INYO COUNTY CLOSURE

Express YOUR point, no pissing matches.

List sources whenever possible!
Post Reply
User avatar
lewisclan
PVT. 1st Class
Posts: 4804
Joined: June 1st, 2007, 3:34 pm
Location: Yucca Valley CA

INYO COUNTY CLOSURE

Post by lewisclan »

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing to list the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and the northern distinct population segment of the mountain yellow-legged frog as endangered and the Yosemite toad as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Service is also proposing to designate critical habitat for these three amphibian species in California. Primary threats to the various species identified include habitat destruction, recreation (including trout stocking), dams and reservoir diversion, livestock use (grazing), packstock use, roads, timber harvest, fire management activities, disease, climate change, and pollution. With overlapping areas, the total proposed critical habitat for the three amphibians is 1,831,820 acres. In Inyo County areas proposed for habitat designation include Rock Creek Lake, Mt. Tom, the Bishop Creek drainage (including South Lake), Coyote Flat, the Big Pine Creek drainage, and Onion Valley. Additional critical habitat is proposed adjacent to Inyo County over the crest of the Sierra Nevada and in Mono County. The critical habitat designations have the potential to devastate the County’s economy and restrict access to important recreation areas. The listing of the species will add additional permitting burdens, and may further restrict access to public lands.

Please go to http://inyoplanning.org/projects/USFW_Y ... edFrog.htm - under "ADDITIONAL INFORMATION" you'll find "SUBMITTAL OF COMMENTS" - and submit your comments under both proposals. Your comments need to be made prior to June 24, 2013 at 9:00pm.

PLEASE COMMENT AND SHARE - GET THE WORD OUT!
Image"the game of life of is not so much in holding a good hand as playing a poor hand well"
User avatar
sabreguy
Posts: 2915
Joined: June 1st, 2007, 5:07 pm
Location: Middle of the Freakin Mojave Desert!

Post by sabreguy »

What a load of horse shit! :x
88CR500
ROOST ON PEOPLE!!!
User avatar
lewisclan
PVT. 1st Class
Posts: 4804
Joined: June 1st, 2007, 3:34 pm
Location: Yucca Valley CA

Post by lewisclan »

http://inyoplanning.org/projects/USFW_Y ... edFrog.htm


Habitat Modification Due to Introduction of Trout to Historically Fishless
Areas

One habitat feature that is documented to have a significant detrimental
impact to mountain yellow-legged frog populations is the presence of trout from
current and historical stocking for the maintenance of a sport fishery. To
further angling success and opportunity, trout stocking programs in the Sierra
Nevada started in the late 19th century (Bahls 1992, p. 185; Pister 2001, p.
280). This anthropogenic activity has community-level effects and constitutes
the primary detrimental impact to mountain yellow-legged frog habitat and
species viability.

Prior to extensive trout planting programs, almost all streams and lakes in
the Sierra Nevada at elevations above 1,800 m (6,000 ft) were fishless. Several
native fish species occur naturally in aquatic habitats below this elevation in
the Sierra Nevada (Knapp 1996, pp. 12-14; Moyle et al. 1996, p. 354;
Moyle 2002, p. 25). Natural barriers prevented fish from colonizing the higher
elevation headwaters of the Sierra Nevada watershed (Moyle et al. 1996,
p. 354). The upper reaches of the KernRiver, where native fish such as the
Little Kern golden trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss whitei) and California
golden trout (O. m. aguabonita) evolved, represent the only major
exception to the 1,800-m (6,000-ft) elevation limit for fishes within the range
of the mountain yellow-legged frog in the Sierra Nevada (Moyle 2002, p. 25).
Additionally, prior to extensive planting, native Paiute cutthroat (O. clarki
seleneris) and Lahontan cutthroat (O. c. henshawi) also occurred
within the range of the mountain yellow-legged frog in the Sierra Nevada, but
were limited in their distribution (Moyle 2002, pp. 288-289).

Some of the first practitioners of trout stocking in the Sierra Nevada were
the Sierra Club, local sportsmen's clubs, private citizens, and the U.S.
military (Knapp 1996, p. 8; Pister 2001, p. 280). As more hatcheries were built,
and the management of the trout fishery became better organized, fish planting
continued for the purpose of increased angler opportunities and success (Pister
2001, p. 281). After World War II, the method of transporting trout to
high-elevation areas changed from packstock to aircraft, which allowed stocking
in more remote lakes and in greater numbers. With the advent of aerial stocking,
trout planting expanded to new areas, with higher efficiency.

Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), brown trout (Salmo
trutta), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and other trout species
assemblages have been planted in most streams and lakes of the Sierra Nevada
(Knapp 1996, p. 8; Moyle 2002, p. 25). National Forests in the Sierra Nevada
have a higher proportion of lakes with fish occupancy than do National Parks
(Knapp 1996, p. 3). This is primarily because the National Park Service (NPS)
adopted a policy that greatly reduced fish stocking within their jurisdictional
boundaries in the late 1970s. Fish stocking was terminated altogether in Sierra
Nevada National Parks in 1991 (Knapp 1996, p. 9). CDFG continues to stock trout
in National Forest water bodies, but has recently reduced the number of stocked
water bodies to reduce impacts to native amphibians (ICF Jones & Stokes
2010, pp. ES-1-ES-16). Stocking decisions are based on criteria outlined in the
Environmental Impact Report for the Hatchery and Stocking Program (ICF Jones
& Stokes 2010, Appendix K).

Fish stocking as a practice has been widespread throughout the range of both
species of mountain yellow-legged frogs. Knapp and Matthews (2000, p. 428)
indicated that 65 percent of the water bodies that were 1 ha (2.5 ac) or larger
in National Forests they studied were stocked with fish on a regular basis. Over
90 percent of the total water body surface area in the John Muir Wilderness was
occupied by nonnative trout (Knapp and Matthews 2000, p. 434).

Another detrimental feature of fish stocking is that fish often persist in
water bodies even after stocking ceases. Lakes larger than 1 ha (2.5 ac) within
Sierra Nevada National Parks were estimated to have from 35 to 50 percent
nonnative fish occupancy, only a 29 to 44 percent decrease since fish stocking
was terminated around 2 decades before the study (Knapp 1996, p. 1). Though data
on fish occupancy in streams are lacking throughout the Sierra Nevada, Knapp
(1996, p. 11) estimated that 60 percent of the streams in Yosemite National Park
were still occupied by introduced trout.

Trout both compete for limited resources and directly prey on mountain
yellow-legged frog tadpoles and adults (see Factor C below). The presence of
these fish decimates frog populations through competition and predation (see
below). The impact of introduced trout was greatest in the past, as it
eliminated frogs across a large expanse of their historical range.
Fundamentally, this has removed deeper lakes from being mountain yellow-legged
frog habitat at a landscape scale, because fish now populate these areas instead
of frogs. Moreover, introduced trout continue to limit species viability because
remaining populations are now isolated, and functional dispersal barriers make
emigration difficult. Finally, the few frogs that do successfully emigrate will
move to inhospitable, fish-occupied habitat where they are often outcompeted or
preyed upon by trout. These factors make recolonization of extirpated sites
unlikely.

The body of scientific research has demonstrated that introduced trout have
negatively impacted mountain yellow-legged frogs over much of the Sierra Nevada
(Grinnell and Storer 1924, p. 664; Bradford 1989, pp. 775-778; Bradford et
al. 1993, pp. 882-888; Knapp 1994, p. 3; Drost and Fellers 1996, p. 422;
Knapp 1996, pp. 13-15; Knapp and Matthews 2000, p. 428; Knapp et al.
2001, p. 401). Fish stocking programs have negative ecological implications
because fish eat aquatic flora and fauna, including amphibians and invertebrates
(Bahls 1992, p. 191; Erman 1996, p. 992; Matthews et al. 2001, pp.
1135-1136; Pilliod and Peterson 2001, p. 329; Schindler et al. 2001, p.
309; Moyle 2002, p. 58; Epanchin et al. 2010, p. 2406). Finlay and
Vredenburg (2007, p. 2187) documented that the same benthic (bottom-dwelling)
invertebrate resource base sustains the growth of both frogs and trout,
suggesting that competition with trout for prey is an important factor that may
contribute to the decline of the mountain yellow-legged frog.

Knapp and Matthews (2000, p. 428) surveyed more than 1,700 water bodies, and
concluded that a strong negative correlation exists between introduced trout and
mountain yellow-legged frogs (Knapp and Matthews 2000, p. 435). Consistent with
this finding are the results of an analysis of the distribution of mountain
yellow-legged frog tadpoles, which indicate that the presence and abundance of
this life stage are reduced dramatically in fish-stocked lakes (Knapp et
al. 2001, p. 408). Knapp (2005a, pp. 265-279) also compared the distribution
of nonnative trout with the distributions of several amphibian and reptile
species in 2,239 lakes and ponds in Yosemite National Park, and found that
mountain yellow-legged frogs were five times less likely to be detected in
waters where trout were present. Even though stocking within the National Park
ceased in 1991, more than 50 percent of water bodies deeper than 4 m (13 ft) and
75 percent deeper than 16 m (52 ft) still contained trout populations in
2000-2002 (Knapp 2005a, p. 270). Both trout and mountain yellow-legged frogs
utilize deeper water bodies. Based on the results from Knapp (2005a), the
reduced detection of frogs in trout-occupied waters indicates that trout are
excluding mountain yellow-legged frogs from some of the best aquatic
habitat.

Several aspects of the mountain yellow-legged frog's life history may
exacerbate its vulnerability to extirpation by trout (Bradford 1989, pp.
777-778; Bradford et al. 1993, pp. 886-888; Knapp 1996, p. 14; Knapp and
Matthews 2000, p. 435). Mountain yellow-legged frogs are aquatic and found
mainly in lakes. This increases the probability that they will encounter
introduced fishes whose distribution has been greatly expanded throughout the
Sierra Nevada. The multiple-year tadpole stage of the mountain yellow-legged
frog necessitates their use of permanent water bodies deep enough to not freeze
solid during multiple winters (unless there is some other refuge from freezing
and oxygen depletion, such as submerged crevices). Also, overwintering adults
must avoid oxygen depletion when the water is covered by ice (Mullally and
Cunningham 1956a, p. 194; Bradford 1983, p. 1179; Knapp and Matthews 2000, pp.
435-436). This functionally restricts tadpoles to the same water bodies most
suitable for fishes (Knapp 1996, p. 14), and the consequences of predation
andcompetition thereby isolate mountain yellow-legged frogs to fishless,
marginal habitats (Bradford et al. 1993, pp. 886-887; Knapp and Matthews
2000, p. 435).

Mountain yellow-legged frogs and trout (native and nonnative) do co-occur at
some sites, but these co-occurrences are probably mountain yellow-legged frog
population sinks (areas with negative population growth rates in the absence of
immigration) (Bradford et al. 1998, p. 2489; Knapp and Matthews 2000, p.
436). Mountain yellow-legged frogs have also been extirpated at some fishless
bodies of water (Bradford 1991, p. 176; Drost and Fellers 1996, p. 422). A
possible explanation is the isolation and fragmentation of remaining populations
due to introduced fishes in the streams that once provided mountain
yellow-legged frogs with dispersal and recolonization routes; these remote
populations are now non-functional as metapopulations (Bradford 1991, p. 176;
Bradford et al. 1993, p. 887). Based on a survey of 95 basins within
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, Bradford et al. (1993, pp.
885-886) estimated that the introduction of fishes into the study area resulted
in an approximately 10-fold increase in habitat fragmentation between
populations of mountain yellow-legged frogs. Knapp and Matthews (2000, p. 436)
believe that this fragmentation has further isolated mountain yellow-legged
frogs within the already marginal habitat left unused by fishes.

Fragmentation of mountain yellow-legged frog habitat renders metapopulations
more vulnerable to extirpation from random events (such as disease) (Wilcox
1980, pp. 114-115; Bradford et al. 1993, p. 887; Hanski and Simberloff
1997, p. 21; Knapp and Matthews 2000, p. 436). Isolated population locations may
have higher extinction rates because trout prevent successful recolonization and
dispersal to and from these sites (Bradford et al. 1993, p. 887;
Blaustein et al. 1994a, p. 7; Knapp and Matthews 2000, p. 436).
Amphibians may be unable to recolonize unoccupied sites following local
extinctions because of physiological constraints, the tendency to move only
short distances, and high site fidelity (Blaustein et al. 1994a, p. 8).
Finally, frogs that do attempt recolonization may emigrate into fish-occupied
habitat and perish, rendering sites with such metapopulation dynamics less able
to sustain frog populations.

Although fish stocking has been curtailed within many occupied basins, the
impacts to frog populations persist due to the presence of self-sustaining fish
populations in some of the best habitat that normally would have sustained
mountain yellow-legged frogs. The fragmentation that persists across the range
of these frog species renders them more vulnerable to other population
stressors, and recovery is slow, if not impossible, without costly and
physically difficult direct human intervention (such as physical and chemical
trout removal). While most of the impacts occurred historically, the impact upon
the biogeographic (population/metapopulation) integrity of the species will be
long-lasting. Currently, habitat degradation and fragmentation by fish is
considered a highly significant and prevalent threat to persistence and recovery
of the species
Image"the game of life of is not so much in holding a good hand as playing a poor hand well"
User avatar
iggys-amsoil
Posts: 3602
Joined: June 1st, 2007, 6:09 pm
Location: Just North of March Airfield CA

Post by iggys-amsoil »

Your Government at work :bong:

"Web page not found."

I'd put a smiley here but its really not funny.

Thanks anyway. Just because "They" don't have the money for man power to "Manage" all the acreage they take away public lands.

Pffttt.... They may as well just build a Compound aronud the whole place.
Trinity Racing mild porting FMF
62 pilot, EGH needle, 172 main
03 Gen III CR250 frame

2013 Dodger Charger 5.7 Hemi

http://www.prisonplanet.com

Your Amsoil Customer # 350882
User avatar
lewisclan
PVT. 1st Class
Posts: 4804
Joined: June 1st, 2007, 3:34 pm
Location: Yucca Valley CA

Post by lewisclan »

iggys-amsoil wrote:Your Government at work :bong:

"Web page not found."

I'd put a smiley here but its really not funny.

Thanks anyway. Just because "They" don't have the money for man power to "Manage" all the acreage they take away public lands.

Pffttt.... They may as well just build a Compound aronud the whole place.
http://inyoplanning.org/projects/USFW_Y ... edFrog.htm
Image"the game of life of is not so much in holding a good hand as playing a poor hand well"
User avatar
lewisclan
PVT. 1st Class
Posts: 4804
Joined: June 1st, 2007, 3:34 pm
Location: Yucca Valley CA

Post by lewisclan »

Oh and when making comments - a good thing to remember is the MYLF's have not been found more than 1300 ft from any water source, so the need to include the entire watershed from Mountain top to riverbed is completely unnecessary.
Image"the game of life of is not so much in holding a good hand as playing a poor hand well"
User avatar
lewisclan
PVT. 1st Class
Posts: 4804
Joined: June 1st, 2007, 3:34 pm
Location: Yucca Valley CA

Post by lewisclan »

Image"the game of life of is not so much in holding a good hand as playing a poor hand well"
Post Reply