Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
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
Priority Site Watershed Visit Code Latitude Longitude
Time (hr) Adults Adults/hr
Young‐of‐the‐Year YOY/hr Breed Habitat
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
Priority Site Watershed Visit Code Latitude Longitude
Time (hr) Adults Adults/hr
Young‐of‐the‐Year YOY/hr Breed Habitat
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
Priority Site Watershed Visit Code Latitude Longitude
Time (hr) Adults Adults/hr
Young‐of‐the‐Year YOY/hr Breed Habitat
(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
Priority Site Watershed Visit Code Latitude Longitude
Time (hr) Adults Adults/hr
Young‐of‐the‐Year YOY/hr Breed Habitat
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
Priority Site Watershed Visit Code Latitude Longitude
Time (hr) Adults Adults/hr
Young‐of‐the‐Year YOY/hr Breed Habitat
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
Priority Site Watershed Visit Code Latitude Longitude
Time (hr) Adults Adults/hr
Young‐of‐the‐Year YOY/hr Breed Habitat
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
Priority Site Watershed Visit Code Latitude Longitude
Time (hr) Adults Adults/hr
Young‐of‐the‐Year YOY/hr Breed Habitat
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
Priority Site Watershed Visit Code Latitude Longitude
Time (hr) Adults Adults/hr
Young‐of‐the‐Year YOY/hr Breed Habitat
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
CONSERVATIONCONSERVATIONREPORT REPORT SERIESSERIES
The Alberta Conservation Association acknowledges the following partner for their generous support of
this project