Decades on end and after spending billions, the U.S. still has no strategy to permanently deposit its highly radioactive nuclear waste.

Some 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, deep in Southern Nevada, lies a multibillion-dollar hole.

Twenty years ago, the George W. Bush government formally chose the dry, arid landscape to build a tunnel complex. The Yucca Mountain project would have been the place to deposit up to 70,000, or more than 75% of the 90,000-and-growing metric tons of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel coming from commercial reactors in the country. Yet, almost from the onset, locals and politicians resisted the project because of what it would entail: a constant stream of nuclear waste coming into Nevada from where they are currently stored, hundreds of miles away. (Only one of the 75 sites with currently operating nuclear plants are even located within the Mountain States, an eight-state region including Nevada that spans nearly 900 thousand square miles across the Rockies.) And so, between 2009 and 2010, the Obama administration kept its campaign promise and stopped the project.

“I just didn’t like it. It was too much danger in nuclear radiation leaks. And, it just didn’t

make sense. Then, the safety aspects […] I don’t know quite how to put it, it just didn’t make sense to transport that kind of stuff through this area when the areas that were keeping it couldn’t just keep it in their own backyard.”

“I don’t know quite how to put it, it just didn’t make sense to transport that kind of stuff through this area when the areas that were keeping it couldn’t just keep it in their own backyard.”

Barbara and Ken Dugan lived near Crescent Valley, Nevada, back in 2011. The events of the Fukushima meltdown were fresh on everyone’s minds. They were speaking to Abby Johnson, then the Nuclear Waste Advisor for Eureka County who worked on collecting opinions from local communities after the Yucca Mountain project shut down.

Another decade on, the U.S. still has no solid solution for its nuclear waste. Nuclear power leaves a small carbon footprint compared to other types of energy. Still, the question of managing its waste is complicated. Nuclear waste can stay radioactive from a few hours to hundreds of thousands of years. Therefore, scientists and the industry agree that the best long-term solution is to bury the waste underground in large, heavily engineered repositories while it remains unsafe. But building these sites seems to be a difficult endeavour, and the U.S. isn’t the only country struggling to get it done.

Out of the 32 nations operating nuclear reactors today, only Finland is close to finishing a deposit. Countries like the U.K., where the first nuclear power station in the world to produce electricity for domestic use was built, are struggling with finding a site in the first place. According to a 2018 report, “Reset of America’s Nuclear Waste and Management”, prepared by the Stanford University Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) and the George Washington University Elliott School of International Affairs, for 50 years, governments and committees worldwide have launched at least 24 campaigns to create underground repositories. Still, in only five of these, committees managed to choose a site to work with. And so, the question arises: how come nations capable of technological breakthroughs like sending humans to space can’t seem to find a place for their radioactive waste?

A lack of policymaking consistency hasn’t helped the nuclear waste cause on American soil; that’s what Rodney Ewing — co-director of CISAC and the former chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board who reviewed the Department of Energy’s efforts to manage and dispose of nuclear waste during the Obama administration— thinks is part of the answer.

According to him, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, which represented the path forward in managing nuclear waste in the U.S., kept changing throughout the 80s and 90s. For example, congressional amendments in 1987 specified Yucca Mountain as the sole candidate site instead of allowing for multiple candidate sites to be considered. More recently, the ongoing chaos of re-funding and re-defunding Yucca Mountain by the Trump administration made it challenging to convince anyone. “The more you keep changing direction, or changing the rules, the less trust you can count on from candidate communities. The lower the probability that you will be successful”, he adds.

“The more you keep changing direction, or changing the rules, the less trust you can count on from candidate communities. The lower the probability that you will be successful”

Ewing believes the country needs cohesiveness and an independent organization to move forward — perhaps in a manner similar to the Tennessee Valley Authority, as recommended by the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future in 2012, or a non-profit, nuclear utility-owned implementing corporation, as suggested in the 2018 CISAC report.“In the past, Yucca Mountain suffered from the fact that the Department of Energy wears many hats, everything from fossil fuels, solar, nuclear, nuclear weapons, and so on. Somehow, in that broad context, developing a geologic repository was low on the [priority] list.”

Another hurdle that has made this project an uphill battle in the U.S. is the bungling of public engagement. Unlike the NIMBY battles unfolding across the country that are snarling public transit, solar farms, or less-carbon-intensive forms of housing, Yucca Mountain falls on Western Shoshone territory, where Indigenous residents are still dealing with the consequences of resource extraction and nuclear testing by the federal government without their full consent, leading to their sustained opposition to the project. This is not to mention other local fears about the toxicity levels of a deposit, the permanence of the project (radiation levels were expected to be regulated for the next million years), and the impact it might have on property and land values. “The state of Nevada has not been willing to accept this possibility [of a nuclear waste deposit]. And so, the federal government has dealt with a state that doesn’t want the repository. That’s a social issue”, says Ewing.

To minimize public outcry, it’s key that a site is decided voluntarily: a community states they’d accept a nuclear waste site in their area, and only after initial conversations should projects start. This is one of the reasons Finland ended up being successful with their project when the local authority voted overwhelmingly in favour. Yet, according to Pasi Tuohimaa, the Communications Manager at Posiva — the company responsible for managing radioactive waste in Finland —there’s more to the whole process. Culture takes center stage when choosing a site. He told The Xylom that communities where nuclear power plants had been active for decades tend to be more accepting of hosting a nuclear waste site. “If you have a strong nuclear identity, if you have a site where there’s been a power plant for 40 years or 45 years, then people know […] a lot about radiation, they know about radiation safety”. He also mentions that Finns, in general, want to solve the issue of nuclear waste rapidly not to harm future generations. “The Finnish people believe that if our generation has created [nuclear waste], then it’s our generation’s duty to take care of the waste and not leave it for the solidarity of future generations”, he adds.

“The Finnish people believe that if our generation has created [nuclear waste], then it’s our generation’s duty to take care of the waste and not leave it for the solidarity of future generations”

Other nations like Canada and the U.K. are now moving forward with strategies in which communities host deep geological repositories voluntarily. The Biden administration is also moving forward with a consent-based siting approach; however, the aim is to make storage sites, not geological repositories15,18. This means waste will be stored for some time but not in the long term: a permit issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in May to build and operate one such facility in southeastern New Mexico is valid for only 40 years. Ewing is skeptical of such an approach.“I call it indefinite storage. And I would say indefinite surface storage of highly radioactive waste […] is not a very attractive solution. It’s not a solution.”

Building deep geological repositories is crucial to safely deposit nuclear waste despite being a tall task. As other western Nations inch closer to having their own sites, it remains to be seen whether the U.S. has the will to drive a much-needed site forward, or whether it is content with kicking the can down the road — until the country buckles under this mountain of a problem.

---

A bill recently signed into law will allow Oklahoma property owners to repudiate discriminatory language within land records by filing a declaration with their county clerk. Authored by four members of the House of Representatives and three senators, HB 2288 was signed May 22 by Gov. Kevin Stitt and will become effective Nov. 1. The […]

The post New law lets Oklahoma property owners repudiate racist language in land records appeared first on NonDoc.

Alex Bielecki is a frequent public speaker during Shasta County’s public meetings. 

But at the Board’s last meeting, as Bielecki spoke to the Board about whether to amend County zoning codes to allow for tiny home permitting, he veered into racist speech.

“I’m not a fool. I’m not a n*****,” Bielecki, a White man, told the Board, using a racist slur as he explained how he came to his position on the topic. His statement was met with immediate gasps from the public, to which Bielecki responded with an emphatic, “That’s right!”

In the front row, Nathan Pinkney, a Black man who’s become well known in Shasta County for his local political activism, immediately spoke up. 

“Shut the hell up,” he said loudly to Bielecki as several other voices in the room yelled out similar sentiments. “Shut up.”

“Make me,” Bielecki responded, flashing his middle finger at Pinkney.

Since the May 30 meeting, Shasta County Supervisor and Board Chair Patrick Jones has come under fire for allowing Bielecky’s use of the racial slur in the public forum. A decision, he says, which was dictated by the First Amendment’s free speech protections.

His intentionality about protecting Bielecki’s First Amendment rights stands in sharp contrast to a decision he made later in the meeting, to have Pinkney removed from the Board room after he verbally protested Jones handling of the racist slur incident.

Jones said the decision to have Pinkney removed from the meeting was based on a Board’s policy against disruptive behavior. But Pinkney’s right to attend the meeting is also protected by the First Amendment, and California’s Brown Act.

Those two decisions by Jones, first to allow racist speech by a White man during public comment, then to remove a Black man for protesting that speech from the Board floor, have triggered widespread community outrage in Shasta County.

On Wednesday, May 31, several local justice groups, including the United Way of California, the Shasta Equal Justice Coalition, and Shasta County Citizens Advocating Respect (SCCAR), released statements about the events, calling on community leaders to promote the and of civil discourse that protects community members from hate and violence.

Some of those statements said the decision to allow the use of a racist slur in a public meeting was wrong.

But David Loy, an attorney with the First Amendment Coalition who spoke to Shasta Scout by phone yesterday, says Jones was right to have protected Bielecky’s freedom of speech when he used the racist slur during public comment. 

“No matter how offensive or hateful it may be,” Loy say, “If he’s talking about a particular agenda item, and he’s on topic to that agenda item, then the Board is not allowed to censor or silence him simply because of the way he discusses it or the viewpoint he expresses.”

“The First Amendment does not have an exception for so-called hate speech,” Loy continued, “or speech which is profoundly offensive.”

While Bielecky’s use of a racist term was obviously “vile, despicable and revolting,” Loy said, it’s also speech that’s clearly protected by the Constitution and important to allow in public settings.

The First Amendment doesn’t allow the government to define or outlaw hate speech, Loy said, in part because what is considered hate speech can change depending on who is in power. 

“It’s very dangerous to give the government the power to define speech,” Loy explained. “Because it gives the government power to silence dissent, critique and protest.”

That’s where Jones likely went wrong, Loy said, by silencing Pinkney’s protest against the hate speech under the guise of keeping order.

The details of situations like these are very important, Loy said, because First Amendment rights in public meetings hinge in part on the balance between the public’s right to free speech and their right to conduct public business without disruption.

In order to remove someone from a public meeting the Board chair has to first warn the individual, and give them an opportunity to stop disrupting the meeting, Loy explained, which Jones did. 

But officials also have a responsibility to protect the public’s right to be at the meeting, unless the disruption they are causing is actually making it impossible for the government to do business. 

“Under Government Code section 54957.95,” Loy said, “A person can be removed from a meeting (but only) for actually disrupting, impeding or rendering infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting.”

“That’s a pretty high burden,” Loy added, saying removing Pinkney from the meeting was only appropriate if his protest from the floor of the Board room was significant enough to actually disrupt the public’s business. 

“From a First Amendment perspective,” Loy explained, “People have a right to attend and participate (in public meetings) and a First Amendment right not to be excluded unless they disrupt the meeting. Not every minor interruption rises to the level of a continual and substantial interruption that makes it impossible to run the meeting.”

Furthermore, Loy explained, if Pinkney was removed from the Board room for a level of disruption that others have engaged in without being removed, he’s also had his First Amendment rights violated in a second way, known as “viewpoint discrimination” or “unequal enforcement.”

Viewpoint discrimination comes in when policies are unequally enforced by public officials, which has the effect, intended or not, of providing unequal protection for certain people, viewpoints, or kinds of speech.

“If they’re routinely tolerating other forms of outburst  . . . that’s a very troubling set of facts,” Loy said. “It suggests the possibility that (Board rules are) being selectively enforced against someone who objected to racist speech . . .  which would constitute unequal enforcement.”

“If you’re going to have rules,” Loy continued “they have to be a) valid and b) equally applied across the Board.” 

It’s also important to remember that while speech may be protected legally, that doesn’t make it acceptable ethically or morally, a distinction drawn by Shasta County Deputy CEO Mary Williams, who responded to a request for comment sent to newly appointed County CEO, David Rickert.

In her emailed statement, Williams said Shasta County is committed to both protecting free speech and fostering an environment of safety and respectful communication.

“We firmly condemn the use of profane and discriminatory language during public comment sessions,” Williams wrote, alluding not to the legality of the speech, but its appropriateness in civil discourse.

“We believe in creating an atmosphere where all participants can express their views in a respectful manner,” Williams continued. “We encourage individuals to engage in civil discourse while exercising their right to free speech.”

Jones did not take a similar stand during the public meeting, focusing on free speech protections but failing to address the racist speech as destructive and reprehensible.

His failure to do so was a serious mistake, says Susan Wilson, who sits on the Board of Shasta County Citizens Advocating Respect (SCCAR).

“Any and every member of the BOS should have acted immediately to caution Alex Bielecki regarding the use of the word in the Chambers in the BOS meeting,” Susan wrote to Shasta Scout by email.

“It is my sincere hope that the members of the BOS and their staff have a discussion about how to address this issue if it should come up again, and to take steps to keep it from coming up again if possible. This is an ideal time for David J. Rickert, our new Chief Executive Officer, to help our Board of Supervisors develop some standards of decorum for their meetings.”

Shasta County’s Board policies already prohibit the use of “threatening, profane or abusive language which disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the Board meeting.” Those policies also allow the Board Chair to remove from the chamber any person who is disruptive to the meeting. 

But Board policies don’t take precedence over California’s Brown Act, or the First Amendment, First Amendment attorney Loy emphasized. And those policies may not be valid if they violate individual rights to free speech and public meeting access. 

Instead of stopping public speech which is offensive, Loy said, the Board’s recourse is to stand up to it with verbal rebuke.

“The Chair, the Board, the (public) is free and encouraged to share their point of view,” Loys said.

“Speak back to the commenter saying you may have the right to say that but we don’t think you should. That’s how the first amendment works,” Loy continued.

The Shasta Equal Justice Coalition called for that kind of active response to racist speech in their statement about the incident, which was released Wednesday, May 31.

Failing to challenge racist speech in public settings, the SEJC’s statement said, limits Shasta County’s progress towards justice.

“The SEJC envisions a Shasta County where there exists equity and justice for every community member, inclusive of all identities, backgrounds, or circumstances.”

“That possibility is constrained when derisive speech  . . . . remains unchallenged. Particularly in public forums where critical decisions about public safety, education, and well-being are discussed.”

If you have a correction to this story you can submit it here. Have information to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org 

By Trista Talton

Coastal Review Online

State-by-state emergency plans aimed at minimizing the impacts of natural disasters overwhelmingly understate extreme heat as a hazard to human health, according to a Duke University analysis.

The recently released policy brief, “Defining Extreme Heat as a Hazard: A Review of Current State Hazard Mitigation Plans,” highlights the need for states to better evaluate the growing threat of extreme heat as the climate changes, identify populations of people most vulnerable to high temperatures, and implement plans to educate and assist those populations.

Ashley Ward, a senior policy associate with Duke’s Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment and Sustainability and co-author of the brief, said the report is not a critique, but rather a guide to help states’ emergency management departments better incorporate extreme heat in their hazard mitigation plans.

“We want to give them some easy-to-pick-up roadmaps about how they can do so,” Ward said in a telephone interview. “Our hope is to make their job easier and to supplement what’s already happening at FEMA. We want to be of assistance. That’s what we’re trying to do here.”

Not planning for heat

The Federal Emergency Management Agency recently announced states must incorporate climate change into their hazard mitigation plans, a move Ward called a “really big deal” in part because it prioritizes extreme heat as a hazard.

Extreme heat is when daytime temperatures rise above 95 degrees and nighttime temperatures do not dip below 75 degrees.

Unlike natural disasters such as hurricanes or tornadoes, extreme heat is not a Stafford Act hazard.

The 1988 Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act, which amended the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, authorizes the president to declare disasters and provide financial assistance to state and local governments.

The law mandates states update their hazard mitigation plans every five years. Many states are in the process of renewing their plans, Ward said.

So, the report focuses on current states’ plans, half of which lack a dedicated section to extreme heat, the analysis found. 

Ward and co-author Jordan Clark, a postdoctoral associate for the institute’s Water Policy Program, used a scoring system created by the National Resources Defense Council, or NRDC, to assess each states’ plan.

The NRDC used the scoring system to look at the incorporation of extreme heat in southeastern states’ hazard mitigation plans.

“As we know, this is certainly a pressing problem in the southeast, but we know the southeast isn’t the only region in which heat is a problem,” Ward said.

Heat, she said, is one of the most misunderstood weather events.

Ten years ago, researchers in her field focused on something called the urban heat island effect, which is created when natural landscapes are replaced with pavement, buildings and other surfaces that absorb and retain heat.

This effect is very important and very real, Ward said, but its sole focus is on urban areas, leaving out whole populations impacted by extreme heat.

“In North Carolina, heat illness rates are about seven to 10 times higher in rural areas than they are in urban areas,” she said. “And, in fact, what we’re seeing in the small amount of research that’s coming out of the southern part of the United States is that’s not a North Carolina phenomenon. A recent study came out of Florida that showed the same thing. There’s a lot of reasons this is the case, but that just gives you one example of how broadly heat has been misunderstood.”

Where N.C. stands

North Carolina has an enhanced hazard mitigation plan, also referred to as the 322 Plan, which includes natural hazards as well as man-made, technological and human-caused hazards.

The plan addresses different populations identified by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, which narrows down the largest group of people who suffer heat injuries as men between the ages of 18-34 either involved in athletics or outdoor work such as farming and construction.

The plan was updated last year and approved by FEMA in February. The current plan expires February 12, 2028, according to Chris Crew, North Carolina Emergency Management mitigation plans manager.

Crew explained in an email responding to questions that the plan’s definition of extreme heat is taken from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and National Weather Service, which identify extreme heat as hotter and/or more humid than average summertime temperatures and unusually hot and humid weather lasting at least two days.

The first recommendation offered in the report is for states to establish their own, specific standard definition of extreme heat.

“That is because extreme heat in North Carolina is not the same as extreme heat in Oregon and it’s important that people think about their geography with respect to how we define extreme heat,” Ward said.

That and other recommendations are intended to provide education and awareness about the complexities of heat, she said, how things like how extreme heat correlates to effects on human health.

Take temperature metrics. Heat index, a metric that combines air temperature and humidity, is a common metric decision makers use to define extreme heat, but it is less robust in determining potential adverse health outcomes than a metric known as wet bulb globe temperature.

Wet bulb globe temperature, or WBGT, measures heat stress in direct sunlight and includes temperature, humidity, wind speed, sun angle and cloud cover. This standard metric is used by the military and high school athletic associations, Ward said.

“And that’s important because if you’re sweating outside and it’s very humid there’s a lot of moisture in the air so your body is not evaporating that sweat off of your skin,” she said. “However, if it’s windy outside then the wind is drying the sweat off your skin and that mimics that evaporative cooling process and actually provides a protective factor for you.”

Therefore, in coastal counties especially, it’s important to think about wind speed, Ward said.

Building resilience

North Carolina’s Sandhills region has the highest rate of heat-related illnesses in the state. Roughly 75 percent of those who go to emergency departments for treatment are men between the ages of 15 to 45, Ward said.

Counties within that region, including Bladen, Hoke, Robeson, Sampson and Scotland counties, are included in a heat-health alert system through the N.C. Building Resilience Against Climate Effects program.

This CDC-funded program is tailored to vulnerable populations, including low-income and elderly communities, farmworkers, and youth in sports, according to the state’s plan.

“The State’s position is ‘Extreme’ heat is more of an individual and regional value than a specific value for everyone across North Carolina,” Crew said in an email. “Setting a statewide definition of extreme (heat) would limit the State into responding to a single type of weather scenario statewide when the State health agencies need the flexibility to respond to different weather conditions in different regions to the State.”

Ward praised North Carolina’s emergency management department, calling it a “gold star in the nation.”

While the state does include an assessment for heat hazard, it could better incorporate socially or medically vulnerable populations and teach residents how to protect themselves from extreme heat, she said.

Some ways to cool off after being exposed to extreme heat include taking a cool shower then sitting in front of a fan or placing your feet in cool water.

North Carolina’s plan notes the North Carolina Climate Science Report, which projects that much of the Piedmont and coastal plain will experience a jump in very hot days by 10 to 20 days per year between 2021 and 2040 as compared to the 1996-2015 average.

The number of warm nights in those regions is projected to increase anywhere from three to 15 nights a year. Some areas within those regions could see an increase by 18 or more nights a year.

The post States greatly underestimate extreme heat hazards: Study appeared first on North Carolina Health News.

Yesterday, May 31, the Olympia Site Plan Review Committee examined the application of Thomas Architecture Studios on the development of the ‘Carnegie Whiskey Library’ during a

By GARY CARL/for The Herald  — It was a picture-perfect day, on Monday April 10th 2023, when Lynda & I rolled into Congresswoman Val Hoyle’s office in the Longworth Building in Washington D.C. for an official visit to our Nation’s Capital.  Lynda had previously scheduled our visit and we were met by Nicole Gelser, a […]

The post An interview with U.S. 4th Congressional District Representative Val Hoyle appeared first on Highway 58 Herald.

Biologists once found a crayfish with an entire garter snake and several fish inside a female bullfrog near Sheridan. That may sound like an impressive amount of food for a two-pound frog, but it’s actually pretty standard for the voracious amphibians. Wendy Estes-Zumpf, the state’s herpetological coordinator, once saw a picture of a bullfrog that choked to death trying to eat a duck. 

Bullfrogs consume nearly every living thing they find.  Their menu is limited only by the size of their mouths — as the aforementioned duck would suggest, sometimes not even that —  and they are wreaking havoc on the West’s native species. 

To make matters worse, once introduced to an area, bullfrogs can be nearly impossible to eradicate. Their potential to damage ecosystems is so great, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department passed a new regulation that took effect Jan. 1 prohibiting anyone from importing or possessing live bullfrogs. 

“A lot of the landowners in the Sheridan area said they had lots and lots of leopard frogs and now they have only bullfrogs,” said Estes-Zumpf. “There are frog species that are now endangered in other states and the primary cause are bullfrogs because the natives just cannot compete.”

Eaters and carriers

Like carp, feral pigs and crayfish, bullfrogs aren’t all bad. They play important roles in the areas where they’re from. In the eastern part of the U.S., bullfrogs are critical as predators and prey and distribute nutrients from wetlands into more terrestrial areas. 

“They are just an amazing species,” said JJ Apodaca, executive director of the Amphibian and Reptile Conservancy. Also often called pond frogs, bullfrogs are the largest true frog species in the U.S.

They have abundant predators like smallmouth bass and snapping turtles in their native habitats, and the waterways are much more complex. Ponds back East tend to vary in depth and vegetation and streams snake between other ponds offering other frog species, tadpoles and fish plenty of places to hide. 

Bullfrogs are also hardy, big and incredibly efficient travelers, able to cover tens or even up to 100 miles over dry land to reach new water. 

“They get big and have chunky chicken thigh legs,” Estes-Zumpf said. “They are probably the number one frog-leg frog,” and they taste like chicken.

As a result, they were introduced across the world, sometimes as a food source, and other times as stowaways in fish stocking efforts. More recently, well-meaning classroom teachers have dumped easy-to-raise bullfrogs into ponds and creeks after they’ve run their course as classroom pets. 

How, exactly, they entered the Sheridan region, no one knows for sure. 

Game and Fish first received reports of bullfrog sightings in 2018. The next year, biologists surveyed the area and found bullfrogs everywhere. 

Estes-Zumpf knows a landowner outside Sheridan introduced bullfrogs and fireflies to his property to remind him of home back East, but she’s guessing as widespread as they’ve become in the region, they were likely introduced elsewhere as well. 

Bullfrogs have occupied a few streams in far eastern Wyoming for decades. They’ve been there so long, in fact, biologists don’t know the impact they’ve had because no records exist of native species prior to their arrival. 

The problem in the Sheridan area is the bullfrog’s crusade to consume nearly every northern leopard frog and tadpole in sight. Northern leopard frogs are stable in portions of their range. They exist everywhere from Maine to Washington down to eastern Arizona, but were petitioned for Endangered Species Act listing in some portions of the West where their populations are struggling. 

Leopard frogs can coexist with bullfrogs in eastern water systems because they’ve found plenty of ways to hide and survive, but they’re not so well adapted out here, said Apodaca. 

Potentially more concerning, bullfrogs carry, but are immune to, the deadly chytrid fungus that is suffocating and killing native frogs and salamanders across North America.

“When it becomes a real concern for us in the conservation community is when [bullfrogs] throw ecosystems out of alignment and actively harm and damage native species,” Apodaca said.

Keeping them out

Once established, it’s exceptionally hard to eradicate bullfrogs, Estes-Zumpf said, though Wyoming’s harsh winters could help. 

One approach includes draining ponds, trapping adults and killing any tadpoles and eggs in the process. But the collateral damage of annihilating everything in the water limits its use and is not practical once bullfrogs spread to complex water systems with streams and connecting waterways. 

Biologists with more invasive-bullfrog-management experience elsewhere have found ways to minimize their damage. 

Officials in Boulder County, Colorado, for example, have been able to control bullfrogs in priority wetlands where northern leopard frogs breed. 

Efforts include targeting adult bullfrogs, Apocada said, as well as strategically removing eggs since bullfrogs reproduce later in the summer than northern leopard frogs. 

“To get rid of bullfrogs is a continuous battle because they’re on the landscape and will come back,” he added. 

That’s why Game and Fish decided to ban them from the state. The fewer bullfrogs here, the lower potential for release. Estes-Zumpf encourages anyone with a hankering for bullfrog legs to feel free to hunt them (though not at night with lights, because that’s illegal), remembering that they can’t be kept alive as pets or released back into the water again. 

With any luck, Estes-Zumpf said, the bullfrog invasion can be contained to the Sheridan region. 

Anyone who hears the telltale croak — it may sound similar to a cow mooing — or sees or captures a bullfrog should call their local Game and Fish office. The earlier bullfrogs can be caught and contained the better for the rest of Wyoming’s species, fish, frogs and ducks included, Estes-Zumpf said.

The post Bullfrogs are invading Sheridan, threatening native species appeared first on WyoFile.