Federal agency expands habitat for red-legged frog

Issue Date: September 24, 2008

By Christine Souza
Assistant Editor

The map above shows coastal counties in California that would see some of the largest changes from a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposal to dramatically increase the amount of acreage designated as critical habitat for the red-legged frog. A total of 28 counties are included in the proposal. Download map (PDF, 58 KB)

In a move that would place additional burdens on farmers and ranchers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced last week that it plans to quadruple the land area in California designated as critical habitat for the California red-legged frog. Landowners affected by the proposal--including those already cooperating to provide frog habitat--say the proposal won't do much to help the species and could even hurt it.

The proposed critical habitat covers more than 1.8 million acres in 28 counties, up from the 450,000 acres in 21 counties listed in the 2006 designation for the amphibian.

"We're encouraged to see that the new proposal maintains incentives for ranchers who manage their property to benefit the frog. But we've seen from practical experience that designating land as critical habitat does little to benefit the protected species," said Elisa Noble, California Farm Bureau Federation director of livestock, public lands and natural resources. "Even Fish and Wildlife Service documents confirm that. Expanding the habitat can tie landowners' hands and can actually delay cooperative work by farmers and ranchers to benefit the frog."

Last year, FWS Director Dale Hall asked regional biologists to independently review a 2006 critical habitat rule and propose changes if needed to assure the scientific integrity of the plan. The new plan extends the likely dispersal range for the frog from seven-tenths of a mile, the standard used in 2006, to one mile. It also focuses on watersheds and adjusts units based on watershed boundaries. The FWS says the proposed habitat generally avoids areas on the fringes of developed lands, fragmented areas and intensely farmed areas.

Habitat has been proposed in seven counties that did not have any designated in the final 2006 rule: Calaveras, Kings, Mendocino, Placer, Riverside, Sonoma and Stanislaus. Counties with proposed habitat that also were in the 2006 rule are: Alameda, Butte, Contra Costa, El Dorado, Kern, Los Angeles, Marin, Merced, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, San Benito, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Ventura and Yuba.

The new plan also recommends that 105,013 acres in El Dorado, Contra Costa, Santa Cruz and Riverside counties be excluded because those areas are now covered by existing habitat conservation plans, which the FWS said provide better protection for the species.

On many California ranches, the frogs have moved into created stock watering ponds as their natural habitat has been eliminated. The Fish and Wildlife Service said frog habitat has been degraded or lost by activities including urbanization, mining and the invasion of non-native plants and introduced predators. It said it will seek continued landowner cooperation to maintain frog habitat by offering ranchers the protection of what is known as the "4(d) rule." It allows routine ranching activities to continue in spite of the potential for "taking" of the species. While the take of any species listed as either endangered or threatened is typically prohibited, the rule allows ranchers to continue to operate in and around red-legged frog habitat, under certain best management practices and without fear of violating the Endangered Species Act.

"Anyone who has taken the time to look knows that a well-managed farm or ranch is not only an important source of food or fiber, but also of habitat. The same practices that keep our ranches profitable and rangelands healthy also provide excellent habitat for the red-legged frog," said Jack Rice, CFBF Natural Resources and Environmental Division associate counsel. "While at this time the proposed critical habitat expansion would not affect either the take prohibition or the 4(d) rule, it could pose an unnecessary burden on designated lands. CFBF continues to work to make certain that the benefits of agriculture are recognized while also defending our members against abuses of the ESA."

Alameda County rancher Tim Koopmann has spent many years working with the FWS and other government agencies helping to preserve species on his ranchland. Expanding the critical habitat designation for red-legged frog, he said, would do more harm than good.

"In the past the service has said that designation of critical habitat hasn't really provided additional protection. There is an impairment factor in it, in that it just adds more paperwork and bureaucracy and takes more time and effort away from where you could be doing something good for the species," Koopmann said.

Farm Bureau said the proposed designation can harm farmers and ranchers because those who use federal dollars to participate in conservation programs under the federal farm bill will see their applications delayed by lengthy "consultation" requirements imposed by the critical-habitat designation. The consultations could slow down cost-share projects on ranchland such as rebuilding stock ponds, which would actually help the species.

"The service doesn't have the staff to do the consultations. It is adding to the bureaucracy, it is adding to the number of people on the property and it is certainly adding months and months to the process of getting anything done," Koopmann said.

At his ranch in Sunol, he has welcomed and encouraged a variety of species including the red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, golden eagle and a variety of birds through his work with the Audubon Society.

"A lot of us take pride in the biodiversity and variety of wildlife that we have on the ranches and we are proud to show it off," he said. "We're happy to continue to work in a practical manner to continue to provide that habitat, but don't pile us up with paperwork and bureaucracy."

California Cattlemen's Association Executive Vice President Matt Byrne indicated that the FWS and private conservation groups have recognized that cattle grazing is not only compatible but in many cases beneficial to habitat for the red-legged frog.

"The FWS has supported grazing and has supported efforts by ranchers who have undertaken voluntary conservation activities on their rangelands to do things like restore stock ponds that provide habitat for the frogs and do those things using (U.S. Agriculture Department) programs," Byrne said. "In the end, there's a benefit that goes beyond the rancher but to the wildlife and the habitat as well."

Farm Bureau's Noble encourages people to comment on the critical-habitat proposal during a 60-day comment period that opened last week.

"Once critical habitat is designated, owners who modify designated land may have to undergo costly and time-consuming consultations with government agencies. These consultations may hold up their activities for long periods of time and farmers cannot afford to miss the planting period or harvesting period," Noble said. "Critical habitat designations may also depress land values and actually result in increased urbanization."

Rancher Michael David Fischer Jr., a California Farm Bureau director representing Calaveras and San Joaquin counties, said that fellow ranchers in his area have already felt the economic impacts of the red-legged frog, from the time habitat was designated in 2006.

"For the people I rent land from, it has devalued their property dramatically. When critical habitat was designated in 2006, the family that owns the property immediately put it up for sale to sell it prior to any more restrictions coming," Fischer said. "They have not been able to sell it and I'm sure (it is due to the habitat designation)."

The California red-legged frog has been protected as a threatened species by the Endangered Species Act since 1996.

The critical-habitat proposal must undergo 60 days of public review, with a deadline for public comment on Nov. 17, and another review before it becomes final. A copy of the proposed rule, including maps and specific areas where the FWS seeks information, is available at www.fws.gov/sacramento.

(Christine Souza is a reporter for Ag Alert. She may be contacted at csouza@cfbf.com.)

Permission for use is granted, however, credit must be made to the California Farm Bureau Federation when reprinting this item. Top