DOCSLIB.ORG

Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana Chiricahuensis)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis) Draft Recovery Plan April 2006 DRAFT CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG (Rana chiricahuensis) RECOVERY PLAN Prepared by: Chiricahua Leopard Frog Recovery Team, including the Technical Subgroup, Southeastern Arizona/Southwestern New Mexico Stakeholder Subgroup, Mogollon Rim Stakeholder Subgroup, and West-Central New Mexico Stakeholder Subgroup Prepared for: Region 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico DRAFT Chiricahua Leopard Frog Recovery Plan 2006 DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and are sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director, or Director, as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature citation of this document should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Draft Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, NM. 149 pp. + Appendices A-N. Additional Copies May be Obtained From: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Field Office Southwest Region 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 500 Gold Avenue, S.W. Phoenix, Arizona 85303 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 On Line: http://www.fws.gov/arizonaes and http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ DRAFT Chiricahua Leopard Frog Recovery Plan 2006 PLAN PREPARATION This draft recovery plan was developed by the Chiricahua Leopard Frog Recovery Team. The Team is composed of a Technical Subgroup and three Stakeholders Subgroups (West-Central New Mexico, Southeastern Arizona/Southwestern New Mexico, and Mogollon Rim). The Technical Subgroup provided expertise in amphibian biology, hydrology, forest management, captive care and amphibian diseases, and conservation biology. The Stakeholders kept the process grounded in the logistical realities of on-the-ground implementation. All subgroup members had the opportunity to contribute to this recovery plan, and many took advantage of that opportunity over the 18 months of meetings and workshops that resulted in this draft. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service thanks all recovery team subgroup members (see “LIST OF CONTACTS”), and particularly the subgroup leaders or mediators: Mike Sredl and Randy Jennings (Co-leads for the Technical Subgroup), Anna Magoffin and Ron Bemis (Leaders/Mediators for the Southeastern Arizona/Southwestern New Mexico Stakeholders), Ben Brown (Leader for the West-Central New Mexico Stakeholders), and Cecelia Overby and Terry Myers (Leaders for the Mogollon Rim Stakeholders). Kevin Wright, Ross Humphreys, Doug Powers, and Jony Cockman served as liaisons between subgroups. We also thank our external liaisons: Cynthia Dale (White Mountain Apache Tribe), Stefanie White and Tianna Thompson (San Carlos Apache Tribe), and Eduardo Lopez and Rafaela Paredes (Instituto del Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo Sustentable del Estado de Sonora – IMADES), as well as our internal liaisons: Jim Rorabaugh (also an editor on the plan), Melissa Kreutzian, Eileen Everett, Tracy (Scheffler) Melbihess, Marty Tuegel, Rawles Williams, and Patricia Zenone. Susi MacVean translated the Executive Summary into Spanish. Dennis Caldwell of the Southeastern Arizona/Southwestern New Mexico Stakeholders Subgroup provided the cover art for the recovery plan. ii DRAFT Chiricahua Leopard Frog Recovery Plan 2006 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Current Status: The Chiricahua leopard frog is federally listed as threatened without critical habitat. The species’ recovery priority is 2C, which indicates a high degree of threat, a high potential for recovery, and a taxonomic classification as a species. A special rule exempts operation and maintenance of livestock tanks on non-Federal lands from the Section 9 take prohibitions of the Endangered Species Act. The species occurs at elevations of 3,281 to 8,890 feet in central and southeastern Arizona, west-central and southwestern New Mexico, and the sky islands and Sierra Madre Occidental of northeastern Sonora and western Chihuahua, Mexico. The range of the species is split into two disjunct parts - the northern populations along the Mogollon Rim in Arizona east into the mountains of west-central New Mexico, and the southern populations in southeastern Arizona, southwestern New Mexico, and Mexico. Genetic analysis suggests the northern populations may be an undescribed, distinct species. Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors: The Chiricahua leopard frog is an inhabitant of montane and river valley cienegas, springs, pools, cattle tanks, lakes, reservoirs, streams, and rivers. It is a habitat generalist that historically was found in a variety of aquatic habitat types, but is now limited to the comparatively few aquatic systems that support few or no non-native predators (e.g. American bullfrogs, fish, and crayfish). The species also requires permanent or semi-permanent pools for breeding, water characterized by low levels of contaminants and moderate pH, and may be excluded or exhibit periodic die-offs where a pathogenic chytridiomycete fungus is present. Threats to this species include predation by non-native organisms, especially American bullfrogs, fish, and crayfish; the fungal disease chytridiomycosis; drought; floods; degradation and loss of habitat as a result of water diversions and groundwater pumping, livestock management that has or continues to degrade frog habitats, fire-prone upland habitats resulting from a long history of fire suppression, mining, development, and other human activities; disruption of metapopulation dynamics; increased chance of extirpation or extinction resulting from small numbers of populations and individuals existing in dynamic environments; and probably environmental contamination (such as runoff from mining operations and airborne contaminants from copper smelters). Loss of Chiricahua leopard frog populations fits a pattern of global amphibian decline, suggesting other regional or global causes of decline may be important as well, such as elevated ultra-violet radiation, pesticides or other contaminants, and climate change. Recovery Goal: To recover and delist the Chiricahua leopard frog. Recovery Strategy: The frog must reach a population level and have sufficient habitat to provide for the long-term persistence of metapopulations in each of eight recovery units (RUs). The strategy will involve reducing threats to existing populations; maintaining, restoring, and creating habitat that will be managed in the long-term; translocating frogs to establish, reestablish, or augment populations; building support for the recovery effort through outreach and education; monitoring; research needed to provide effective conservation and recovery; and application of research and monitoring through adaptive management. Management areas iii DRAFT Chiricahua Leopard Frog Recovery Plan 2006 (MAs) are identified in each RU where we believe the potential for successful recovery actions is greatest. Establishment and maintenance of at least two metapopulations in different drainages within each RU are integral to the recovery strategy. These metapopulations must exhibit long-term persistence and be protected from non-native predators, disease, habitat alteration, and other threats. As a buffer against disease, at least one additional robust, but isolated population should be established and maintained in each RU. A captive or actively-managed, genetically diverse refugium population will also be desirable for RUs in which extirpation of Chiricahua leopard frogs is likely in the near future. These refugia can serve as a source of animals for establishment and augmentation projects, for contingency planning in case of environmental or other disasters that reduce or eliminate populations, and to supply animals needed for research related to conservation. Implementation of the recovery strategy will be conducted as a collaborative effort among technical experts, zoos and museums, agencies, and other participants and stakeholders. We envision regional working groups to implement recovery in RUs or MAs. Recovery and the status of the species will be tracked via monitoring and annual reporting through the working groups. Research recommended herein will provide the information needed to ensure the recovery strategy is as effective as possible. Working groups and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will evaluate research results and revise or update this recovery plan as appropriate. Recovery Criteria: The Chiricahua leopard frog will be considered for delisting when the following quantitative criteria are met in each RU: 1. At least two metapopulations located in different drainages (defined here as USGS 10-digit Hydrologic Units) plus at
Recommended publications
  • Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana Chiricahuensis)

    Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana Chiricahuensis)

    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis) Final Recovery Plan April 2007 CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG (Rana chiricahuensis) RECOVERY PLAN Southwest Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and are sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director, or Director, as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature citation of this document should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, NM. 149 pp. + Appendices A-M. Additional copies may be obtained from: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Field Office Southwest Region 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 500 Gold Avenue, S.W.
  • Water and Natural Resources Committee

    Water and Natural Resources Committee

    WATER AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE 2012 INTERIM FINAL REPORT to the FIFTIETH LEGISLATURE SECOND SESSION New Mexico Legislative Council Service Santa Fe, New Mexico December 2012 WATER AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE 2012 REPORT Santa Fe, New Mexico December 2012 2012 LEGISLATIVE INTERIM WATER AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF WORK The committee scheduled five meetings during the 2012 interim that were held in Las Cruces, Truth or Consequences, Ruidoso, Albuquerque and Santa Fe. Continued drought and major wildfires again dominated the news in 2012. Through November 2012, the average precipitation for New Mexico was near the record lowest value, ranking as the second driest since 1895, as severe to exceptional drought continued across New Mexico, and the average temperature for the state for the year was the highest on record. It was also the second consecutive year during which record-breaking wildfires burned across the state. The lightning-sparked Whitewater-Baldy Complex Fire in the Gila Wilderness burned more than 297,845 acres, which surpassed the area burned by the Las Conchas Fire of 2011, making it the largest wildfire in New Mexico state history. The Little Bear Fire was also started by a lightning strike; it burned 44,330 acres and 254 buildings in Lincoln County after quickly growing out of control due to dry, windy conditions. The city of Ruidoso and the surrounding area will need more than $14 million in the coming years to address the effects of that fire on their drinking water supplies alone. At the committee's joint meeting in August with the Courts, Corrections and Justice Committee, the committees reviewed several legal issues of concern to both committees, including the state's suit against the federal Bureau of Reclamation on its administration of Rio Grande Project water, implementation of the Pecos River Settlement, the status of ongoing adjudications and the need for spaceport liability legislation.
  • Tumacacori Potential Wilderness Area Evaluation [PW-05-03-D2-001]

    Tumacacori Potential Wilderness Area Evaluation [PW-05-03-D2-001]

    Tumacacori Potential Wilderness Evaluation Report Tumacacori Potential Wilderness Area Evaluation [PW-05-03-D2-001] Area Overview Size and Location: The Tumacacori Potential Wilderness Area (PWA) encompasses 37,330 acres. This area is located in the Tumacacori and Atacosa Mountains, which are part of the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest in southeastern Arizona (see Map 4 at the end of this document). The Tumacacori PWA is overlapped by 30,305 acres of the Tumacacori Inventoried Roadless Area, comprising 81 percent of the PWA. Vicinity, Surroundings and Access: The Tumacacori Potential Wilderness Area is approximately 50 miles southeast of Tucson, Arizona. The Tumacacori PWA is centrally located within the mountain range and encompasses an area from Sardina and Tumacacori Peaks at the northern end to Ruby Road at the southern end and from the El Paso Natural Gas Line on the eastern side to Arivaca Lake on its western side. The PWA is adjacent to the Pajarita Wilderness Area, Arivaca Lake and Peña Blanca Lake. Both Pena Blanca and Arivaca Lakes are managed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Interstate 19 (I-19) connects the Tucson metropolitan area to the City of Nogales and the incorporated community of Sahuarita. The unincorporated communities of Green Valley, Arivaca Junction-Amado, Tubac, Tumacacori-Carmen and Rio Rico, Arizona and Sonora, Mexico are within close proximity to the eastern side of the Tumacacori Mountains and the PWA. State Highway 289 provides access from I-19 across private and National Forest System lands into the Tumacacori Ecosystem Management Area to Peña Blanca Lake and Ruby Road (NFS Road 39).
  • Butch Cassidy Roamed Incognito in Southwest New Mexico

    Butch Cassidy Roamed Incognito in Southwest New Mexico

    Nancy Coggeshall I For The New Mexican Hideout in the Gila Butch Cassidy roamed incognito in southwest New Mexico. Hideout in the Gila utch Cassidy’s presence in southwestern New Mexico is barely noted today. Notorious for his successful bank Butch Cassidy roamed and train robberies at the turn of the 20th century, incognito in southwest Cassidy was idealized and idolized as a “gentleman out- New Mexico wilderness Blaw” and leader of the Wild Bunch. He and various members of the • gang worked incognito at the WS Ranch — set between Arizona’s Blue Range and San Carlos Apache Reservation to the west and the Nancy Coggeshall rugged Mogollon Mountains to the east — from February 1899 For The New Mexican until May 1900. Descendants of pioneers and ranchers acquainted with Cassidy tell stories about the man their ancestors knew as “Jim Lowe.” Nancy Thomas grew up hearing from her grandfather Clarence Tipton and others that Cassidy was a “man of his word.” Tipton was the foreman at the WS immediately before Cassidy’s arrival. The ranch sits at the southern end of the Outlaw Trail, a string of accommodating ranches and Wild Bunch hideouts stretching from Montana and the Canadian border into Mexico. The country surrounding the WS Ranch is forbidding; volcanic terrain cleft with precipitously angled, crenelated canyon walls defies access. A “pretty hard layout,” local old-timer Robert Bell told Lou Blachly, whose collection of interviews with pioneers — conducted PROMIENT PLACES - between 1942 and 1953 — are housed at the University of New OUTLAW TRAIL Mexico. What better place to dodge the law? 1.
  • LIGHTNING FIRES in SOUTHWESTERN FORESTS T

    LIGHTNING FIRES in SOUTHWESTERN FORESTS T

    This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain. LIGHTNING FIRES IN SOUTHWESTERN FORESTS t . I I LIGHT~ING FIRES IN SOUTHWESTERN FORESTS (l) by Jack S. Barrows Department of Forest and Wood Sciences College of Forestry and Natural Resources Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 (1) Research performed for Northern Forest Fire Laboratory, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station under cooperative agreement 16-568 CA with Rocky Mountain For­ est and Range Experiment Station. Final Report May 1978 n LIB RARY COPY. ROCKY MT. FO i-< t:S'f :.. R.l.N~ EX?f.lt!M SN T ST.A.1101'1 . - ... Acknowledgementd r This research of lightning fires in Sop thwestern forests has been ? erformed with the assistan~e and cooperation of many individuals and agencies. The idea for the research was suggested by Dr. Donald M. Fuquay and Robert G. Baughman of the Northern Forest Fire Laboratory. The Fire Management Staff of U. S. Forest Service Region Three provided fire data, maps, rep~rts and briefings on fire p~enomena. Special thanks are expressed to James F. Mann for his continuing assistance in these a ctivities. Several members of national forest staffs assisted in correcting fire report errors. At CSU Joel Hart was the principal graduate 'research assistant in organizing the data, writing computer programs and handling the extensive computer operations. The initial checking of fire data tapes and com­ puter programming was performed by research technician Russell Lewis. Graduate Research Assistant Rick Yancik and Research Associate Lee Bal- ::.
  • Arizona Forest Action Plan 2015 Status Report and Addendum

    Arizona Forest Action Plan 2015 Status Report and Addendum

    Arizona Forest Action Plan 2015 Status Report and Addendum A report on the strategic plan to address forest-related conditions, trends, threats, and opportunities as identified in the 2010 Arizona Forest Resource Assessment and Strategy. November 20, 2015 Arizona State Forestry Acknowledgements: Arizona State Forestry would like to thank the USDA Forest Service for their ongoing support of cooperative forestry and fire programs in the State of Arizona, and for specific funding to support creation of this report. We would also like to thank the many individuals and organizations who contributed to drafting the original 2010 Forest Resource Assessment and Resource Strategy (Arizona Forest Action Plan) and to the numerous organizations and individuals who provided input for this 2015 status report and addendum. Special thanks go to Arizona State Forestry staff who graciously contributed many hours to collect information and data from partner organizations – and to writing, editing, and proofreading this document. Jeff Whitney Arizona State Forester Granite Mountain Hotshots Memorial On the second anniversary of the Yarnell Hill Fire, the State of Arizona purchased 320 acres of land near the site where the 19 Granite Mountain Hotshots sacrificed their lives while battling one of the most devastating fires in Arizona’s history. This site is now the Granite Mountain Hotshots Memorial State Park. “This site will serve as a lasting memorial to the brave hotshots who gave their lives to protect their community,” said Governor Ducey. “While we can never truly repay our debt to these heroes, we can – and should – honor them every day. Arizona is proud to offer the public a space where we can pay tribute to them, their families and all of our firefighters and first responders for generations to come.” Arizona Forest Action Plan – 2015 Status Report and Addendum Background Contents The 2010 Forest Action Plan The development of Arizona’s Forest Resource Assessment and Strategy (now known as Arizona’s “Forest Action Plan”) was prompted by federal legislative requirements.
  • Managing Diversity in the Riverina Rice Fields—

    Managing Diversity in the Riverina Rice Fields—

    Reconciling Farming with Wildlife —Managing diversity in the Riverina rice fields— RIRDC Publication No. 10/0007 RIRDCInnovation for rural Australia Reconciling Farming with Wildlife: Managing Biodiversity in the Riverina Rice Fields by J. Sean Doody, Christina M. Castellano, Will Osborne, Ben Corey and Sarah Ross April 2010 RIRDC Publication No 10/007 RIRDC Project No. PRJ-000687 © 2010 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. All rights reserved. ISBN 1 74151 983 7 ISSN 1440-6845 Reconciling Farming with Wildlife: Managing Biodiversity in the Riverina Rice Fields Publication No. 10/007 Project No. PRJ-000687 The information contained in this publication is intended for general use to assist public knowledge and discussion and to help improve the development of sustainable regions. You must not rely on any information contained in this publication without taking specialist advice relevant to your particular circumstances. While reasonable care has been taken in preparing this publication to ensure that information is true and correct, the Commonwealth of Australia gives no assurance as to the accuracy of any information in this publication. The Commonwealth of Australia, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), the authors or contributors expressly disclaim, to the maximum extent permitted by law, all responsibility and liability to any person, arising directly or indirectly from any act or omission, or for any consequences of any such act or omission, made in reliance on the contents of this publication, whether or not caused by any negligence on the part of the Commonwealth of Australia, RIRDC, the authors or contributors. The Commonwealth of Australia does not necessarily endorse the views in this publication.
  • Historical Fire Regime Patterns in the Southwestern United States Since AD 1700

    Historical Fire Regime Patterns in the Southwestern United States Since AD 1700

    This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain. Historical Fire Regime Patterns in the Southwestern United States Since AD 1700 Thomas W. Swetnam and Christopher H. Baisan1 Abstract.-Fire-scar chronologies from a network of 63 sites in the South­ western United States are listed and described. These data characterize the natural range and variability of fire regimes from low elevation pine forests to higher elevation mixed-conifer forests since AD 1700. A general pattern of increasing length of intervals between low intensity surface fires was observed along gradients of low to high elevations, and from the rela­ tively drier pine sites to the wetter mixed-conifer sites. However, large vari­ ability in the measures of central tendency and higher moments of the fire interval distributions suggest that elevation and forest type were often weak determinants of fire frequency. Some of the variations in fire interval distri­ butions between similar elevation or forest types were probably due to unique site characteristics, such as landscape connectivity (Le., ability of fires to spread into the sites), and land-use history. Differences in the sizes of sampled areas and fire-scar collections among the sites also limited our ability to compare and interpret fire interval summary statistics. Comparison of both the fire-scar network data (1700 to 1900) and docu­ mentary records of area burned on all Southwestern Region National For­ ests (1920 to 1978) with a Palmer Drought Severity Index time series clearly shows the association between severe droughts and large fire years, and wet periods and small fire years.
  • On the Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan, Arizona

    On the Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan, Arizona

    United States Department of the Interior Fish and ,Vildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Office 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021-4951 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 Fax: (602) 242-2513 In reply refer to: AESO/SE 22410-2006-F-0459 April 13, 2016 Memorandum To: Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico (ARD-ES) (Attn: Michelle Shaughnessy) Chief, Arizona Branch, Re.. gul 7/to . D'vision, Army Corps of Engineers, Phoenix, Arizona From: Acting Field Supervisor~ Subject: Biological and Conference Opinion on the Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan, Arizona This biological and conference opinion (BCO) responds to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requirement for intra-Service consultation on the proposed issuance of a section lO(a)(l)(B) incidental take permit (TE-84356A-O) to Pima County and Pima County Regional Flood Control District (both herein referenced as Pima County), pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (U.S.C. 1531-1544), as amended (ESA), authorizing the incidental take of 44 species (4 plants, 7 mammals, 8 birds, 5 fishes, 2 amphibians, 6 reptiles, and 12 invertebrates). Along with the permit application, Pima County submitted a draft Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan (MSCP). On June 10, 2015, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) requested programmatic section 7 consultation for actions under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CW A), including two Regional General Permits and 16 Nationwide Permits, that are also covered activities in the MSCP. This is an action under section 7 of the ESA that is separate from the section 10 permit issuance to Pima Couny.
  • Species Assessment for the Northern Leopard Frog (Rana Pipiens)

    Species Assessment for the Northern Leopard Frog (Rana Pipiens)

    SPECIES ASSESSMENT FOR THE NORTHERN LEOPARD FROG (RANA PIPIENS ) IN WYOMING prepared by 1 2 BRIAN E. SMITH AND DOUG KEINATH 1Department of Biology Black Hills State University1200 University Street Unit 9044, Spearfish, SD 5779 2 Zoology Program Manager, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, 1000 E. University Ave, Dept. 3381, Laramie, Wyoming 82071; 307-766-3013; [email protected] prepared for United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Wyoming State Office Cheyenne, Wyoming January 2004 Smith and Keinath – Rana pipiens January 2004 Table of Contents SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 3 NATURAL HISTORY ........................................................................................................................... 5 Morphological Description ...................................................................................................... 5 Taxonomy and Distribution ..................................................................................................... 6 Taxonomy .......................................................................................................................................6 Distribution and Abundance............................................................................................................7
  • Petition to List the Relict Leopard Frog (Rana Onca) As an Endangered Species Under the Endangered Species Act

    Petition to List the Relict Leopard Frog (Rana Onca) As an Endangered Species Under the Endangered Species Act

    BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR PETITION TO LIST THE RELICT LEOPARD FROG (RANA ONCA) AS AN ENDANGERED SPECIES UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE PETITIONERS May 8, 2002 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The relict leopard frog (Rana onca) has the dubious distinction of being one of the first North American amphibians thought to have become extinct. Although known to have inhabited at least 64 separate locations, the last historical collections of the species were in the 1950s and this frog was only recently rediscovered at 8 (of the original 64) locations in the early 1990s. This extremely endangered amphibian is now restricted to only 6 localities (a 91% reduction from the original 64 locations) in two disjunct areas within the Lake Mead National Recreation Area in Nevada. The relict leopard frog historically occurred in springs, seeps, and wetlands within the Virgin, Muddy, and Colorado River drainages, in Utah, Nevada, and Arizona. The Vegas Valley leopard frog, which once inhabited springs in the Las Vegas, Nevada area (and is probably now extinct), may eventually prove to be synonymous with R. onca. Relict leopard frogs were recently discovered in eight springs in the early 1990s near Lake Mead and along the Virgin River. The species has subsequently disappeared from two of these localities. Only about 500 to 1,000 adult frogs remain in the population and none of the extant locations are secure from anthropomorphic events, thus putting the species at an almost guaranteed risk of extinction. The relict leopard frog has likely been extirpated from Utah, Arizona, and from the Muddy River drainage in Nevada, and persists in only 9% of its known historical range.
  • Froglog95 New Version Draft1.Indd

    Froglog95 New Version Draft1.Indd

    March 2011 Vol. 95 FrogLogwww.amphibians.org News from the herpetological community The new face of the ASG “Lost” Frogs Red List The global search Updating South comes to an end. Africas Red Where next? Lists. Page 1 FrogLog Vol. 95 | March 2011 | 1 2 | FrogLog Vol. 95 | March 2011 CONTENTS The Sierra Caral of Guatemala a refuge for endemic amphibians page 5 The Search for “Lost” Frogs page 12 Recent diversifi cation in old habitats: Molecules and morphology in the endangered frog, Craugastor uno page 17 Updating the IUCN Red List status of South African amphibians 6 Amphibians on the IUCN Red List: Developments and changes since the Global Amphibian Assessment 7 The forced closure of conservation work on Seychelles Sooglossidae 8 Alien amphibians challenge Darwin’s naturalization hypothesis 9 Is there a decline of amphibian richness in Bellanwila-Attidiya Sanctuary? 10 High prevalence of the amphibian chytrid pathogen in Gabon 11 Breeding-site selection by red-belly toads, Melanophryniscus stelzneri (Anura: Bufonidae), in Sierras of Córdoba, Argentina 11 Upcoming meetings 20 | Recent Publications 20 | Internships & Jobs 23 Funding Opportunities 22 | Author Instructions 24 | Current Authors 25 FrogLog Vol. 95 | March 2011 | 3 FrogLog Editorial elcome to the new-look FrogLog. It has been a busy few months Wfor the ASG! We have redesigned the look and feel of FrogLog ASG & EDITORIAL COMMITTEE along with our other media tools to better serve the needs of the ASG community. We hope that FrogLog will become a regular addition to James P. Collins your reading and a platform for sharing research, conservation stories, events, and opportunities.