Frogs receive endangered listing

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) published the final rule listing the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and Northern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the mountain yellow-legged frog as endangered on April 29. The FWS also listed the Yosemite toad as threatened.

All three species make their homes in high elevation meadows and other riparian areas in the Sierra Nevada mountains. According to the FWS press release regarding the listings, studies of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog populations have determined a decline in population by almost 70 percent, while the Northern DPS mountain yellow-legged frog has declined by over 80 percent. The Yosemite toad’s decline is estimated at 50 percent.

The listings, first proposed in April of 2013, will become effective on June 30.

The endangered listing for the two frog species in particular has been dogged by controversy. Scientists and organizations like the Center for Biological Diversity have been working for over a decade to achieve such a listing; however, Inyo and Mono County officials have expressed concern throughout the listing process that the critical habitat area created by the FWS to protect the now endangered and threatened species could have a severe impact on recreation opportunities in both Counties.

At the same time that the FWS proposed the listing for all three species, it also proposed a 1.8 million acre critical habitat area spanning 17 counties, including Inyo and Mono, to protect the frogs and toad. The critical habitat area is now guaranteed, but what shape it will take remains to be determined, according to the FWS.

Considering both Counties rely heavily on tourism and recreation to fuel local economies, such a critical habitat area and the restrictions it could impose on land use may have a detrimental effect on local economies.

Yet the final rule backs down considerably from its previous assessment of threats to both the Sierra Nevada and Northern DPS mountain yellow-legged frog.

Where the draft rule had identified livestock grazing, pack stock grazing, and recreation activities as potential threats to yellow-legged frogs, the final rule concludes that range-wide livestock grazing “is not a substantial threat to the species;” that similarly, pack stock grazing will affect frog populations “only in limited situations;” and that recreation activities “are not considered a threat to populations over much of their range.”

All of which suggests that a critical habitat area will not restrict such uses as much as County officials once feared.

“I certainly hope that people are beginning to realize that the impact to community businesses have been overstated,” said aquatic ecologist Dr. Roland Knapp, who has studied the yellow-legged frog for over 15 years. “What you see in the final rule is more nuanced; described more clearly and succinctly,” he said. “That’s the whole purpose of having this public process.”

The one remaining threat that continues to cause the most controversy is fish stocking. According to Dr. Knapp, the two primary threats to frog populations are Chytridiomycosis, a pathogen that kills amphibians by causing severe disruption of skin functions and associated osmotic imbalance, and the introduction of non-native trout to high alpine lakes where many frogs make their home. Fish prey on frog tadpoles, decimating populations before they have a chance to grow.

In a Green Sheet article last year, Dr. Knapp said that evidence for the effects of both threats “is clear as day.”

When the FWS first proposed designating 1.8 million acres of critical habitat to protect the frogs and toad, much of it on federal and wilderness lands, both Counties’ fearful reactions came from the fact that the area encompassed popular fishing spots like Rock Creek and the Lake Mary Basin.

However, the FWS has since made clear that it does not intend to prohibit stocking, nor cull fish populations, in popular fishing spots, but rather in high country lakes that see little use by fishermen, and that can provide ideal locations for resurgent frog populations.

The FWS will be determining the scope of the critical habitat area by next year.

The FWS will also determine a recovery plan within the next several years. Such a plan will identify recovery goals, including a target population to reach in order to de-list the frog populations, and strategies to grow that population toward the target.

“People are going to want to know, rightly, what areas in the critical habitat will be affected [by the recovery plan],” Dr. Knapp acknowledged. “That plan will offer greater specificity.”

As for the fate of the frogs, he said, “The sooner we can get the recovery plan in place, the better off we are.”

But recovery plans can take years to complete. Dr. Knapp noted the case of the Southern California mountain yellow-legged frog, which was listed as endangered in 2012, and now, with only about 100 frogs left in the wild, still has no recovery plan.

For those who protest the endangered species listing as another unwanted intrusion from the federal government, FWS Media Contact Robert Moler noted that, “your goal is probably also to get these frogs de-listed.” The recovery plan aims to achieve that.

Inyo and Mono County officials remain wary of both the endangered species listing and the proposed critical habitat. Said Inyo County Board of Supervisors Chair Linda Arcularius, “County concerns are still there, and are probably more intensified. The next step is to see how the critical habitat is designated.”

Mono County District 4 Supervisor Tim Fesko had not yet heard the news, but, he said, “I’m disappointed.”

Meanwhile Mono County District 3 Supervisor Tim Alpers expressed a lack of surprise regarding the endangered listing. “My concern is about the critical habitat area and the management of those lands,” he added.

Mono County Community Development Director Scott Burns, on the other hand, was cautiously hopeful. “Just looking at the decision and what they based it upon … it seems like [FWS] has taken into account some of our comments, especially those geared toward cattle grazing and recreation.”

What effect such comments will have on a recovery plan, which will also go through a public review process, remains to be seen in years to come.

The final rule is available for viewing on the Federal Register’s website.