Northern Leopard Frog. Photo by Shaula Hedwall, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Over the past 30 years, the frog’s population has fallen dramatically in 19 Western and Midwest states. The reasons include loss of habitat to development and drought. The frog is also battling new predators, such as bullfrogs, crayfish and sport fish, which were introduced into the frog’s environment. Scientists are also looking at how disease and pesticides may play a role in the frog’s decline.

All this explains why the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is considering naming the Northern Leopard Frog as a threatened or endangered species in the West. FWS began studying the issue over the summer and today says it will extend the public comment period to November 27. Here in the Pacific Northwest, the states that could be affected by this ruling include Oregon, Washington, Idaho and California.

If FWS decides some kind of protection is necessary, then the next step would be to set aside certain areas as “critical habitat” for the frog.

It’s asking for people to leave comments at Regulations.gov.

For more information on the Northern Leopard Frog, see this FWS webpage.

Today’s decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could have a major impact on the continuing fight over old growth forests in the Pacific Northwest.  That’s because even though the bird spends much of its life in the ocean, it nests in old growth forests along the coast.  The decision says logging of the bird’s nesting habitat is the major reason its numbers have declined 34% from 2001 to 2008 in Oregon, Washington and Northern California.

Courtesy U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Environmental groups praised the decision as a victory for science over politics, and called on the Obama Administration to do more to protect old growth areas.  Kristen Boyles, an attorney for Earthjustice, says the ruling will benefit other species.  She says, ““Protecting murrelet forests also helps recover salmon and spotted owl populations, clean our air from excess carbon, and prevent pollution from entering drinking water sources for communities all up and down the coast.”

Timber groups haven’t given up on trying to delist the Marbled Murrelet.  They’ve got a petition to delist before Fish and Wildlife.  Despite today’s announcement, the feds haven’t decided how they’ll rule on the petition.

Columbia River Salmon Courtesy WDFW

Three pesticides have been added to a growing list of chemicals that are considered a threat to endangered and threatened salmon and steelhead populations across the Northwest.

That finding, just released by NOAA Fisheries, covers pesticides containing carbaryl, carbofuran, and methomyl.  The pesticides are used in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and California on a wide variety of crops including fruits, vegetables, nuts and grains.

Exposure to these chemicals can kill salmon, or damage their central nervous systems, making it harder for them to catch food, avoid predators and spawn.   An even bigger problem is that when these chemicals wash into streams and rivers, they kill the aquatic insects that salmon eat.

What NOAA is proposing is that farmers create larger buffer zones between areas where they spray, and the waters where salmon live.  The zones range from 600 to 1000 feet for aerial spraying, and 50-600 feet when the spraying is done from the ground.  On windy days, NOAA wants no spraying at all to prevent the chemicals from drifting into streams and rivers.

Earthjustice, the Seattle based environmental group is generally pleased with the announcement. Joshua Osborne-Klein, an attorney for the group, says, “It’s high time we reduce or eliminate the use of deadly pesticides in order to protect salmon, an icon of the Pacific Northwest’s natural heritage.”  But it also says NOAA should have required 20 foot vegetative strips along streams to help filter the pesticides before they reached the water.

But a group representing pesticide users say the proposed regulations go too far, and are not based on good science.  Terry Witt of Oregonians for Food and Shelter sent a message to members urging them to oppose NOAA’s proposals saying they, “will result in a significant impact to agricultural production.”

Both sides are especially concerned because NOAA will spend the next few years studying more than three dozen pesticides.  The ruling on these three pesticides is very similar to one that was already issued for a class of pesticides called organophosphates.  So these buffer zones and other restrictions may serve as guidelines for what NOAA will do with the rest of the pesticides on the list.  The next decision, covering a dozen pesticides, is due in June of 2010.

NOAA’s recommendations go the the Environmental Protection Agency which makes the final decision.