Jan. 11–SAN ANDREAS — Designating 1.8 million acres of the Sierra Nevada as critical habitat for several amphibian species will have minimal economic impact, according to a study released Friday by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The draft economic analysis of proposed critical habitat for the Yosemite toad and two species of yellow-legged frogs concludes that the costs of the designation over 17 years would likely range from $630,000 to $1.5 million, or a maximum of about $88,000 per year.
Forced by environmental lawsuits, federal authorities are trying to catch up on studying dozens of species under consideration for protection under the Endangered Species Act. When species are listed as either threatened or endangered, federal agencies also usually designate critical habitat.
Two species of yellow-legged frog and the Yosemite toad were due in 2013 for a listing decision. That decision has been repeatedly delayed, however, to allow the public opportunities to comment. Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Granite Bay, has asked for some of those delays and has held public hearings at which representatives of ranching, mining and recreation interests expressed fears that designating habitat for the amphibians could limit human access to and benefit from forestlands.
Friday’s release of the economic assessment starts another 60-day comment period that will expire March 11. And there are at least a few people and industry groups likely to come forward to comment, if nothing else, to express skepticism about the extremely low dollar value estimated for the economic impact.
“It is at best an incomplete report and at worst an outright falsehood,” said Craig Lindsay, president of the Western Mining Alliance.
The economic analysis did not consider, for example, any impact the critical habitat might have on mining. Federal authorities said in a document released Friday that is because mining poses no threat to the frogs or the toad and so would not in any way be affected by the habitat designation.
Scientists say a variety of factors threaten the frogs and toad, including pesticides drifting from farms in the Central Valley, introduced trout species that eat their young, grazing near the water bodies where they live and logging done in ways that damage the bodies of water.
About half of the estimated impacts, or $722,500, would be due to efforts required to prevent timber harvests from harming frog or toad habitat.
Federal officials say the vast majority of the economic impacts would be borne by federal agencies, since 97 percent of the proposed habitat is on federal lands.
And they say that while the designation would require federal land managers to consider the effects of their actions on the species, it would have minimal impacts on recreationists, ranchers and others who use the high-altitude national forest and national park areas that make up most of the designated habitat.
“Designating critical habitat does not limit access to public lands,” said Robert Moler, a spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Sacramento office.
Critics are skeptical. Even though these particular amphibians live in high-altitude zones that are not heavily logged, they still see this habitat designation as part of a larger pattern of designations that are crimping human economic activity.
“It kept us off the range for two years,” Calaveras County rancher Kelly Wooster said of the impact of concerns over the Yosemite toad on his family’s access to a longtime grazing allotment on national forestland.
Although Wooster’s family is now grazing cattle in the area again after a study found no harm to the toads from grazing, he’s still planning to read the federal plans carefully and to attend an upcoming meeting on it in Sacramento.
The draft economic analysis estimates the impacts to grazing at between $33,700 and $198,100 over 17 years.
The 17-year period considered runs from this year, when the listing of the species and critical habitat designation is expected, and 2030.
It is likely that McClintock and other Endangered Species Act critics in congress will weigh in on the plan.
“In a real economic assessment, you’d have to do some kind of measurement of if you lock that land away from use,” said Rocky Deal, McClintock’s interim chief of staff. “Obviously, the study doesn’t do that.”
Deal said he believes the actual impact of designating habitat and managing it to protect the frogs would likely be many millions of dollars.
Federal authorities and other defenders of the proposed listing insist that habitat designation does not lock land away from use, and that is especially true for the amphibians being studied now.
“Out of so many other species’ recovery plans that could affect something, these very high-elevation amphibians have extremely low potential to make the slightest economic difference,” said John Buckley, executive director of the Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center. “They are above the logging levels in almost all cases. The proposals won’t restrict any recreation or active use of the lands.”
Contact reporter Dana M. Nichols at (209) 607-1361 or [email protected]. Follow him at www.recordnet.com/calaverasblog and on Twitter @DanaReports.