Contact Us Search: All EPA This Area

• You are here: EPA Home
• Federal Register
• FR Years
• FR Months
• FR Days
• FR Documents
• Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Northern Leopard Frog (Lithobates [=Rana] pipiens) in the Western United States as Threatened

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Northern Leopard Frog (Lithobates [=Rana] pipiens) in the Western United States as Threatened

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

---

PDF Version (13 pp, 92K, About PDF)

[Federal Register: July 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 125)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31389-31401]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01jy09-21]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R2-ES-2009-0030; 92210-1111-FY08-B2]

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition to List the Northern Leopard Frog (Lithobates [=Rana]
pipiens) in the Western United States as Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of a 90-day petition finding and initiation of status review.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the western U.S. population of the
northern leopard frog (Lithobates [=Rana] pipiens) as threatened under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Following a
review of the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the
western U.S. population of northern leopard frog may be warranted.
Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a
status review of the species, and we will issue a 12-month finding to
determine if listing the species throughout all or a significant
portion of its range is warranted. To ensure that the status review of
the northern leopard frog is comprehensive, we are soliciting
scientific and commercial information and other information regarding
this species.

DATES: We made the finding announced in this document on July 1, 2009.
To allow us adequate time to conduct a status review, we request that
information be submitted on or before August 31, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2009-0030; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will post all information received on http://www.regulations.gov.
This generally means that we will post any personal information you
provide us (see the Information Solicited section below for more details).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven L. Spangle, Field Supervisor,

[[Page 31390]]

Arizona Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
2321 West Royal Palm Drive, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021; telephone
602-242-0210; facsimile 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:

Information Solicited

    When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are
required to promptly commence a review of the status of that species.
To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best
available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting
information concerning the status of the northern leopard frog. We
request information from the public, other concerned governmental
agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry,
or any other interested parties concerning the status of the northern
leopard frog. We are seeking information regarding:
    (1) The historical and current status and distribution of the
northern leopard frog, its biology and ecology, and ongoing
conservation measures for the species and its habitat, and threats to
the species and its habitat;
    (2) information relevant to the factors that are the basis for
making a listing determination for a species under section 4(a) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), which are:
    (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the species' habitat or range;
    (b) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
    (c) disease or predation;
    (d) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (e) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence and threats to the species or its habitat; and
    (3) its taxonomy (particularly genetics of the western U.S.
population and of the convergence zone of the eastern and western
haplotypes in Wisconsin and Ontario, Canada).
    If we determine that listing the northern leopard frog is
warranted, it is our intent to propose critical habitat to the maximum
extent prudent and determinable at the time we would propose to list
the species. Therefore, with regard to areas within the geographical
range currently occupied by the northern leopard frog, we also request
data and information on what may constitute physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species, where these
features are currently found, and whether any of these features may
require special management considerations or protection. In addition,
we request data and information regarding whether there are areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species which are
essential to the conservation of the species. Provide specific
information as to what, if any, critical habitat should be proposed for
designation if the species is proposed for listing, and why the
suggested critical habitat meets the requirements of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
    Please note that submissions merely stating support or opposition
to the action under consideration without providing supporting
information, although noted, will not be considered in making a
determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered
species shall be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.'' At the conclusion of the status review, we
will issue the 12-month finding on the petition, as provided in section
4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
    You may submit your information concerning this status review by
one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Information and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding, will be available for
public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment,
during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Arizona Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on
whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on
information contained in the petition, supporting information submitted
with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files. To
the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90
days of receipt of the petition, and publish our notice of this finding
promptly in the Federal Register.
    Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information
within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day
petition finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial
scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to
promptly commence a status review of the species.
    We received a petition dated June 5, 2006, 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 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 clearly
identified itself as such and included the requisite identification
information for the petitioners, as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). In
response to the petitioners' request, we sent a letter to the
petitioners dated August 7, 2006, explaining 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. Delays in
responding to the petition have continued due to higher priority actions,
until funding recently became available to respond to this petition.
    In reviewing the petition, there were two issues for which the
Service requested clarification from the

[[Page 31391]]

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, the petition map does not show Wisconsin as a part of
the petition, and the status of the species is not mentioned in that
State. However, Wisconsin is located west of the Great Lakes region.
Therefore, we requested that the petitioners clarify whether they
intended to include or exclude Wisconsin from the petitioned DPS. The
Service also sought clarification as to whether the petitioners were
requesting 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.

Previous Federal Action

    No previous Federal action has been taken on the northern leopard
frog. The northern leopard frog has no Federal regulatory status under the Act.

Species Information

    The northern leopard frog is in the family Ranidae (Frost et al.
2008, pp. 7-8), the true frogs, and is 1 of about 29 species within the
genus Lithobates that occur in North America (Lannoo 2005, p. 371). The
northern leopard frog is a smooth-skinned green, brown, or sometimes
yellow-green frog covered with large, oval dark spots, each of which is
surrounded by a lighter halo or border (Stebbins 2003, pp. 234-235).
Adult snout-vent lengths range from 2 to 4.5 inches (5 to 11
centimeters) (Stebbins 2003, p. 234). Citations within the petition
provide a more detailed description of the northern leopard frog
(Baxter and Stone 1985, pp. 41-42; Hammerson 1999, pp. 145-146; Patla
and Keinath 2005, p. 13).
    The northern leopard frog requires a mosaic of habitats, which
includes overwintering, breeding, 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). 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). Breeding
areas typically do not contain predaceous fish or other predators
(Merrell 1968, p. 275; Smith 2003, pp. 19-21), and emergent vegetation
such as sedges and rushes are thought to be important features of
breeding and tadpole habitats (Smith 2003, pp. 8-9).
    Sub adult northern leopard frogs typically migrate to feeding sites
along the borders of larger, more permanent bodies of 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); however, 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, and 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. During winter, northern leopard frogs are found
inactive underwater on the bottom of deeper streams or waters that do
not freeze to the bottom and are well-oxygenated (Stewart et al. 2004, p. 72).
    As soon as males leave overwintering sites, they travel to breeding
ponds and call in shallow water (Smith 2003, p. 13). Male frogs attract
females by calling from specific locations within a breeding pond, with
several males typically calling together to form a chorus (Merrell
1977, p. 7). Eggs are typically laid within breeding habitats, two to
three days following the onset of chorusing (Corn and Livo 1989, p. 5).
Eggs are laid and larvae typically develop in shallow, still water that
is exposed to sunlight. Eggs are usually attached to vegetation, just
below the water surface. Egg masses may include several hundred to
several thousand eggs (Lannoo 2005, p. 371) 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 degrees
Fahrenheit (27 degrees Centigrade) to 17 days at approximately 53
degrees Fahrenheit (12 degrees Centigrade) (Nussbaum et al. 1983, p. 182).
    Northern leopard frog tadpoles are predominantly generalist
herbivores, typically eating attached and free-floating algae (Hoff et
al. 1999, p. 215), however they may feed on animal material (Hendricks
1973, p. 100). Adult and subadult frogs are generalist insectivores
(Merrell 1977, p. 15; Smith 2003, p. 12). Prey includes insects,
spiders, mollusks, and crustaceans.
    A genetic study published in 2004 using mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)
reports that the northern leopard frog is split into two populations
containing discrete eastern and western mtDNA markers (haplotypes),
with the Mississippi River and Great Lakes region dividing the
geographic ranges (Hoffman and Blouin 2004, p. 152). Results of the
study indicate that the two populations have been isolated for
approximately 2 million years, except for a small zone of likely
secondary contact in Ontario, Canada.
    The northern leopard frog historically ranged from Newfoundland and
southern Quebec, south through New England 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). However, since the 1970s the northern leopard
frog has experienced significant declines throughout its range,
particularly in the western United States and Canada (Corn and Fogelman
1984, p. 147; Hayes and Jennings 1986, p. 491; Clarkson and Rorabaugh
1989, p. 534; Weller and Green 1997, p. 323; Casper 1998, p. 199;
Leonard et al. 1999, p. 51; Smith 2003, pp. 4-6). The species tends to
become less abundant the further west one proceeds. The northern
leopard frog is now considered uncommon in a large portion of its range
in the western United States, and declines of the species have been
documented in most western States (Rorabaugh 2005, pp. 570-571; Smith
2003, pp. 4-6; Stebbins 2003, p. 235).

Distinct Population Segment

    We consider a species for listing under the Act if available
information indicates such an action might be warranted. ``Species'' is
defined in section 3 of the Act to include any subspecies of fish or
wildlife or plants, and any distinct vertebrate population segment of
fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532 (16)).
We, along with the National Marine Fisheries Service (now the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--Fisheries), developed

[[Page 31392]]

the Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population
Segments (DPS Policy) (February 7, 1996; 61 FR 4722) to help us in
determining what constitutes a DPS. The policy identifies three
elements that we are to consider in making a DPS determination. These
elements include: (1) The discreteness of the population segment in
relation to the remainder of the species to which it belongs; (2) the
significance of the population segment to the species to which it
belongs; and (3) the population segment's conservation status in
relation to the Act's standards for listing. If we determine that a
population segment meets the discreteness and significance standards,
then the level of threat to that population segment is evaluated, based
on the five listing factors established by the Act, to determine
whether listing the DPS as either threatened or endangered is warranted.

Discreteness

    Citing the Services' DPS policy (61 FR 4722), the petition asserts
that the western U.S. population of the northern leopard frog may
qualify as a DPS based on discreteness. The DPS policy states that a
population may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the
following conditions:
    (1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same
taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or
behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation; or
    (2) It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within
which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
    The petitioners assert that the western U.S. population of the
northern leopard frog is markedly separated and geographically isolated
from the eastern population, based on genetic differences and analyses
of haplotypes (Hoffman and Blouin 2004, pp. 145-159). A haplotype is a
set of closely linked genetic markers that are present on one
chromosome and tend to be inherited together. The petitioners cited
Hoffman and Blouin (2004) to support their assertion that the western
U.S. population of the northern leopard frog is discrete. The petition
states that there is a marked separation of western populations from
eastern populations based on the following measures from Hoffman and
Blouin (2004, pp. 145-159): (1) Eastern and western haplotypes have
been differentiated for approximately 2 million years; (2) eastern and
western haplotypes are divided by the Mississippi River and Great
Lakes; and (3) there is an average sequence divergence of 3 percent
between eastern and western haplotypes.
    The only area of potential overlap between the eastern and western
population of northern leopard frog occurs north of the Great Lakes
region in Ontario (Hoffman and Blouin 2004). Only one population
(located near Attawapiskat, Ontario) appears to be in an area of
geographic convergence of eastern and western haplotypes. This
population is located north of the Great Lakes region, and contains
both eastern and western haplotypes, likely due to secondary contact
during the current interglacial period. Thus, it represents the maximum
extent of postglacial eastward expansion of the western haplotypes and
westward expansion of the eastern haplotypes (Hoffman and Blouin 2004,
p. 152). Several studies on both plants and animals have documented a
genetic discontinuity associated with the Mississippi River region
(Fontanella et al. 2007, p. 1063).
    Thus, based on the Hoffman and Blouin (2004) genetic analyses, the
petitioners believe that the western population is not only markedly
separated from the eastern population in relation to its genetics, but
clearly geographically isolated and discrete in relation to the eastern
northern leopard frog population. The petition asserts that the genetic
differentiation between the haplotypes of eastern and western northern
leopard frogs, which was found to average 3 percent, is considered to
be relatively high for an intraspecific comparison (Hoffman and Blouin
2004, p. 152). Hoffman and Blouin (2004, p. 152) explain that this
amount of genetic variation is comparable to that found between some
recognized species of frogs in the family Ranidae (ranid frogs) such as
R. pretiosa-R. luteiventris, about 3 percent (K. Monsen and M.S.
Blouin, unpubl. data). In addition, Jaeger et al. (2001, pp. 339-354)
found that there was about 4.7 percent genetic variation between R.
yavapaiensis and R. onca, and approximately 4.9 percent genetic
variation between R. blairi and R. berlanderi. However, the purpose of
the Hoffman and Blouin (2004) study was not to undertake taxonomic
revisions, but to better understand the evolutionary history of the
northern leopard frog; as such, the authors do not recommend splitting
the northern leopard frog into two distinct species based upon their
analyses. The authors do recommend that further work be conducted on
the taxonomic status of the two northern leopard frog populations to
further understand their initial findings.
    As stated above, a population may be considered discrete if it
satisfies either one of the discreteness conditions listed in the
policy. The second condition is that the petitioned population be
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. Section
4(a)(1)(D) of the Act discusses the adequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms in the Act's ``5-factor'' analysis for determining whether a
species is threatened or endangered. In assessing a population for
discreteness based on delimitation by international governmental
boundaries, we focus specifically on whether the factors named above
are significantly different between the two countries because of the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
    The petitioners state that the western U.S. population of the
northern leopard frog is delimited by international government
boundaries, namely between Canada and the United States (Smith 2003, p.
5). The petitioners reference Seburn and Seburn (1998, pp. 4-11) in
providing information documenting significant declines in northern
leopard frog populations in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba,
southern Northwest Territories, Saskatchewan, and western Ontario. In
British Columbia, only one northern leopard frog population is known to
remain (Seburn and Seburn 1998, p. 10). The species has also
disappeared from much of its range in Alberta since 1979 (Seburn and
Seburn 1998, p. 10). In Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the northern leopard
frog experienced significant declines in the 1970s and many dead and
dying frogs were found (Seburn and Seburn 1998, p. 9). Less is known
about the status of the frog in the Northwest Territories, but the
species is reported from only nine sites, all of which are fragmented
and isolated from populations further south in Alberta and Manitoba
(Seburn and Seburn 1998, pp. 6, 8). Declines have also occurred in
northern and southwestern Ontario (Seburn and Seburn 1998, p. 10;
Hecnar 1997, p. 9).
    The petition claims that habitat declines throughout the Canadian
range of the northern leopard frog have also been significant (Seburn
and Seburn 1998, p. 13). The decline is thought to be related to the
loss of wetland habitat throughout Canada. Approximately 65 to 80
percent of historical wetlands in

[[Page 31393]]

Canada have been drained, mostly for agriculture and urban development
(Natural Resources Canada 2004, p. 1), and are considered to be an
endangered habitat (Findlay and Houlahan 1997, p. 1001). Seburn and
Seburn (1998, p. 13) describe this loss of habitat as occurring
throughout all of the provinces, with southern Saskatchewan having 59
percent of its wetland basins and 78 percent of its wetland margins
affected by agriculture.
    The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
determines the national status of wild species, subspecies, varieties,
and nationally significant populations that are considered to be at
risk in Canada (Seburn and Seburn 1998, p. vi). The British Columbia
population (Southern Mountain Region) is listed as Endangered under the
Species at Risk Act, which provides protection similar to that of the
Endangered Species Act in the United States. The northern leopard frog
is also on the provincial Red List and is listed as ``Endangered''
under British Columbia's Wildlife Act, and as ``Threatened'' under
Alberta's Wildlife Act (Alberta Northern Leopard Frog Recovery Team
2005, p. 1). However, the provincial Wildlife Acts do not prohibit take
of listed species or provide a means by which agencies must ensure
their actions are not jeopardizing the species. Neither Saskatchewan
nor Ontario affords the northern leopard frog any specific protection
(Seburn and Seburn 1998, p. 7). In the United States, northern leopard
frog protection and collection policies are implemented by a wide
variety of Federal and State agencies. States predominately control the
management, collection, and importation of the species throughout its
range, while Federal land management agencies manage habitat for the
species, particularly throughout the western portion of its range.
Therefore, because of differences in regulatory mechanisms between the
United States and Canada, we find there is evidence to suggest that the
international boundary with Canada may be significant in terms of
section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
    The Service's DPS policy requires that only one of the discreteness
criteria be satisfied in order for a population of a vertebrate species
to be considered discrete. After reviewing the information provided in
the petition, we believe that the petition presents substantial
information that the northern leopard frog western U.S. population may
be physically isolated from northern leopard frogs in the eastern
United States and may be genetically distinct. In addition, it presents
substantial information that differences in regulatory mechanisms
between the United States and Canada may be significant in terms of
section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. Therefore, we find that the petition
presents substantial information indicating that the northern leopard
frog in the western United States may satisfy the discreteness element
of the DPS policy.

Significance

    If we determine that a population meets the DPS discreteness
element, we then consider if it also meets the DPS significance
element. The DPS policy (61 FR 4722) states that if a population
segment is considered discrete under one or more of the discreteness
criteria, its biological and ecological significance will be considered
in light of Congressional guidance that the authority to list DPSs be
used ``sparingly'' while encouraging the conservation of genetic
diversity. In making this determination, we consider available
scientific evidence of the discrete population's importance to the
taxon to which it belongs. Since precise circumstances are likely to
vary considerably from case to case, the DPS policy does not describe
all of the classes of information that might be used in determining the
biological and ecological importance of a discrete population. However,
the DPS policy does provide four possible reasons why a discrete
population may be significant. As specified in the DPS policy (61 FR
4722), this consideration of significance may include, but is not
limited to, the following:
    (1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological
setting unusual or unique to the taxon;
    (2) Evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would
result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon;
    (3) Evidence that the discrete population segment represents the
only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant
elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range; or
    (4) Evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly
from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.
    The petition asserts that the western U.S. population of the
northern leopard frog, being discrete from other populations, also
meets the significance element of the DPS policy for two of the four
reasons above: (1) Loss of the population would create a significant
gap in the range of the taxon and (2) the population differs markedly
from the eastern population based on genetic characteristics.
    The petitioners present three reasons why the loss of the western
U.S. population would represent a significant gap in the range of the
species. First, it would represent an approximately 50 percent loss in
the historical range of the species. Second, the loss of the western
U.S. population would leave only frogs in western Canada to represent
the western population of northern leopard frog, thereby creating a
significant gap in the range. Third, loss of the western U.S.
population would create an irreversible gap in the range of the species
because the Mississippi River and Great Lakes are barriers to dispersal
by the eastern population into the western United States.
    According to the petition, the western U.S. portion of the range in
19 western and Midwestern States west of the Mississippi River and the
Great Lakes region constitutes approximately 50 percent of the
historical overall range and nearly 70 percent of the western
population in the United States and Canada (Rorabaugh 2005, p. 571).
The petition states that the species' range has declined in almost
every State that it inhabits in the western United States.
    The most recent summary of distributional and abundance patterns of
the northern leopard frog is from Rorabaugh (2005, pp. 570-577), which
documents a substantial contraction of the species' range, especially
in the western two-thirds of the United States, where widespread
extinctions have occurred. Information provided in the petition
indicates that the species is declining, considered rare, or locally
extinct from historical locations in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Mexico, North Dakota, 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; McCleod 2005, pp. 292-294; Rorabaugh 2005, p. 571; Smith and
Keinath 2004, pp. 57-60). The species is possibly 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). The status of the frog is not
clear in South Dakota. Smith (2003, p. 39) states that, although
northern leopard frogs may still be common in the Black Hills, surveys
are incomplete, monitoring does not occur, and no habitat delineation
has been completed for the species. The

[[Page 31394]]

petitioners estimate a decline of at least 35 percent based on
estimates of wetland loss in the State. In summary, the petition
presents substantial information that the northern leopard frog is
declining in the western United States, that such a large geographic
area may represent a significant part of the range, and that loss of
the western U.S. population may create a significant gap in the range
of the species.
    The petition also argues that the western U.S. population is
isolated, peripheral and genetically different, and that it is
important to the survival, evolution, and conservation of the species.
The petitioners argue that the western U.S. population of the northern
leopard frog is significant because it is markedly different from the
eastern population based on genetic characteristics and because its
loss would represent a significant gap in the range of the species.
Citing Hoffman and Blouin (2004, p. 152), the petition presents
information that the level of mtDNA genetic variation between the
eastern and western populations of 3 percent is relatively high for an
intraspecific comparison of ranid frogs, akin to the genetic difference
between the Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) and the Oregon
spotted frog (R. pretiosa). The western population also differs from
the eastern population in having significantly lower diversity of
genetic materials (nucleotides) (Hoffman and Blouin 2004, p. 151).
    Based on the significant gap in the species' range that potentially
would be created by the loss of the western U.S. population and the
potential genetic differences, we find that the petition presents
substantial information that the western U.S. population of the northern
leopard frog may satisfy the significance element of the DPS policy.

DPS Conclusion

    We have reviewed the information presented in the petition, and
have evaluated the information in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). In
a 90-day finding, the question is whether a petition presents
substantial information that the petitioned action may be warranted.
Based on our review, we find that the petition, supported by
information in our files, presents substantial scientific or commercial
information to indicate that the western U.S. population of the
northern leopard frog may be a DPS based on genetic evidence. The
information presented in the petition presents substantial scientific
or commercial information to demonstrate that the western U.S.
population of the northern leopard frog may be discrete from the
eastern U.S. population. Further, the petition also presents
substantial information that the western U.S. population of the
northern leopard frog may be significant to the taxon as a whole. Thus,
the western U.S. population of the northern leopard frog may be a
listable entity under the Act as a DPS. To meet the third element of
the DPS policy, we evaluate the level of threat to the DPS based on the
five listing factors established by the Act. We thus proceeded with an
evaluation of information presented in the petition, as well as
information in our files, to determine whether there is substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing this
population may be warranted. Our threats analysis and conclusion follow.

Threats Evaluation

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424) set forth the procedures for adding species to
the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A
species, subspecies, or distinct population segment of vertebrate taxa
may be determined to be endangered or threatened due to one or more of
the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
    In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information
regarding the northern leopard frog as presented in the petition and
other information available in our files is substantial, thereby
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Our evaluation
of this information is presented below.

A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
the Species' Habitat or Range

    The petitioners assert that loss and degradation of habitat has
been widespread and has affected the species in every State in the
western United States in which the northern leopard frog is
historically known to have occurred (Maxell 2000, p. 15; Hitchcock
2001, pp. 64-66; Rorabaugh 2005, p. 576; Clarkson and Rorabaugh 1989,
p. 535; Smith 2003, p. 26-31). Habitat loss and degradation is reported
to be the primary threat to all ranid frogs in the western United
States (Bradford 2005, p. 923) and a principal threat to northern
leopard frogs in the western United States (Smith 2003, p. 4; Rorabaugh
2005, p. 571). The petition asserts that the northern leopard frog is
threatened with loss and degradation of habitat due to livestock
grazing, agricultural development, urban development, oil and gas
development, road development, poor forestry practices, groundwater
pumping, mining, and invasive species.
    The petitioners claim that western U.S. northern leopard frog
populations are vulnerable to local extirpation from the effects of
livestock grazing (Maxell 2000, pp. 15-16; Smith 2003, p. 30).
Specifically, the petition states that livestock grazing may result in
the trampling of individual frogs (Maxell 2000, p. 15; Smith 2003, p.
30) and may trample soils around aquatic habitats, thereby decreasing
infiltration of water into the soil, increasing soil erosion, and
contributing to stream channel down cutting (Kauffman and Kreuger 1984,
pp. 432-434; Belskey et al. 1999, pp. 419-431). These impacts could
hinder or prevent movements of northern leopard frogs by reducing and
eliminating riparian vegetation that provides cover. Impacts to water
quality through increased sedimentation (Belskey et al. 1999, pp. 420-
424) may reduce the depth of breeding ponds or overwintering habitats,
increase water temperatures, and create favorable environments for
diseases and parasites known to contribute to mortality in northern
leopard frogs (Maxell 2000, pp. 15-16; Johnson and Lunde 2005, pp. 133-
136; Ouellet et al. 2005, p. 1435).
    The petitioners note that livestock grazing and associated actions
are specifically identified as being responsible for habitat loss and
degradation and negatively affecting northern leopard frog populations
at some sites in Arizona (Clarkson and Rorabaugh 1989, p. 535; Sredl
1998, pp. 573-574), California (California Department of Fish and Game
2008), Idaho (Idaho Department of Fish and Game 2005, Appendix F),
Montana (Maxell 2000, p. 15), Nevada (Hitchcock 2001, p. 66), North
Dakota (Euliss, Jr. and Mushet 2004, p. 82), and South Dakota (Smith
2003, p. 27). In addition, the petition lists approximately 281 grazing
allotments on Forest Service National System Lands in Colorado,
Nebraska, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Wyoming that the U.S. Forest
Service (Forest Service) determined would adversely impact northern
leopard frogs. We did not verify each of these allotment
determinations, but the Forest Service Region 2 website (accessed April
24, 2008) does contain documents noting adverse effect determinations
for the northern leopard

[[Page 31395]]

frog resulting from livestock grazing (for instance, see Forest Service
2005a and Forest Service 2003 as cited in the petition). Information in
our files also indicates that leopard frogs may be able to persist with
well-managed livestock grazing (Hitchcock 2001, p. 62; Service 2007,
pp. 32-34).
    The petitioners state that agricultural development may directly
destroy northern leopard frog habitat due to de-watering or indirectly
through the introduction of contaminants and invasive species into
habitats (Leonard et al. 1999, p. 58; Leja 1998, pp. 345-353; Rorabaugh
2005, p. 576). The petitioners provide information indicating that
agricultural development has occurred throughout the range of the
northern leopard frog, but particularly in the Midwestern States (Leja
1998, p. 349). The petition presents 1990 data that indicate that
greater than 90 percent of the total land area in Iowa, Nebraska, North
Dakota, and South Dakota is used for agricultural purposes (Demographia
2000). Agricultural development can result in modification of river
valley habitat, including draining of wetlands, channelization and
damming of rivers, and the development of irrigation systems (Wang et
al. 1997, p. 11; Findlay and Houlahan 1997, p. 1001), all of which may
modify breeding, overwintering, and dispersal habitat for northern
leopard frogs.
    The petition presents information on urbanization of the western
United States and the resulting loss of northern leopard frog habitat
throughout the western States (Hitchcock 2001, pp. 64-66). The
petitioners provide information from the U.S. Census Bureau (2006) that
the only State within the range of the northern leopard frog in the
western United States that is not gaining human population is North
Dakota. Projected population growth is expected to result in increased
needs for water (surface diversions and groundwater pumping) to support
growth (Deacon et al. 2007, p. 688). This could decrease water
availability for northern leopard frogs and thereby impact the amount
and extent of habitat for northern leopard frogs.
    The petitioners also discuss how oil and gas development threatens
the northern leopard frog and its habitat in the western United States.
The petition states that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest
Service have determined that the drilling and maintenance of wells,
related construction of roads, and disposal of wastes resulting from
oil and gas development will negatively affect the northern leopard
frog. The petitioners argue that oil and gas development in the Black
Hills of South Dakota, northern Idaho, Wyoming, and the Arkansas River
drainage in Colorado are reported to have disturbed habitat, altered
hydrology, introduced contaminants into water, and reduced the
availability of water for the frog. Coal-bed methane development is
currently occurring primarily in Wyoming, but the petitioners note that
other western States may be impacted in the future. Impacts associated
with coal-bed methane development include road-related mortality,
discharge of contaminated water into breeding ponds, loss of spring
flows related to groundwater withdrawals, discharge of extremely cold
water into breeding habitats, and discharge of water containing
nonnative predatory fish in these same areas (Allan 2002, pp. 5-8; Gore
2002, pp. 1-14; Noss and Wuethner 2002, pp. 1-20). Mining and oil and
gas development may also lead to contamination of habitats (Smith 2003,
pp. 26, 31; Spengler 2002, pp. 7-26).
    The petition presents information and cites references indicating
that roads may pose barriers to dispersal and contribute nonpoint
source pollution (Smith 2003, pp. 27, 38; Maxell 2000, p. 25; Fahrig et
al. 1995, pp. 177-182). Road building is often tied to other activities
such as oil and gas, urban, and agricultural development, so the
indirect effects of road construction, maintenance, and use could
negatively affect northern leopard frog populations.
    The petition also claims that timber harvest activities may be a
threat to northern leopard frog populations (Maxell 2000, pp. 12-14;
Smith 2003, p. 29). The petitioners state that the Forest Service has
determined that logging activities planned on the Arapaho-Roosevelt,
Routt, Medicine Bow, Bighorn, and Black Hills National Forests
(Colorado, South Dakota, and Wyoming) would adversely affect the
northern leopard frog, and cite several project planning and land use
plan documents prepared by the Forest Service (Center for Native
Ecosystems et al. 2006, pp. 186-191). Smith (2003, p. 29) found that
the northern leopard frog may be especially affected by logging on the
Black Hills National Forest of western South Dakota and northeastern
Wyoming more than 80 percent of the 1.2 million-acre (485,623 hectare)
National Forest is forested, most areas were harvested three or four
times in the last century, and logging projects may include cutting
within approximately 500 feet (152.4 meters) of breeding ponds.
However, it may be difficult to predict the extent of the potential
negative impact to northern leopard frogs due to our poor understanding
of their use of upland habitat.
    The petition lists 11 harvesting projects where the Forest Service
authorized cutting within 100 feet of breeding habitats. Information
cited in the petition indicates that this practice may result in
increased sedimentation, increased temperature, and reduced dispersal
corridors for leopard frogs (Smith 2003, pp. 29-38). The petition
focuses on the effects to northern leopard frogs on the Black Hills
National Forest and does not show how this threat may be affecting
northern leopard frogs across the western United States. However,
information in our files indicated that fuels reduction and logging
occur throughout the western range of the northern leopard frog and
that logging operations in riparian areas should maintain buffers near
riparian habitats or only conduct partial harvests of trees to mitigate
the effects of timber harvest to amphibians (Perkins and Hunter 2006,
pp. 664-668; McComb et al. 1993, pp. 7-15).
    The petitioners provide limited information regarding the effects
of groundwater depletion, but information in our files indicates that
pumping groundwater can decrease spring output and recharge in many
areas (Wirt et al. 2005, pp. G1-11; Alley et al. 1999, pp. 33-44). The
petition does note that groundwater depletion may have reduced the
availability of surface water in areas across the range of the western
portion of the northern leopard frog. In addition, the petition gives
two examples from Nevada and New Mexico to describe how groundwater
pumping may impact leopard frog habitat. Brussard et al. (1998, pp.
505-542) found that pumping of groundwater from gold mines threatened
spring communities in the north-central region of Nevada. Groundwater
pumping by the city of Albuquerque, New Mexico, has contributed to the
loss of wetland habitat in the Rio Grande valley as well (Bogan 1998,
pp. 562-563).
    The petition also identifies the introduction of nonnative aquatic
animal and plant species as a threat to the northern leopard frog.
Nonnative animals (e.g., crayfish, bullfrogs, and fish) may displace
northern leopard frogs by degrading habitat (e.g., destroying emergent
vegetation, increasing turbidity, and reducing algal or invertebrate
populations) or through direct predation on eggs, tadpoles, and even
adult leopard frogs. The petitioners state that nonnative, invasive
plants may also threaten northern leopard frog habitat in the western
United States (Maxell 2000, pp. 21-22; Hitchcock 2001, pp. 5-6).
Tamarisk and other

[[Page 31396]]

nonindigenous aquatic and terrestrial plants may alter riparian
habitats by forming dense stands that exclude native amphibians (Maxell
2000, p. 21) and enhance the survival of other introduced species, such
as bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeiana), which compete with and predate
northern leopard frogs (Adams et al. 2003, pp. 343-351; Maxell 2000, p.
21; Hitchcock 2001, pp. 5-6, 62-66).
    Citing Jezouit 2004 (pp. 423-445), the petitioners state that the
emissions of certain gases into the air may lead to acid precipitation
and the acidification of aquatic habitats, which then leads to the
direct destruction of vegetation needed for habitat (EPA 2000, pp.
48699-48701). Additionally, as discussed under Factor D, the
petitioners state that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide, which contributes to the formation of acid
precipitation, are not adequate and do not protect aquatic ecosystems
from the adverse impacts of acid precipitation and acidification
impacts. They cite literature indicating that continued acid
precipitation may cause vegetation damage under the current sulfur
dioxide NAAQS. The petitioners state this information indicates that
the current NAAQS allow for the emission of sulfur dioxide that may
harm northern leopard frog habitat. We were unable to locate the
documents cited by the petitioners for this claim.
    The petitioners make the same claim for nitrogen dioxide, which
also contributes to the formation of acid rain (Baron et al. 2000, p.
352; Fenn et al. 2003, p. 404; Jezouit 2004, pp. 423-445; EPA 2005, p.
59594); nitrogen dioxide can increase the acidity of soils and aquatic
ecosystems, may contribute to eutrophication (a process whereby
increased nutrients leads to decreased dissolved oxygen), and may
possibly change plant community composition (e.g., enhanced growth of
invasive species and shifts in phytoplankton productivity) (Baron et
al. 2000, p. 358; Fenn et al. 2003, pp. 404-418). The petitioners
contend that scientific studies document continued acid precipitation
and adverse habitat effects from nitrogen deposition under the current
NAAQS (Baron et al. 2000, p. 365; Fenn et al. 2003, pp. 417-418).
    The petition also considers water pollution to be a significant
threat to the northern leopard frog (Leja 1998, pp. 345-348; Smith and
Keinath 2004 pp. 46-53; Bradford 2005, p. 917). The petition claims
that agriculture is the primary source of water pollution throughout
the western range of the northern leopard frog and that this water
pollution occurs primarily through sedimentation, nutrient pollution,
pesticide pollution, and mineral pollution (Ribaudo 2000, pp. 5-11).
Bradford (2005, p. 919) indicates that chemical contamination of water
(defined as pollution; acid precipitation; acid mine drainage; mine
water pollution; sewage; and, heavy metals) was the third most
implicated adverse factor for frog population decline in the United States.
    Based on our evaluation of the information presented in the
petition and available in our files regarding the livestock grazing,
agricultural development, urban development, oil and gas development,
road development, forestry practices, groundwater pumping, mining,
invasive species, air emissions, and water pollution within the range
of the northern leopard frog, we find that the petition presents
substantial information. Therefore, listing the western U.S. population
of the northern leopard frog may be warranted due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes

    The petitioners state that overutilization of the northern leopard
frog is not reported to be a threat to the species in the western
United States except in Minnesota and Nebraska, where large numbers of
leopard frogs are used for commercial purposes, and collection has
likely contributed to population declines (Moriarty 1998, p. 168; Smith
2003, p. 21). From 1995-1999, approximately 174,772 northern leopard
frogs were collected in Nebraska to supply only two biological supply
houses (Smith 2003, p. 21). In addition, northern leopard frogs in
Minnesota have been heavily collected for fish bait and for the
biological supply trade (Moriarty 1998, p. 168).
    In 1971, Gibbs et al. (p. 1027) published a paper describing the
frog trade and the decline of northern leopard frogs throughout most of
their range. However, due to the declines noted by Gibbs et al. (1971),
many States began establishing laws to prevent uncontrolled collecting.
Today, State wildlife agencies, including those in the western United
States, use commercialization and collection regulations to control
human actions that may harm wildlife populations, such as collection of
amphibians (Adams et al. 1995, p. 394). Although these regulations may
be somewhat inconsistent among States, information in our files
indicates that, except for the isolated instances cited by the
petition, overutilization does not appear to threaten the western U.S.
population of the species. Therefore, we find that the petition and
information in our files do not provide substantial information to
support the claim that the western U.S. population of the northern
leopard frog may be threatened by overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.

C. Disease or Predation

    The petition states that the western U.S. northern leopard frog is
threatened by fungal, viral, and bacterial diseases, all of which may
cause mass mortality and/or contribute to population decline (Rorabaugh
2005, pp. 575-577). The petition provides information from the U.S.
Geological Survey in 2006 (Table 16 in petition, pp. 96-97) indicating
that disease has caused mass mortality in ranid frogs in almost every
western State in the United States. There are several fungal diseases
that affect the northern leopard frog (Faeh et al. 1998, p. 263); of
those, amphibian chytridiomycosis caused by the fungus Batrachochytrium
dendrobatidis (Bd) has likely had a large impact on northern leopard
frogs in the western United States. Mortality from Bd is reported for
several leopard frog species, including the northern leopard frog, in
Arizona, California, and Colorado (Bradley et al. 2002, pp. 206-212;
Muths et al. 2003, p. 361; Briggs et al. 2005, p. 3149). Information in
Muths et al. (2003, p. 364) notes a northern leopard frog museum
specimen from Colorado preserved in 1974 was examined histologically
and tested positive for Bd, which means the presence of Bd in Colorado
can be traced back to the 1970s.
    The petition also cites information from recent studies that
indicates that factors such as habitat degradation, habitat
fragmentation, and climate change may exacerbate the lethal effects of
Bd on amphibian populations (Carey et al. 1999, pp. 459-472; Ouellet et
al. 2005, p. 1437). Habitat fragmentation may prevent populations from
recovering after lethal outbreaks of Bd (Ouellet et al. 2005, p. 1437),
and other stressors such as water pollution may make northern leopard
frogs more susceptible to Bd (Carey et al. 1999, pp. 459-472; Kiesecker
et al. 2004, p. 138). The petition provides information indicating that
saprolegniasis, a water-borne fungal disease, may also threaten
populations of northern leopard frogs (Faeh et al. 1998, p. 263).
However, this fungal disease is usually secondary to other stressors
such as bacterial

[[Page 31397]]

infections or trauma (Faeh et al. 1998, p. 263). The petition asserts
that saprolegnia has been associated with embryonic die-offs of ranid
frogs in Oregon, and is found in Columbia spotted frog eggs in Idaho
and Montana (Patla and Keinath 2005, p. 43), but there is no other
information provided to indicate that this disease is a threat to
northern leopard frogs.
    Faeh et al. (1998, pp. 260-261) are also cited as a source of
information regarding five viral diseases that have and could
potentially affect the northern leopard frog. These include the
iridoviruses, which include ranavirus, polyhedral cytoplasmic amphibian
virus, tadpole edema virus, and frog erythrocytic virus. Ranavirus may
be extremely lethal, and all life stages of frogs may acquire the
disease, although tadpoles are the most susceptible to the disease
(Daszak et al. 1999, p. 744). The loss of 80 to 90 percent of tadpoles
in a population from ranavirus may result in an 80 percent loss of
adult recruitment (survival of individuals to sexual maturity and
joining the reproductive population), which may negatively affect
population viability (Daszak et al. 1999, pp. 742-745). The petition
provides information indicating that the introduction of bullfrogs and
spread of tiger salamanders throughout the western U.S. range of the
northern leopard frog may increase the threat of ranavirus infection
(Daszak et al. 1999, p. 745; Lannoo and Phillips 2005, pp. 636-639).
    The petition also states that bacterial diseases are resulting in
loss of populations of northern leopard frogs. Septicemia or ``red
leg'' may have contributed to northern leopard frog declines in the
Midwestern United States in the early 1970s (Koonz 1992, p. 20) and
caused declines in Colorado between 1974 and 1982 (Carey 1993, pp. 356-
358). However, ``red leg'' may be triggered by a variety of
environmental factors, and it is unclear how it may be influencing
northern leopard frog declines in the western United States (McAllister
et al. 1999, p. 19).
    One of the widespread and pervasive threats to the northern leopard
frog in the western United States is predation by nonnative fishes and
other introduced aquatic invasive species. The petition asserts that
predation, particularly by nonnative fish and bullfrogs, has likely
contributed to population declines and extirpation of northern leopard
frogs across their western range (Hayes and Jennings 1986, pp. 490-509;
Hecnar and M'Closkey 1997, pp. 125-127; Hammerson 1999, pp. 140-141;
Maxell 2000, pp. 19-20; Hitchcock 2001, pp. 6, 63; Smith 2003, pp. 20-
21; Smith and Keinath 2004, pp. 57-59). Information from Bradford
(2005, pp. 922-923) indicates that ranid frogs in the western United
States may be adversely affected more so than ranid frogs in the
eastern United States due to their greater exposure to exotic,
introduced species. Because northern leopard frogs in the West evolved
in permanent or semi-permanent waters without large aquatic predators
(Merrell 1968, p. 275), they may be more vulnerable to predation by
introduced sport fish, bullfrogs, and crayfish (Bradford 2005, p. 923).
    Information in our files (Rorabaugh 2005, p. 575) supports the
conclusion that predation by nonnative species may be severely
impacting northern leopard frogs in the western United States.
Nonnative fishes and other invasive species such as crayfish and
bullfrogs that prey upon, compete with, or otherwise impact native
aquatic species are now implicated as the single most important
deterrent to conservation and recovery of the native fish in the West
(Minckley 1991, pp. 124-177; Marsh and Pacey 2005, pp. 59-63; Mueller
2005, pp. 10-19) as well as many amphibians and aquatic reptiles (Rosen
and Schwalbe 2002, pp. 220-240). Nonnative, predacious fish, crayfish,
and bullfrogs are currently impacting watersheds and riparian habitat
across the west and likely are responsible for some declines of
northern leopard frogs (Rorabaugh 2005, p. 575).
    The data presented in the petition, as well as information in our
files, relating to threats to the western U.S. population of the
northern leopard frog indicate both disease, in particular, Bd fungal
infections, and predation by introduced predators are credible and
substantial. We find that the petition presents substantial information
that the western U.S. population of the northern leopard frog may be
threatened by the predation and disease.

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The petitioners contend that existing regulatory mechanisms, at
both State and Federal levels, have failed to cease or reverse the
decline of the northern leopard frog. The petitioners identified the
Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), BLM, Forest
Service, and State wildlife agencies as governmental entities who share
a responsibility to protect the northern leopard frog either via
jurisdictional directive or through land-management decisions.
    The petition states that air pollution is reported to be a threat
to the northern leopard frog (Rorabaugh 2005, pp. 575-576) and that the
emissions of certain gases into the air may lead to acid precipitation
and the acidification of aquatic habitats (Jezouit 2004, pp. 423-445).
The petitioners assert that this situation then leads to the direct
destruction of vegetation needed for habitat (EPA 2000, pp. 48699-
48701). Additionally, as stated earlier, the petitioners state that the
NAAQS for sulfur dioxide, which contributes to the formation of acid
precipitation (Baron et al. 2000, p. 352; Fenn et al. 2003, p. 404;
Jezouit 2004, pp. 423-445; EPA 2005, pp. 59582-59600), are not adequate
and do not protect aquatic ecosystems from the adverse impacts of acid
precipitation and acidification impacts. The primary NAAQS for sulfur
dioxide are limited to concentrations of no more than an arithmetic
mean of 0.03 parts per million (ppm) on an annual basis or 0.14 ppm on
a 24-hour basis (see 40 CFR Sec.  50.4), and the secondary NAAQS for
sulfur dioxide are limited to 0.5 ppm over a 3-hour averaging period
(see 40 CFR 50.5). The petitioners, citing literature we were unable to
locate, state that continued acid precipitation causes vegetation
damage under the current sulfur dioxide NAAQS and thus, the emission of
sulfur dioxide that may harm the northern leopard frog and its habitat.
The petitioners make the same claim for nitrogen dioxide, which also
contributes to the formation of acid rain (Baron et al. 2000, p. 352;
Fenn et al. 2003, p. 404; Jezouit 2004, pp. 423-445; EPA 2005, pp.
59582-59600). As discussed under Factor A, increased acidity may
destroy, modify, or curtail northern leopard frog habitat (Baron et al.
2000, p. 358; Fenn et al. 2003, pp. 404-418).
    The primary and secondary NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide are limited to
concentrations of no more than an annual arithmetic mean of 0.053 ppm
(see 61 FR 52853, October 8, 1996). The petitioners contend that
although scientific studies document continued acid precipitation and
adverse habitat effects from nitrogen deposition under the current
NAAQS (Baron et al. 2000, p. 365; Fenn et al. 2003, pp. 417-418), the
standards have also remained unchanged since 1971. Therefore, the
petitioners contend that the Clean Air Act is currently allowing for
harmful emissions of nitrogen dioxide. Finally, the petition concludes
that, because the Clean Air Act does not regulate the potential impacts
of hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons to climate, the current laws
may not protect the northern leopard frog from alleged adverse impacts
of climate change. The potential effects of climate change on

[[Page 31398]]

the northern leopard frog in the western United States as described in
the petition are discussed under Factor E.
    The petitioners contend that implementation of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) is allowing waters to be polluted and, as such, is not protecting
northern leopard frog habitats. The petitioners state that although the
CWA regulates point source pollution through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and is required to protect
aquatic life through the protection of designated uses (petition cites
40 CFR Sec.  131.2), in most cases the northern leopard frog is not
considered in the determination of whether NPDES permits meet this
criterion. The petitioners cite examples from Wyoming where dozens of
NPDES permits have recently been issued by the Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality authorizing the discharge of wastewater from
coalbed methane development. The petition asserts that none of these
permits considered or mitigated impacts to the northern leopard frog
(Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 2005a, 2005b, 2005c,
2006a). We reviewed the permit for Wyoming Department of Environmental
Quality 2005a and although there are no specific mitigation measures
for northern leopard frogs, the permit prohibits deposition of
substances in quantities that could result in significant aesthetic
degradation or degradation of habitat for aquatic life, plant life, or
wildlife (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 2005a, p. 3).
However, it is unclear how this would or would not provide for
protection of northern leopard frogs and their habitat.
    The petition further states that, despite the existence of the
NPDES program, water quality throughout the western U.S. range of the
northern leopard frog continues to decline. The petition supports this
claim with data from the EPA (2002) that lists the percent of impaired
rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds in each western State. The data do
indicate that a vast majority of rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, and
reservoirs may have some degree of impaired water quality. In addition,
the petition asserts that the CWA does not adequately regulate nonpoint
source pollution, and in most cases, it is nonpoint source pollution
that is a threat to the northern leopard frog in the western United
States (Leja 1998, p. 353; Smith 2003, pp. 23-27; Rorabaugh 2005, p.
576). Pesticides and herbicide runoff from agricultural activities,
runoff from mining operations, runoff from roads, erosion and
sedimentation from domestic livestock grazing, and acid rain are
nonpoint sources of water pollution that the petitioners indicate have
resulted in adverse effects to the northern leopard frog and its
habitat throughout the western United States (Rorabaugh 2005, p. 576).
Bradford (2005, p. 919) indicates that chemical contamination (defined
as pollution; acid precipitation; acid mine drainage; mine water
pollution; sewage; and, heavy metals) was the third most implicated
adverse factor for frog population declines in the United States.
    The EPA is responsible for administering the CWA and Clean Air Act,
as well as for managing the use of pesticides. As discussed above, the
petitioners assert that neither the CWA nor the Clean Air Act currently
provide adequate protection for the northern leopard frog in the
western United States. In addition, the petitioners allege that, in
relation to pesticide regulation, the EPA is not adequately protecting
the northern leopard frog and its habitat. The petition contends that
pesticide contamination of surface waters in the United States is
extensive and concentrations of pesticides were frequently greater than
water-quality benchmarks for aquatic life and fish-eating wildlife
(Gilliom et al. 2006, p. 8). Of the streams analyzed as part of the
National Water Quality Assessment Program, 57 percent contained one or
more pesticides that exceeded at least one aquatic life protection
benchmark (Gilliom et al. 2006, p. 8). The petitioners are particularly
concerned with the use of atrazine, a commonly used herbicide in the
United States. Even when used at very low concentrations of 0.1 parts
per billion (ppb), atrazine may cause gonadal abnormalities such as
retarded development and hermaphroditism in male northern leopard frogs
(Hayes et al. 2002, p. 895). Atrazine contamination levels are reported
to exceed aquatic life protection benchmarks in a majority of streams
in the United States, especially streams dominated by urban runoff
(Gilliom et al. 2006, pp. 6-11), and can be present in excess of 1 ppb
in precipitation, even in areas where it is not used (Hayes et al.
2002, p. 895; Rorabaugh 2005, p. 576). The petitioners also state that
other commonly used pesticides, such as glyphosate, malathion, and
carbaryl may result in tadpole mortality, reduced foraging success, and
decreased ability to avoid predators (Diana and Beasely 1998, p. 274;
Smith and Keinath 2004, pp. 46-50; Relyea 2005, pp. 351-357).
    The petitioners contend that the BLM has provided inadequate
protection to the northern leopard frog, although the species occurs on
BLM lands in Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, and Wyoming,
and may also inhabit BLM lands in North and South Dakota. The
petitioners note that the frog has declined or is absent from BLM lands
in Arizona (Clarkson and Rorabaugh 1989, p. 534), Idaho (Makela 1998,
pp. 8-9), Montana (Maxell 2000, p. 144), Nevada (Hitchcock 2001, p. 9),
Washington (McAllister et al. 1999, pp. 1-4), and Wyoming (Smith and
Keinath 2004, p. 57), based upon historical ranges. BLM lists the
northern leopard frog as a sensitive species in Colorado, Idaho,
Wyoming, Montana, and North and South Dakota; the species is not listed
as sensitive on BLM lands elsewhere. The petitioners cite National
Environmental Policy Act documents and sensitive species lists from
several of these States. The petitioners also cite relevant sections of
BLM manual section 6840, which guides management of sensitive species.
However, petitioners provided an example from Colorado that shows the
BLM manual is not a mandatory requirement.
    Of the 14 BLM field offices in Colorado, the northern leopard frog
occurs on lands managed by 8 of the field offices. According to the
petition, no documentation was provided that indicated the eight field
offices had considered the northern leopard frog at all in relation to
the BLM Special Status Species Policy at BLM Manual 6840. The
petitioners assert that information provided by the BLM under the
Freedom of Information Act indicated the following: (1) None of the
eight field offices had evaluated the significance of lands
administered by the BLM or action undertaken by BLM in conserving,
maintaining, or restoring the northern leopard frog; (2) only two field
offices generated documentation concerning the occurrence of the
species, and none of the field offices had information pertaining to
the distribution or abundance of the species; and (3) none of the field
offices had developed or implemented any conservation programs for the
species or its habitat.
    The Service manages national wildlife refuges within the northern
leopard frog's western U.S. range, and the petitioners believe that
predation by introduced species and water contamination are both
factors affecting the persistence of northern leopard frogs and quality
of their habitat on refuges. As the petition asserted in Factors A and
C, the introduction of nonnative fish and bullfrogs has caused declines
in the northern leopard frog and threatens the species throughout its
western range. The petition states that the

[[Page 31399]]

presence of predatory brown trout and/bullfrogs on refuges where
northern leopard frogs are or potentially exist (Ruby Lake, Las Vegas,
Deer Flat, Alamosa, Monte Vista, and Tule Lake National Wildlife
Refuges), is contributing to the decline of the species. Additionally,
water contamination is stated as a threat on several additional
national wildlife refuges (Dickerson and Ramirez 1993, pp. 1-2).
Therefore, the petitioners contend that the Service is not ensuring the
protection of the northern leopard frog in the western United States.
    The Forest Service manages populations of northern leopard frogs in
the western United States on National Forests and National Grasslands
in several States, including Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota,
Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. As
described under Factor A, populations of northern leopard frogs have
declined across most of these States. The petition states that the
Forest Service's proposed and current planning regulations are
insufficient to protect the northern leopard frog. The northern leopard
frog is designated a ``sensitive species'' in Forest Service Regions 1
(Northern Region--northern Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, northwest
South Dakota), 2 (Rocky Mountain Region--Colorado, Nebraska, most of
South Dakota, Wyoming), 3 (Southwest Region--Arizona, New Mexico), 5
(Pacific Southwest Region--California), and 6 (Pacific Northwest--
Oregon and Washington), but not in Regions 4 (Intermountain Region--
southern Idaho, Nevada, Utah, western Wyoming) and 9 (Eastern Region--
includes all eastern States and Minnesota and Missouri). However, the
petitioners allege that the sensitive species status does not provide
any special protection and cite relevant portions of the Forest
Service's Manual at 2672.1 that requires ``an analysis of the
significance of adverse effects on the population, its habitat, and on
the viability of the species as a whole.'' The petitioners contend that
in practice this manual direction allows for sensitive species to be
impacted as long as there is an analysis of the impacts; however, no
protection is guaranteed as part of the analysis.
    The petition provides examples of nine Land and Resource Management
Plans for national forests in the western United States (see Table 19,
p. 116 of petition) that concluded that implementation of these Land
and Resource Management Plans ``may adversely impact individuals but
are not likely to result in a loss of viability over the planning area
nor cause a trend toward listing of the northern leopard frog range
wide.'' It is unclear without further analysis regarding these Land and
Resource Management Plans what the effects of plan implementation have
been or are likely to be on northern leopard frogs. The petition also
contends that Region 2 of the Forest Service reduced protection for
northern leopard frog habitats in 2005 by making the Watershed and
Conservation Practices Handbook voluntary. The Watershed and
Conservation Practices Handbook served to ensure implementation of
``proven watershed conservation practices to protect soil, aquatic, and
riparian systems'' (Forest Service Handbook 2509.25) and was required
for all actions on National Forest system lands. The revised Watershed
and Conservation Practices Handbook now states that ``alternative
practices'' may be used in place of the Watershed and Conservation
Practices Handbook, although these alternative practices are not explained
or defined (Forest Service 2005b, Forest Service Handbook 2509.25).
    The petition also contends that State regulatory mechanisms are
inadequate to protect the northern leopard frog and its habitat. To the
extent that the States do provide some level of protection, the States
may lack jurisdiction to address many of the threats facing the
northern leopard frog, particularly the ability to protect the species'
habitat on Federal lands. The northern leopard frog is designated a
``species of special concern'' or ``sensitive species'' (the
terminology may differ by State) in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, and Oregon. This designation
primarily ensures that a permit must be obtained to collect the
species, but otherwise does not provide any legal protection to the
species or its habitat. In 1999, the species was listed as
``endangered'' in Washington, but according to the petition, this
designation does not provide substantive protection to the frog or its
habitat on State, private, or Federal land. The designation does
require that a recovery plan be developed within 5 years of listing;
however, to date the plan has not been completed.
    Per the petition, according to Washington law, recovery plans call
for regulation, mitigation, acquisition, incentive, and compensation to
meet recovery objectives, but these measures ``must be sensitive to
landowner needs and property rights'' and there is no guaranteed
funding for implementation of the recovery plan. The northern leopard
frog has no protection in Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North
Dakota (although a license is required to take the species in North
Dakota), South Dakota, Texas, Utah, or Wyoming. In Nebraska, the
northern leopard frog is classified as a bait species. Our records
indicate that several States identified habitats important to the
northern leopard frog as needing special management in their Wildlife
Action Plans and some States, such as Arizona, are actively promoting
conservation of the species.
    In summary, we acknowledge that the petitioners have presented
substantial information that State and Federal regulatory mechanisms
including implementation of the CWA and Clean Air Act and management of
occupied lands by the States, BLM, Service, and Forest Service may be
inadequate to conserve the northern leopard frog in the western United
States. Therefore, we have determined that the petition presents
substantial information that the western DPS of the northern leopard frog
may be threatened due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued Existence

    The petitioners cite several other factors that are contributing to
declines of the western U.S. population of the northern leopard frog.
The factors discussed in the petition include malformations,
pesticides, water pollution, air pollution, ultraviolet radiation, road
impacts, and effects due to climate change. Many of these factors
interact with habitat degradation and loss, disease, and predation to
impact the species. In our analysis of the information presented in the
petition, the Service reviewed the effects of air and water pollution,
acid precipitation, and roads as they relate to habitat destruction,
modification or curtailment under Factor A. Under Factor D, the Service
reviewed information regarding the effects of pesticides, water and air
pollution, and ultraviolet radiation on the northern leopard frog, as
well as the information included below.
    Within the last 15 to 20 years, malformed northern leopard frogs
have been reported with increasing frequency in the western United
States, particularly in Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota
(Helgen et al. 1998, p. 288; Johnson and Lunde 2005, p. 124). However,
malformations are reported from Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, and Montana as
well (Johnson and Lunde 2005, pp. 124-128; North American Center for
Reporting Amphibian Malformations 2006). Noted malformations have included limb

[[Page 31400]]

deformities, multiple and missing limbs, jaw deformities, stunted
growth, multiple eyes, missing eyes, and various other growths (Helgen
et al. 1998, pp. 288-297; Hoppe 2005, p. 104). The petitioners contend
that the malformations are believed to be caused by a variety of
factors, including trematode parasites, ultraviolet-B radiation, and
water contamination (Blaustein and Johnson 2003, pp. 87-91; Johnson and
Lunde 2005, pp. 124-138; Helgen et al. 1998, pp. 294-297), but are
generally linked to human-induced changes in aquatic habitats (Johnson
and Lunde 2005, pp. 130-136; Meteyer et al. 2000, pp. 151-171). These
malformations typically lead to mortality as behavior is compromised to
the point of affecting individual fitness (Helgen et al. 1998, p. 289;
Hoppe 2005, pp. 105-108). Rorabaugh (2005, pp. 576-577) provides a
concise and thorough review of this literature and other information to
indicate that northern leopard frogs are likely negatively impacted by
malformations, pesticides, water pollution, air pollution, and
ultraviolet radiation throughout their range, and that these factors
are likely affecting the persistence of the species.
    The petition states that even at low levels, pesticides can lead to
local declines or extinction of northern leopard frog populations,
particularly in areas that are in close proximity to heavy or frequent
pesticide use as tadpole and larval stages are sensitive to low-level
pesticide contamination (Berrill et al. 1997, p. 244). The effects to
northern leopard frogs from pesticides, including herbicides,
piscicides (chemical substances poisonous to fish), and insecticides
vary, but information in the petition indicates that the species is
negatively affected both acutely and via sublethal symptoms by several
pesticides and chemicals (rotenone, Roundup, atrazine, malathion,
copper sulfate, and fenthion) commonly used in the western United
States (Patla 2005, p. 275; Relyea 2005, p. 353; Hayes et al. 2002, pp.
895-896; Fordham 1999, p. 125; Beasley et al. 2005, p. 86; Stebbins and
Cohen 1995, pp. 215-216; Rorabaugh 2005, p. 576). The petition contends
that pesticide contamination of surface waters in the United States is
extensive and concentrations of pesticides were frequently greater than
water-quality benchmarks for aquatic life and fish-eating wildlife
(Gilliom et al. 2006, p. 8). Of the streams analyzed as part of the
National Water Quality Assessment Program, 57 percent contained one or
more pesticides that exceeded at least one aquatic life protection
benchmark (Gilliom et al. 2006, p. 8).
    The petitioners also assert that ultraviolet radiation (UV) may
also be negatively impacting the northern leopard frog in the western
United States through increased larval mortality and deformities, and
slowed growth and development (Blaustein et al. 2003, p. 126). Studies
of amphibians and UV radiation have focused on UV-B, which has been
found to be the most damaging radiation at the earth's surface
(Blaustein et al. 2003, p. 124). In the absence of shade, ambient UV-B
radiation has been found to be lethal to northern leopard frog tadpoles
(Blaustein et al. 2003, pp. 124-128). In addition, synergistic effects
resulting from UV-B radiation in combination with low pH, pollutants,
and pathogens may adversely affect the hatching success and development
of northern leopard frogs (Kiesecker and Blaustein 1995, pp. 9900-9904;
Long et al. 1995, p. 1303; Blaustein et al. 2003, pp. 124-128).
    The petitioners contend that the northern leopard frog in the
western United States meets all of the criteria for a species at risk
due to human-induced climate change. Citing information in the
Service's Determination of Threatened Status for the California Tiger
Salamander (69 FR 47212; August 4, 2004), the petitioners assert that
climate change has resulted in increased temperatures in the western
United States, declining snowpack and snow water equivalents in western
mountains, and earlier snow melt. These changes are expected to lead to
large hydrological changes (69 FR 47212; Patla and Keineth 2005).
    The petitioners claim that the northern leopard frog is at the
upper limit of its physiological tolerance to temperature and dryness
throughout the arid and semi-arid habitats in the western United States
(Hammerson 1999, pp. 146-147; Hitchcock 2001, pp. 18-19; Rorabaugh
2005, p. 577). In addition, the petitioners note that the northern
leopard frog frequently depends upon small, ephemeral wetlands for
breeding habitats (Merrell 1968, p. 275) and due to habitat
fragmentation, the presence of nonnative aquatic species, and other
factors, the leopard frog is bounded by dispersal barriers throughout
its western range (Rorabaugh 2005, p. 577). The petition provides a
list of impacts in addition to habitat impacts that may occur from
climate change, including earlier reproduction and more rapid
development of larva, decreased mobility due to drier conditions, and
shorter hibernation periods (Carey and Alexander 2003, pp. 111-121;
Patla and Keinath 2005, pp. 44-46). The petitioners contend that higher
summer temperatures may result in increased evaporation rates with
breeding habitats drying up prior to metamorphosis, and also due in
part to earlier breeding times in response to warmer spring
temperatures, with subsequent episodes of freezing temperatures that
may result in high egg mortality (Smith 2003, p. 34). Finally, the
petitioners assert that climate change may also cause frogs to
experience increased physiological stress and decreased immune system
function, possibly leading to disease outbreaks (Carey and Alexander
2003, pp. 111-121; Pounds et al. 2006, pp. 161-167).
    On the basis of our review, we find the information on pesticides,
water pollution, air pollution, ultraviolet radiation, road impacts,
and effects due to changing environmental conditions possibly resulting
from climate change presented in the petition provides substantial
information to indicate that other natural or manmade factors
(stochastic events) may be a threat to the species. The potential
impacts of these factors may be exacerbating other threats to this
population; however, additional analysis is needed to determine the
effect of these impacts on the northern leopard frog. Based on the
information submitted in the petition, we have determined that
substantial information has been presented that the western U.S.
population of the northern leopard frog may be threatened due to other
natural or manmade factors (stochastic events) affecting its continued
existence (Factor E). We will continue to evaluate the potential
effects of these factors on the species and its habitat during our
status review.

Finding

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we make a finding
on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted
with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files. To
the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90
days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the
finding promptly in the Federal Register.
    We have reviewed the petition and the literature cited in the
petition, and evaluated that information to determine

[[Page 31401]]

whether the sources cited support the claims made in the petition. We
also reviewed reliable information that was readily available in our
files to evaluate the petition.
    Our process for making this 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A)
of the Act is limited to a determination of whether the information in
the petition presents ``substantial scientific and commercial
information,'' which is interpreted in our regulations as ``that amount
of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the
measure proposed in the petition may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)).
As described in our Threats Evaluation, above, the petition presents
substantial information indicating that listing the western U.S.
population of the northern leopard frog may be warranted based on
Factors A, C, D, and E, summarized below. Based on our five-factor
analysis (above), the petition does not present substantial information
indicating that Factor B is a threat to this species.
    We find that the petitioners have presented substantial information
indicating that the northern leopard frogs in the western United States
may be genetically discrete from northern leopard frogs in the eastern
United States and that the western U.S. population may also be
significant to the species as a whole as the loss of this potentially
discrete population segment may result in a significant gap in the
range of the species. We also find that the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial information that listing the DPS
of the northern leopard frog in the western United States as threatened
or endangered may be warranted as the result of current and future
threats under Factor A due to habitat destruction and modification,
Factor C due to disease and predation, Factor D because it is not
currently protected by existing regulatory mechanisms, and Factor E due
to malformations, pesticides, and ultraviolet radiation. Therefore, we
are initiating a status review to determine if listing the species
under the Act is warranted. We will issue a 12-month finding as to
whether the petitioned action is warranted, not warranted, or warranted
but precluded.
    The petition asserts that the northern leopard frog is a possible
DPS, and requested that if we find that listing the western U.S.
population of northern leopard frogs as a DPS is not warranted, that we
review whether listing the entire species is warranted because of
threats in a significant portion of its range. Because we find that the
petition presents substantial information that listing the western DPS
may be warranted, we have not evaluated the extent to which the
northern leopard frog may be endangered or threatened throughout a
significant portion of its range. Such an analysis would occur during
the 12-month status review if we determine that listing the western DPS
is not warranted.
    We encourage interested parties to continue gathering data that
will assist with the conservation and monitoring of the northern
leopard frog throughout the western United States. You may submit
information regarding the northern leopard frog by one of the methods
listed in the ADDRESSES section, at any time.
    The ``substantial information'' standard for a 90-day finding is
not the same as the Act's ``best scientific and commercial data''
standard that applies to a 12-month finding to determine whether a
petitioned action is warranted. A 90-day finding is not a status
assessment of the species and does not constitute a status review under
the Act. Our final determination of whether a petitioned action is
warranted is not made until we have completed a thorough status review
of the species as part of the 12-month finding on a petition, which is
conducted following a positive 90-day finding. Because the Act's
standards for 90-day and 12-month findings are different, as described
above, a positive 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month
finding also will be positive.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request from the Arizona Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section).

Author

    The primary author of this notice is the staff of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section).

Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: June 24, 2009.
Marvin E. Moriarty,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E9-15539 Filed 6-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

Local Navigation

• FR Home
• About the Site
• FR Listserv
• FR Search
• Selected Electronic Dockets
• Regulatory Agenda
• Executive Orders
• Current Laws and Regulations

• EPA Home
• Privacy and Security Notice
• Contact Us