It seems to me that there is alot of speculation and little hard evidence in the Plaintiff case, while the Defendants have been documenting their actions. The intersting conundrum is, if no one knows whether the water was originally brackish or not, whether the frog was there prior to building the seawall. since the seawall has been in plce for a half a century AND the golf course has been maintained in a certain manner for that timeframe, what will happen to the habitate without human intervention? Are they proposing that the seawall be removed so the periodic flooding does not occur? Remember, that (the pumping of floodwaters) is the Plaintiff big concern. With the seawall gone, what would become of the hydrology? Would it still support the frogs? Kinda sounds like "Beware what you wish for, you just might get it".
Why does this sound more like a crusade to close the course (holes 9-18 is 10 holes, not 9) rather than an effort to work together to accomplish the stated goal? Seems like the City is doing their part, what construtive activities have the plantiffs been up to over the past 20 years? You would think that at a minimum they would have been monitoring and documenting the annual population, the number of egg masses and the number of decicated masses annually. IDK but with over 100 egg masses each having around 500 eggs, well...that sure sounds like alot of frogs to me, even if only a mere 10% made it to adulthood.