach to conservation 
(Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2008, p. 1). The Oregon 
Biodiversity Information Center lists the northern leopard frog as a 
``List 2 Species'' meaning that it is threatened with extirpation or 
presumed to be extirpated from the State of Oregon (Oregon Biodiversity 
Information Center 2010, pp. 4, 13) and it is ranked S1/S2 (Critically 
Imperiled/Imperiled) by NatureServe (NatureServe 2011, p. 1). The 
Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (2010, p. 13), lists the 
following counties as containing historical locations for the northern 
leopard frog: Hood River, Wasco, Sherman, Gilliam, Morrow, Umatilla, 
Jefferson, Crook, Grant, Baker, Malheur, Klamath, and Jackson Counties. 
Rorabaugh (2005, p. 571) reported that northern leopard frogs are 
extirpated from most historical

[[Page 61904]]

localities in Oregon. The six records we have from the Oregon Natural 
Heritage Information Center are observations from 1975, 1980, 1990, 
1995, 1996, and 2003. We have found no records, current or historical, 
to indicate the presence of northern leopard frogs on either the Hart 
Mountain National Antelope Refuge (southern Oregon) or Sheldon NWR 
(northern Nevada) (Harper Collins 2009, pers. comm.). Frog surveys were 
conducted at Sheldon NWR in summer 2009, but they detected only 
nonnative American bullfrogs.
    The status of the northern leopard frog in South Dakota is thought 
to be stable and NatureServe lists the frog as secure (S5) (South 
Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks 2009, p. 1; NatureServe 
2011, p. 1). The northern leopard has no specific protection in South 
Dakota and can be collected for commercial and non-commercial bait 
(South Dakota Laws and Regulations for Commercial Bait Dealers 2009, p. 
1; South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks 2011, p. 23). The 
species' range includes almost the entire State based upon historical 
and current distribution maps (Fischer et al. 1999, p. 12; Naugle et 
al. 2005, p. 285). Smith et al. (2005, p. 9) found northern leopard 
frogs to be common in the Black Hills, and a Statewide herpetology 
(amphibian and reptile) survey report indicates that the distribution 
of the northern leopard frog in the State is stable (Backlund 2004, p. 
8). However, there is no historical or recent abundance data to compare 
current survey data that would indicate population trend (Backlund 
2004, p. 9). Information received from Lacreek and Waubay NWRs and the 
Huron Wetland Management District indicate northern leopard frogs are 
prevalent (Flannders-Wanner 2009, pers. comm.; Hubers 2009, pers. 
comm.; Koerner 2009, pers. comm.). Anuran auditory surveys (1997-1998) 
found northern leopard frogs to be one of the most widespread and 
wetland-abundant species in eastern South Dakota (Naugle et al. 2005, 
p. 290).
    The northern leopard frog's historic range in Texas was in the Rio 
Grande Valley, El Paso County (a relatively small portion of the 
State). However, extensive efforts to locate the frog have been 
unsuccessful (Dixon 2000, pp. 42, 77). The northern leopard frog is 
ranked S1 (Critically Imperiled) by NatureServe (NatureServe 2011, p. 
1), but is not listed as a species of conservation concern in the Texas 
Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (Texas Parks and Wildlife 
Department 2005, pp. 748-751). The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 
webpage (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 2011a, p. 11) lists the 
species as occurring in Texas, but the most current field guide for 
amphibians and reptiles of Texas indicates the species is likely 
extirpated (Dixon 2000, p. 77). The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 
requires that anyone who captures a wild animal, including frogs, be 
licensed or permitted (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 2011b, p. 
1).
    The Utah Division of Wildlife Resource