Recovery Plan For The California Red-legged Frog (Rana .
Recovery Planfor theCalifornia Red-legged Frog(Rana aurora draytonii)Region 1U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServicePortland, Oregon
iiDisclaimerRecovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/orprotect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, andsometimes are prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, andothers. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject tobudgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to addressother priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positionsor approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService only after they have been signed by the Director, Regional Director, or Manager asapproved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings,changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks.Literature Citation Should Read As Follows:U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Ranaaurora draytonii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. viii 173 pp.Additional copies may be purchased from:Fish and Wildlife Reference Service5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110Bethesda, Maryland 20814-2158301-492-6403 or 1-800-582-3421FAX: 301-564-4059E-mail: fwrs@mail.fws.govhttp://fa.r9.fws.gov/r9fwrs/The fee for the plan varies depending on the number of pages of the plan.An electronic version of this recovery plan will also be made available overy/default.htm
iiiAcknowledgementsPrimary AuthorsIna Pisani of the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Sacramento, California acted as the Recovery Team Manager and prepared this recoveryplan. Recovery plan preparation was supervised and edited by Karen Miller, Diane Elam,and Carmen Thomas, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.AcknowledgementsGrace McLaughlin of the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office provided technical input onmany aspects of this recovery plan. In particular, Ms. McLaughlin provided assistance inthe delineation of recovery units and core areas and compiled Appendix B whichaddresses the potential effects of contaminants on the California red-legged frog.Each member of the California red-legged frog recovery team contributed valuableinformation and assistance. In particular, we gratefully acknowledge the efforts ofNorman Scott and Galen Rathbun of the U.S. Geological Survey, Biological ResourcesDivision, Western Ecological Research Center, Piedras Blancas Field Station and MarkJennings for preparing the appendices that address pond management andreestablishment of California red-legged frogs, and for being generous with theirtechnical assistance and time throughout the development of this recovery plan. Wethank them also for their thorough editorial review. In addition, we wish to thankWilliam Cunningham of the Natural Resources Conservation Service and Amy Lind ofthe U.S. Forest Service for preparing the appendix that lists existing incentive programs.The following individuals contributed significant information/assistance during recoveryplan preparation (California red-legged frog recovery team members are italicized):Paul BarrettSteven BobzienMaria BorojaPatricia BratcherSara Lee ChubbDavid CookWilliam W. CunninghamJoseph DidonatoGary FellersDarren FongCatherine HibbardJoshua HoffmanSteve HolzmanMichael JaniMark JenningsDouglas KroftaSheila LarsenAmy LindLaurie LitmanIvette LoredoEd LorentzenSheila MasseyCurt McCaslandTony McKinneyGrace McLaughlinMeri MooreSteven MoreyDave PerekstaGalen RathbunMark RentzLisa RobertsTamara SasakiNorman ScottWilliam ShookJohn SteuberTerry StrangeKate SymondsBrad ValentinePhil ZentnerIllustrations are courtesy of the California Department of Fish and Game.
ivExecutive SummaryCurrent Species Status: The California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) is federallylisted as threatened. This subspecies of red-legged frog occurs from sea level to elevations ofabout 1,500 meters (5,200 feet). It has been extirpated from 70 percent of its former range andnow is found primarily in coastal drainages of central California, from Marin County,California, south to northern Baja California, Mexico. Potential threats to the species includeelimination or degradation of habitat from land development and land use activities and habitatinvasion by non-native aquatic species.Habitat Requirements: The California red-legged frog requires a variety of habitat elementswith aquatic breeding areas embedded within a matrix of riparian and upland dispersalhabitats. Breeding sites of the California red-legged frog are in aquatic habitats including poolsand backwaters within streams and creeks, ponds, marshes, springs, sag ponds, dune ponds andlagoons. Additionally, California red-legged frogs frequently breed in artificial impoundmentssuch as stock ponds.Recovery Objective: The objective of this plan is to reduce threats and improve thepopulation status of the California red-legged frog sufficiently to warrant delisting.Recovery Priority Number: 6C, per criteria published by Federal Register Notice (48 FR43098; September 21, 1983). This number indicates a subspecies with high threats and lowrecovery potential, in conflict with development projects.Recovery Criteria: This subspecies will be considered for delisting when:1) Suitable habitats within all core areas (described in Section II of this recovery plan) areprotected and/or managed for California red-legged frogs in perpetuity, and the ecologicalintegrity of these areas is not threatened by adverse anthropogenic habitat modification(including indirect effects of upstream/downstream land uses);2) Existing populations, throughout the range, are stable (i.e., reproductive rates allow for longterm viability without human intervention). Population status will be documented throughestablishment and implementation of a scientifically acceptable population monitoringprogram for at least a 15-year period, which is approximately 4 to 5 generations of theCalifornia red-legged frog. This 15-year period will preferably include an averageprecipitation cycle. An average precipitation cycle is a period when annual rainfall includesaverage to 35 percent above-average through greater than 35 percent below-average andback to average or greater. The direction of change is unimportant in this criterion.3) Populations are geographically distributed in a manner that allows for the continuedexistence of viable metapopulations despite fluctuations in the status of individualpopulations (i.e. when populations are stable or increasing at each core area);4) The subspecies is successfully reestablished in portions of its historic range such that atleast one reestablished population is stable/increasing at each core area where frogs arecurrently absent; and
Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog5) The amount of additional habitat needed for population connectivity, recolonization, anddispersal has been determined, protected, and managed for California red-legged frogs.Actions Needed:1. Protect known populations and reestablish populations.2. Protect suitable habitat, corridors, and core areas.3. Develop and implement management plans for preserved habitat, occupied watersheds, andcore areas.4. Develop land use guidelines.5. Gather biological and ecological data necessary for conservation of the species.6. Monitor existing populations and conduct surveys for new populations.7. Establish an outreach program.Estimated Cost of Recovery: 10,031,500 plus costs that are not yet determined.Date of Recovery: Delisting could occur by 2025 if recovery criteria have been met.v
viRecovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog“Smiley was monstrous proud of hisfrog, and well he might be, forfellers that had traveled and beeneverywheres all said he laid overany frog that they ever see.”—Mark Twain, Celebrated Jumping Frog ofCalaveras County(Most historians and scientists believe that theCalifornia red-legged frog inspired Mark Twainto write his short story.)
viiTable of ContentsExecutive Summary. . ivI.Introduction . 1A. Brief Overview . 1B. Species Description . 2C. Historic and Current Distribution. . 2D. Habitat . 12E. Life History and Ecology . 15F. Reasons for Decline and Threats to Survival . 17G. Regulatory Protection and Conservation Measures . 30H. Associated Species . 38II. Recovery . 45A. Recovery Objectives and Strategies . 45B. Recovery Criteria. . 46C. Recovery Units . 47D. Core Areas for Focused Recovery Efforts . 50E. Effects of the Recovery Strategy on Associated Species . 57III. Outline of Recovery Actions . 61A. Guidance for Development of Watershed Management Plans andImplementation of Recovery Tasks . 61B. Recovery Tasks . 73IV. Implementation Schedule . 89V. References . 103A. Literature Cited . 103B. Personal Communications . 113C. In litt. References . 114VI. Appendices . 117Appendix A. Glossary of Technical Terms . 117Appendix B. Potential Contaminants Associated with California Red-legged FrogHabitat . 120Appendix C. Maps of Core Areas Per County . 130Appendix D.Guidelines for Voluntary Pond Management for the Benefit ofCalifornia Red-legged Frogs . 151Appendix E. Private Landowner Incentives for Implementation of ConservationMeasures . 154Appendix F. Code of Practice to Reduce Spread of Disease and Parasites . 162Appendix G. General Guidelines for Reestablishment of California Red-leggedFrog Populations . 163Appendix H. Summary of the Agency and Public Comment on the Draft RecoveryPlan for the California Red-legged Frog . 166
viiiRecovery Plan for the California Red-legged FrogList of TablesTable 1.Number of streams per county where California red-legged frogs are present,post-1985 . 1Table 2.Sensitive fish and wildlife species associated with the Californiared-legged frog . 37Table 3.Threats to California red-legged frogs and recovery potential per recovery unit . 45Table 4.Recovery goals and tasks aimed at eliminating threats . 48Table 5.Selection criteria for core areas and importance of core areas for recovery . 54Table 6.Core areas targeted for development and implementation of management andprotection plans for the California red-legged frog. . 74List of FiguresFigure 1. Adult California red-legged frog . 2Figure 2. California red-legged frog egg mass, tadpole, and new metamorph . 3Figure 3. Historic range of the California red-legged frog by county . 4Figure 4. Current range of the California red-legged frog by county . 5Figure 5. California red-legged frog recovery units . 6Figure 6. Aerial view of breeding areas . 13Figure 7. Breeding habitat at Ledson Marsh, Sonoma County . 14Figure 8. Breeding pool and streamside vegetation in Round Valley Creek,Contra Costa County . 14Figure 9. Dune swale breeding pond on Vandenberg Air Force Base, Santa BarbaraCounty and breeding habitat in a stockpond on Camp Ohlone Regional Park,Alameda County . 15Figure 10. Comparison of the California red-legged frog and bullfrog . 25Figure 11. Predation by a bullfrog . 26Figure 12. California red-legged frog core area distribution . 51
1I. IntroductionA. BRIEF OVERVIEWThe California red-legged frog (Rana auroradraytonii) is endemic to California and BajaCalifornia, Mexico, and its known elevationalrange extends from near sea level toelevations of about 1,500 meters (5,200 feet).Nearly all sightings have occurred below1,050 meters (3,500 feet) (Natural DiversityDatabase 2001). The species has beenextirpated from 70 percent of its former rangeand now is found primarily in coastaldrainages of central California, from MarinCounty, California, south to northern BajaCalifornia, Mexico, and in isolated drainagesin the Sierra Nevada, northern Coast, andnorthern Transverse Ranges (U.S. Fish andWildlife Service 1996a). Populations remainin approximately 256 streams or drainages in28 counties (Table 1).The California red-legged frog is threatenedwithin its remaining range, by a wide varietyof human impacts to its habitat, includingurban encroachment, construction ofreservoirs and water diversions,contaminants, agriculture, and livestockgrazing. These activities can destroy, degrade,and fragment habitat. The introduction ofnon-native predators and competitors alsocontinues to threaten the viability of manyCalifornia red-legged frog populations.The California red-legged frog was includedas a Category 1 candidate species in our (U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service) November 21,1991, Animal Notice of Review (U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service 1991). On January 29,1992, we received a petition from Dr. MarkR. Jennings, Dr. Marc P. Hayes, and Mr. DanHolland to list the California red-legged frog.On October 5, 1992, we published a 90-daypetition finding (U.S. Fish and WildlifeNOTE: In this document the term “frog”refers to the California red-legged frog unlessotherwise indicated.Service 1992) with substantial informationindicating the requested action may bewarranted. On July 19, 1993, we published a12-month finding on the petitioned action(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993)indicating that listing of the California redlegged frog was warranted and that aproposed rule would be published promptly.On February 2, 1994, we published aproposal to list the California red-legged frogas an endangered species (U.S. Fish andWildlife Service 1994a). Based oninformation received during the commentperiod on the proposed rule, we determinedthe California red-legged frog to be athreatened species; the listing was effectiveon June 24, 1996 (U.S. Fish and WildlifeService 1996a). The recovery priority numberof the California red-legged frog is 6C,indicating a subspecies with a high degree ofthreat and low recovery potential. RecoveryTable 1. Number of streams per county (north to south) whereCalifornia red-legged frogs are present, post-1985 (Natural DiversityDatabase 2001, M. Jennings in litt. 1993).CountyNumber of StreamsEl arinContra CostaSan JoaquinAlamedaSan Francisco21111153619212121CountyNumber of StreamsSan MateoSanta ClaraSanta CruzStanislausFresnoMercedSan BenitoMontereyKernSan Luis ObispoSanta BarbaraVenturaLos AngelesRiverside22211721553213035621
2Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frogpriority numbers are based on criteriapublished by Federal Register Notice (48 FR43098; September 21, 1983).B. SPECIES DESCRIPTIONClass - AmphibiaOrder - AnuraFamily - RanidaeGenus - RanaSpecies - Rana auroraSubspecies - Rana aurora draytoniiThe California red-legged frog (Rana auroradraytonii) is one of two subspecies of the redlegged frog (Rana aurora). The othersubspecies is the northern red-legged frog (R.a. aurora). The northern red-legged frogranges from Vancouver Island, BritishColumbia, Canada, south along the Pacificcoast, west of the Cascade ranges to northernCalifornia. Some red-legged frogs found inthe intervening areas (southern Del Norte tonorthern Marin County along the CoastRange), exhibit intergrade characteristics ofboth subspecies (Hayes and Krempels 1986).The two subspecies, and intergrades of thesubspecies, mayoccur together insome areas such asthe vicinity of PointReyes NationalSeashore in MarinCounty, and portionsof Sonoma County.Figure 1. AdultCalifornia redlegged frog.Photo Steven BobzienThe California redlegged frog is thelargest native frog inthe western UnitedStates (Wright andWright 1949). Adultfemales attain asignificantly longerbody length thanmales (138millimeters [5.4inches] versus 116millimeters [4.5inches] snout-urostyle length) (Hayes andMiyamoto 1984). The posterior abdomen andhind legs of adults are often red or salmonpink; the back is characterized by small blackflecks and larger irregular dark blotches withindistinct outlines on a brown, gray, olive, orreddis
vi Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog “Smiley was monstrous proud of his frog, and well he might be, for fellers that had traveled and been everywheres all said he laid over any frog that they ever see.” —Mark Twain, Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County (Most historians and scientists believe that the
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Bruksanvisning för bilstereo . Bruksanvisning for bilstereo . Instrukcja obsługi samochodowego odtwarzacza stereo . Operating Instructions for Car Stereo . 610-104 . SV . Bruksanvisning i original
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
10 tips och tricks för att lyckas med ert sap-projekt 20 SAPSANYTT 2/2015 De flesta projektledare känner säkert till Cobb’s paradox. Martin Cobb verkade som CIO för sekretariatet för Treasury Board of Canada 1995 då han ställde frågan
