Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 241 I Friday, December16, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 6485~

madeon theofferproviding domestic.ECorNAFTA constructionmaterial.

Dated:November30, 1994.IdaM. Ustad,AssociateAdministratorfor AcquisitionPolicy.IFR Doc. 94—30817Filed 12—15--94;8:45 anilB~LLJNOCODE 6820-41-M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17RIN 1018—AB97

Endangered and Threatened Wildlifeand Plants; Determination ofEndangered Statusfor the ArroyoSouthwestern Toad

AGENCY; Fish andWildlife Service,Interior.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: TheFish andWildlife Service(Service)determinesendangeredstatusfor thearroyosouthwesterntoad(Bufornicroscaphuscalifornicus)pursuanttotheprovisionsoftheEndangeredSpeciesAct of 1973, asamended(Act).The arroyotoadoccursexclusivelyinstreamsin southernCalifornia andnorthwesternBajaCalifornia,Mexico.Thearroyotoad hasbeenextirpatedfrom an estimated75 percentof itsformer range.Threatsto thesurvivalofthis speciesinclude:habitatdegradation,predation,andsmallpopulationsizes.Only 6 of the 22 extantpopulationssouthof Venturaareknownto containmorethanadozenadults.This rule implementstheprotectionandrecoveryprovisionsprovidedby theActfor thearroyosouthwesterntoad.EFFEC11VE DATE: January17, 1995.ADDRESSES: The completefile for thisru]e is availablefor inspection,byappointment,duringnormal businesshoursat theVenturaField Office, U.S.Fish andWildlife Service,2140EastmanAvenue,Suite100, Ventura.California93003.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.Cathy R. Brown at theaboveaddress(&)5/644—1766).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Thearroyo toad (Bufoznicroscophuscalifornicus) is a smalltoadin thefamily Bufonidae.This taxonwasoriginally describedas Bufo cognatuscalifornicus from a specimencollectedat SantaPaula,VenturaCounty(Camp1915). Camp’sspecimenwaslatershownto differ in severalrespectsfront

Bufo cognatesandwasaffordedspecificstatusasBufo cafifornicus(Myers 1930).In the following two decades,thistoadwasconsidereda subspeciesof Bufocompactilis(Linsdale1940)andof B.woodhousel(Shannon1949).Thecurrentlyacceptedtaxonomyof thearroyotoadasasubspeciesof Bufomicroscaphus,thesouthwesterntoad,isbasedon morphologicalsimilarities(Stebbins1951,PriceandSullivan1988).Thearroyotoad (B. nzicroscaphuscalifornicus) is geographicallyisolatedfrom theArizonatoad(B. microscaphusmicroscaphus)by theMojaveandColoradoDeserts.Work is now inprogressto determineif thearroyo toadisgeneticallydistinctatthe specieslevel (S. Sweet,Univ. of Calif., SantaBarbara,pers.comm.,1991).

The arroyotoadis asmall(5 to 8centimeters(cm) (2 to 3 inches)),lightgreenishgrayortan toadwith wartyskin anddark spots.Its undersideis buffcoloredandoftenwithout spots.A light-coloredstripecrossestheheadandeyelids,andalight areausuallyoccurson eachsacralhump andin themiddleof theback. Its movementconsistsofhoppingratherthanwalking. Itscourtshipvocalizationis ahigh.trill,usually lasting8 to 10 seconds.

Thearroyo toadis restrictedto riversthathaveshallow,gravelly poolsadjacentto sandyterraces.Breedingoccurson largestreamswith persistentwaterfrom lateMarchuntil mid-June(Sweet1989).Eggsaredepositedandlarvaedevelopin shallowpoolswithminimal currentandlittle or noemergentvegetationandwith sandorpeagravelsubstrateoverlain withflocculentsilt. After metamorphosis(Juneor July). thejuvenile toadsremainon theborderinggravelbarsuntil thepool no longerpersists(3 to 8 weeks.dependingon site andyear) (Sweet1992). Juvenilesandadultsforageforinsectson sandystreamterracesthathavenearlycompleteclosureofcottonwoods(Populusspp.),oaks(Quercusspp.),or willows (Salixspp.),andalmost no grassandherbaceouscoverat groundlevel. Adult toadsexcavateshallowburrowson theterraceswheretheyshelterduring thedaywhenthesurfaceis damporduringlongerintervalsin thedry season(Sweet1989).

Arroyo toadswerehistorically foundalongthelength of drainagesinsouthernCalifornia from SanLuisObispo Countyto SanDiegoCounty,butnow theysurviveprimarily in theheadwatersassmall isolatedpopulations(Sweet1992,J. Stephenson,ClevelandNationalForest,in lift., 1993).Urbanizationanddamconstructionbeginningin theearly 1900’sin

southernCaliforniacausedmostof theextensivehabitatdegradation.Thespecieswasformerlydistributedsouthwardalongthenorthwesterncoastalregionof BajaCalifornia,Mexico, to thevicinity of SanQuintin(ca. 30.5°N Lat.).

Most remainingpopulationsin theUnitedStatesoccuron privately ownedlands,primarily within oradjacenttothe ClevelandNationalForest.Lessthan50 percentof theknown extantpopulationsof arroyotoadoccurinareasownedor managedby theForestService(Los Padres,SanBernardino,andClevelandNational Forests)(Sweet1992,J. Stephenson,in lift., 1993).Duemostly to habitatdestruction,only eightdrainagesremainwherepopulationsofthis speciesmaybeviablejS.Sweet,pers.comm.1993;J. Stephenson,in lift.,1993).In 1990, only sevenpairsofarroyotoadswereknownto havebredanywherewithin thetoad’srange(Sweet1992). Dueto theisolationandthesmall sizes,almostall populationsareatgreatrisk of extinction.

PreviousFederalAction

The arroyotoadwas first includedbytheServiceasa category2 candidatespeciesin theSeptember18, 1985,Noticeof Reviewof VertebrateWildlife(50FR 37958).Category2 appliestotaxafor which informationnow in thepossessionofthe Serviceindicatesthatproposingto list asendangeredorthreatenedis possibly appropriate,butfor whichconclusivedataon biologicalvulnerability andthreatarenotcurrentlyavailableto supportproposedrules.Thesubspeciesalsowasincludedas acategory2 candidatein theJanuary6, 1989,andNovember21, 1991,Animal Noticesof Review(54 FR 554and56 FR 58804,respectively).Afterpublicationof themostrecentNotice ofReview, theServiceobtainedsubstantialinformation on thebiologicalvulnerabilityandtheenvironmentalthreatsto elevatethis speciesto category1. Category1 speciesarethosefor whichtheServicepossessessufficient d.uatosupportproposalsfor listing. Most ofthenew informationandanalysescaniefrom Dr. SamuelSweet,University ofCalifornia, SantaBarbara;Dr. MarkJennings,California AcademyofSciences;andstaffof the Los PadresNationalForest.

OnDecember30, 1992, (not January12, 1993,asindicatedin proposedrule(58FR 41232)) theServicereceivedapetition from Dr. SweetandDr. MarkJenningsto list thearroyotoadasendangered(SweetandJennings1992:.Section4(b)(3)(A) of the EndangeredSpeciesAct of 1973 (Act), asamended(16U.S.C. 1531 etseq),requiresto the

64860 Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 241 / Friday, December 16, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

maximumextentpracticable,that theSecretarymakeafinding within 90daysof receiptof a petition, asto whetheret’not substantial informationindicatestherequestedactionmaybewarranted.Ifsucha finding is made,the Serviceisdirected to commencea reviewof thestatusof thespecies.Within 12 monthsof receiptof a petition found to presen.tsubstantialinformation,the Secretaryisfurtherdirectedto makea finding thatthe petitionedaction is warranted, notwarranted,or warrantedbut precluded.In this instance,thepreparationof theproposedrulewasnearlycompleteatthetime the petition wasreceived,thusalleviating theneedto commencethestatusreview that the Servicewouldtypically startin responseto apetition.

OnAugust 3, 1993,theServicepublisheda p~’oposedrulein theFederal Register (58FR 41231)to listthearroyotoad as endangered.Thatproposalwasbasedprimarily oninformation providedby thepetitioners,published literature,and contacts withvarious herpetologists.

Summary of CommentsandRecommendations

In the August 3, 1993, proposedruleandassociatednotifications allinterestedpartieswererequestedtosubmit factualreportsor informationrelevantto a final decisionon the listingproposal.Appropriate stateagencies,county governments,Federal agencies,scientific organizations,andotherinterestedpartieswerecontactedandrequestedto comment.Noticeof thepublicationof theproposalwaspublishedin theSantaBarbaraNewsPress,LosAngelesTimes,andthe SanDiego Union Tribune.Requestsfor apublic hearingwere receivedfrom fourparties:theCalifornia Cattlemen’sAssociation,theNewhafl LandandFarmingCompany,Public Landsfor thePeople,andUnitedWaterConservationDistrict. On September9, 1993, theServicepublisheda noticein theFederalRegisterannouncing thehearing andextendingthe commentperioduntil October15, 1993 (58FR4742.8).The Serviceconductedabearingon October4, 1993,at theMineralsManagementServiceinCamarillo,California. Thirteenpartiespresentedtestimony.

Duringthecommentperiod,theServicereceivedwritten andoralcommentsfrom 27 parties,includingthoseof threeFederalagencies,threeStateagencies,and19 individuals orgroups.The SantaMonica MountainsNationalRecreationArea (NationalParkService),U.S. ForestService,theU.S.NationalBiological Survey’sNationalEcologyResearchCenter,Southwestern

HerpetologistsSociety,KeeptheSespeWild Committee,andthe EnvironmentalDefenseCenterweresomeof the eightcommentersexpressingsupportfor thelisting proposal. Sixteencommentersopposedthe listing of the arroyo toad.Eight were neutral on the proposalbutofferedclarification or additionalinformation.Written andoralstatementsobtained during the publichearingandcommentperiodarecombined in the following discussion.In addition,informationsubmittedbythe commenters. including updatedlocality andpopulation data from theCleveland, SanBernardino, and LosPadresNational Forests,hasbeenincorporated into this final rule.Opposingcommentsand othercommentsquestioningtherulehavebeenorganizedinto specificissues.Theseissuesand the Service’sresponseto eacharesummarizedas follows:

Issue1: One of the petitioners notedthat thecommonnamefor the species,Bufo microscaphus,is southwesterntoad,whereasthecommonnameof thesubspecies,B. microscaphuscalifomicus,is arroyotoad.In theproposedruletheServicereferredto B.microscaphuscalifornicusas the arroyosouthwesterntoad.

ServiceResponse:The Serviceacknowledgesthe nomenclature!confusionin theproposedrule. TheServiceprefers to utilize commonnamesof subspeciesthatalsoreflectthespeciesto which it is presentlyassigned;suchusageallowsthegeneralpublic to find information on both thefull speciesandthelisted subspecies.The commonnameof thesubspeciesappearsasthe“arroyo southwesterntoad” in therulebut is usually referredto as the“arroyo toad” in thepreambletext.

Issue2: Severalcommentersbelievedthattherewasinsufficient scientificevidenceto list thearroyotoad; thatallthedataon thespeciescamefrom asingle “biased”source;andthat morestudiesshould be conductedbefore afinal decisionon listing could bemade.

ServiceResponse:In researchingtheproposedrule, theServicerevieweddataandconsultedpublicationsfrommanysources,including herpetologistsat academicinstitutions, staffbiologistswith theU.S. ForestService,researchbiologists within theFish andWildlifeService,andmuseumrecords.It is theconsensusof theherpetologiststhatcontactedtheServicethatthearroyotoadis oneof themostthreatenedamphibiansin southernCalifornia (seeIssue 7). A recentreportpreparedundercontractto theCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGamestatedthat thecombinationof threats“probably make

this taxonthe mostvulnerableinCalifornia” (JenningsandHayes1992).In regardto recommendationsthat morestudiesareneededbeforelisting thearroyotoad,section4 of theAct statesthat a determinationto list mustbebasedon the bestscientificandcommercialdata availableafterconducting a review of thestatusof thespecies.The Servicecompletedsuchareview of the toad in preparing theproposedrule and prior to thereceiptofthepetition. Thebestscientificandcommercial data now availablesupportslisting the arroyotoad asendangered.

Issue3: Severalcommentersbelievedthat the proposedrule did not presentanyscientific evidencefor theadverseeffectsof mining, recreation,or grazingon arroyotoads.

ServiceResponse-~The proposedrulepresentednumerousexamplesof habitatdegradation causedby mining,recreation,andgrazing(seeFactorA intheproposedruleand this final rule).As statedin the proposedrule, mining,recreation,andgrazinghaveall beenobservedto altermicrohabitatcharacteristicsessentialto successfulbreedingof arroyotoads.Recreationandgrazing arealso implicated in mortalityof adult andjuvenile arroyotoads.Asdirectedby theAct, theServiceusedthebestavailablescientificandcommercialdatain proposingto list thearroyotoad.Thesedatademonstratethepotentialnegativeeffects of theseactivities.Although thecommentersdo not agreewith theconclusionsin theproposedrule, theydid not submitanyinformationto disprovetheService’sanalysisof theeffectsof mining,grazing,or recreationon arroyotoadpopulations.

Issue4: Severalcommentersstatedthatthelisting of thearroyo toadshouldnot proceeduntil theServiceconductstheappropriateNationalEnvironmentalPolicy Act review.

ServiceResponse:TheServiceneednot prepareenvironmental assessmentsorenvironmentalimpactstatementspursuantto theNationalEnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA) for reasonsoutlinedin theFederalRegisteron October25,1983 (48 FR 49244).Basically,thelisting of a speciesis exemptasamatterof law for NEPA review. Listingdecisionsarebaseduponbiological, notsociologicaloreconomical,considerations.This view hasbeenupheld in at leastonecourtcase(PacificLegalFoundationv. Andrus,657 F. Zd829 (1981))

Issue5: One comrnenterwaspuzzledby theService’sstatementin theproposedrulethat“little opportunityexistsfor naturaldispersalandrecolonizationfollowing local

Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 241 / Friday, December16, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 64861

extirpations,”becausevolunteersof anoff.roadvehicleassociationhadrecentlyoffered to relocatetoadsinto formerlyoccupiedhabitats.

ServiceResponse:The Service’sstatementreferredto the effectsofhabitatfragmentationon theviability ofarroyotoadpopulationsandtheir abilityto dispersenaturallyto reoccupyformerhabitat.TheServiceappreciatestheofferfor volunteerhelpandwillconsidersuchoffer in therecoveryofthespecies.Thereintroductionofarroyotoadsinto habitatsfrom whichsmall,isolatedpopulationshadbecomeextirpatedwould likely requirefrequent,intensivemanagementefforts.In mostcases,sucheffortswould beunsuccessful,especiallyif thearroyotoadswereplacedin degradedareas.Section2 of theEndangeredSpeciesActclearly statesthatthepurposeof theActis to providea meanswherebythenaturalecosystemsuponwhichendangeredandthreatenedspeciesdependmay beconserved.However,suchintensivemanagementactionsmayplay arole in endangeredspeciesrecovery,in addition to habitatprotection.

Issue6: Onecommenterstatedthatfailure to designatecritical habitat“hamperstheeffortsof landownersandother interestedpartiesto locateadditional populationsof this species,possiblyprecludingtheneedforprotectionundertheact.”

ServiceResponse:Designationof(;ritical habitat for thearroyotoadwouldnot be prudentat this time. Thearroyotoad is threatenedby taking,anactivitydifficult to control.Remainingpopulationsof thearroyo toadaresmallandgeographicallyrestricted,so thattheyarenow vulnerableto unrestrictedcollection.Publicationof specificlocalities,whichwould berequiredinproposingcritical habitat,would revealpreciselocality dataandtherebymakethespeciesmorevulnerabletoadditionalcollectionandactsofvandalism,andincreasethedifficultiesof enforcement.Designationof criticalhabitatfirst focuseson known occupiedhabitat,whichwould not aidin locatingadditional populations.

issue7: OnecommenterbelievedthattheServicewasnot justified in keepinghabitatandpopulationdataconfidential,becausethis practice“doesnot allowfor an independentassessmentof thevulnerability of thespeciesandthecritical needfor listin

ServiceResponse:Theproposedanfinal rulescontaina completesummaryof thedataavailableto theServiceregardingthestatusof thearroyotoad.Habitatandpopulationdatahavebeenavailablefor review(see‘~Addresses”

sectionabove).As discussedabove(Issues2 and6), thesedatahavebeenreviewedby thescientificcommunityandthereisa consensusamongherpetologiststhat the arroyotoad isone of themost threatenedamphibiansin California.

Issue8: Severalcommentersreferredto theeconomicimpactsof listing thearroyo toad andrecommended-thattheServicenot proceedwith listing thespeciesuntil thepresentandfutureeconomicimpactsof listinghadbeenconsidered.

ServiceResponse:Section4 of theActdirectstheServiceto consideronly thebestscientificandcommercialdataavailablewhenmaking a decisionregardingtheappropriatenessof listinga speciesasendangeredorthreatened;economicimpactsarenot consideredinthis evaluation.Economicfactorsareonly to beconsideredin thedesignationof critical habitat. -

Issue9: Severalcommenterscontendedthat listing constitutestakingof privatepropertyby theFederalgovernmentwithout compensationtothe landowner.

ServiceResponse:Listing of thearroyo toadundertheEndangeredSpeciesAct will triggertheprotectivemeasuresof section9 of theAct,prohibiting thetakeof this species.Inaddition,theAct requiresthat Federalagenciesinsurethatactivitiestheyauthorize,fund,or carryout arenotlikely to jeopardizethecontinuedexistenceof anylistedspecies,ordestroyoradverselymodify its criticalhabitat, if anyis designated.Anyactivity on privatelandthatrequiresFederalinvolvement(suchas a section404permit undertheCleanWaterAct)that mayaffect this specieswould haveto be reviewedby theServiceto insurethatthecontinuedexistenceof thespecieswould not bejeopardized.

Listing undertheAct doesnot implythat privatelandwould beconfiscatedortakenwithout just compensation.Recoveryplanningfor thearroyotoadmay includerecommendationsfor landacquisitionor easementsinvolvingprivatelandowners.Theseeffortsonlywould beundertakenwith thecooperationof the landowner.In themajority of cases,private landownersarenot precludedfrom usingtheir landin themanneroriginally intended.

Issue10: Onecommenterrequestedthattheproposedlistingof thearroyotoadbe delayeduntil theServicecouldinvestigatethepossibilityofimplementinganarroyo toadhatcheryand transplantingprogram.

ServiceResponse:Section 2 of theEndangeredSpeciesAct statesthat thepurposeof theAct is to provide ameans

wherebytheecosystemsuponwhichendangeredand threatenedspeciesdependmay be conserved.Captivebreedingprograms,suchasthe hatcheryproposedby the commenter,maybeconsideredin planningfor the recover-vofsomelistedspeciesbutarenotasubstitutefor recoveryof listedspeciesin thewild. SeetheService’sresponseto Issue5 above. -

Issue11: Onecomrnenteraskedif thearroyotoad’sdeclineis tied to theworldwideamphibiandecline.

ServiceResponse:TheEndangeredSpeciesAct permitsthelisting ofspeciesthathavebecomeraredue tobothnaturalandmanmadefactors.Thedeclineof the arroyotoadmaybe duein partto the as-yet-unknownfactorscausingthedeclineof amphibiansthroughouttheworld. As summarizedin theproposednile, however,habitatdegradation,predationby introducedspecies,andtheinadequacyof existingregulatorymechanismshaveplayedasignificantrole in thearroyotoad’sdecline.

Issue12: Onecommenterstatedthatthedecisionto list thearroyo toadshouldbewithhelduntil thegeneticstudiesprovethatthearroyotoad is adistinct species.

ServiceResponse:Section3(15)of theAct statesthat “(T)he term“species”includesany subspeciesof fish orwildlife orplants. . . whichinterbreedswhenmature.”Therefore,for thepurposesof theAct, thissubspeciesis treatedasa species.Determinationof full speciesstatusisnot necessaryto proceedwith listing thearroyo toad.

Issue 13: OnecommenterquestionedtheService’spreparationof a proposedruleprior to receiptof a petition. Thecommentersuggestedthat this indicatedimpropriety,andanunacceptablycloserelationshipwith thepetitioners,on thepart of theService.

ServiceResponse:Section4(b) of theAct establishestwo methodsby whichaspeciesmay beconsideredfor listing.Section4(b)(l)(A) describestheprocessfollowed by theServicewhen theServiceinitiatesalisting proposal.Section41.b)(3)(A)describestheprocessof initiating alisting action in responseto a petition.In eachcase,theServiceconductsa statusreviewof thespecies.A statusreviewtakesinto accountthebestavailablescientificandcommercialinformation, including publishedreportsandconsultationswith experts.regardingthespeciesto determineif itshouldbeprovidedprotectionundertheAct. In thecaseof thearroyo toad,asdiscussedabove,theServicehadcompleteda statusreviewof thespeciesanddrafteda proposedrule (pursuantto

64862 FederalRegister / Vol. 59, No. 241 / Friday, December16, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

section4(b)(1)(Afl beforethepetitionwas received.

Issue 14: Two commenterscontendedthat adequateregulatorymechanismsarecurrentlyin placeto protectthearroyotoad,becausethespeciesoccurslargelyon NationalForestlands.Therefore,anyactionthat couldaffectthespecieswould undergoenvironmentalreviewpursuanttoNationalEnvironmentalPolicy Act.

ServiceResponse’.Asstated in theproposedruleandthis final rule, thearroyotoadhasbeenextirpatedfrom anestimated75 percentof its formerrange.Although asubstantialproportionofcurrentlyoccupiedhabitatis foundonNationalForestlands,recoveryofarroyotoadson privately ownedlandswill likely benecessaryto restorethespeciesto levelsthatwill permitremoval from theendangeredspecieslist. The coinmentersarecorrectinstatingthat actionson Federallandswould besubjectto review under theNationalEnvironmentalPolicy Act(NEPA). However,theobjectiveofNEPA is to ensurethatFederalagenciesconsidereverysignificantaspectof theenvironmentalimpactof aproposedaction.Thelaw doesnot guaranteethatactionswith significantimpactswill notbe authorized.Therefore,NEPA will beappliedto actionsthataffectthearroyotoad,but it doesnot assureprotectionfor thespecies.

Issue15: Onecornmenterstatedthatlisting will not alleviatethe effectofexoticpredators,whichwasidentifiedin theproposedruleasoneof themostseverethreatsto thesurvival of thearroyotoad.

ServiceResponse:TheAct providesfor thedeterminationofendangeredorthreatenedstatusto bebaseduponthefive factorsof section4(a)(1)andnotupon whetheror not certainthreatscanbe reducedor eliminatedin a species’recovery.Section4(f)(1) of theActdirectstheServiceto developandimplementarecoveryplan for theconservationandsurvival of listedspecies.Most of theexoticpredatorsareeithergamefish (e.g.,bass,trout)or thebullfrog (seebelow).A recoveryplanwould addressthe reductionof someofthe impactsfrom thosepredatorsthroughStateandFederalactions.Section6 of theAct enablestheServiceto transferfundsto Stateendangeredspeciesconservationprogramsforimplementationof actionsthat willfurthertheconservationof the listedspecies.Thus,by listing thearroyotoad,guidanceandfundingcanbe providedfor habitatmanagement,includingcontrolof exoticpredatorsin arroyotoad habitats.

SummaryofFactorsAffectingtheSpecies

After athoroughreviewandconsiderationof all informationavailable,theServicehasdeterminedthat the arroyotoad shouldbe classifiedasan endangeredspecies.Proceduresfoundat section4 of the EndangeredSpeciesAct (16U.S.C. 1531 etseq.)andregulations(5(1 CFR part424)promulgatedto implementthe listingprovisionsof the Act were followed. A -

speciesmaybe determinedto beanendangeredor threatenedspeciesduetooneor moreof thefive factorsdescribedin section4(a)(1). Thesefactors andtheir applicationto thearroyosouthwesterntoad (Bufomicroscophuscalifornicus)areasfollows:

A. The Presentor ThreatenedDestruction,Modification,orCurtailmentofIts Habitat or Range

Habitatdestructionandalterationconstitutesthemostseverethreatfacingthearroyotoad.Thistoadis nowconfinedto the headwatersof streamsitoccupiedhistoricallyalongtheirentirelengths.

Thearroyotoadwasformerlyfoundon riverswith near-perennialflowthroughoutsouthernCaliforniafromSanLuis ObispoCountyto SanDiegoCounty.It is believedto be extirpatedinSanLuis Obispo County(S. Sweet,pers.comm., 1991).PopulationspersistinSantaBarbara,Ventura,Los Angeles,Riverside,andSanDiegoCounties.Recentsightingsof scatteredindividualshavebeenreportedfrom Orange,SanBernardino,andsouthwestImperialCounties. -

Themajorityof the remainingpopulationsin SantaBarbaraandVenturaCountiesarelocatedon theLosPadresNationalForest.This NationalForestsupportsthemajority of southernCalifornia’s remainingintactlargeriversystemsandmaintainsfive viablepopulationsof arroyotoads.SespeCreekin VenturaCountyhasthe largestknownpopulation(Sweet1992).Otherpopulationsarefound on theSisquoc,SantaYnez,andupperandlower Pirudrainages(Sweet1992).

Populationsto thesoutharelocatedprimarily in SanDiegoandRiversideCountiesandarepredominantlyfoundin thevicinity of theClevelandNationalForestandon privatelandswithin oradjacentto nationalforest.In SanDiegoCounty,arroyotoadshavebeenfoundon theSantaMargarita,Guejito,Sweetwater,Vallecito. SanLuis Roy,SantaYsabel,Witch, Cottonwood,Temescal,AguaCaliente,SantaMaria,Lusardi,PineValley, Noble.Kitchen,LongPotrero,UpperSanDiego, San

Vincente.andMorenadrainages.Populationson Temescal,AguaCaliente, PineValley, andCottonwooddrainagesmay be consideredviable (J.Stephenson,in Iitt., 1993;J. Copp,California Academyof Sciences,in Iitt.,1993).Recentsurveyshave locatedverysmallpopulationsof an’oyo toadsinfour creeks in southwesternRiversideCounty (Temecula,Arroyo Seco,SanMateo, andTenaja Creeks)(J.Stephenson,in un., 1993). Thesinglerecent occurrenceof arroyotoadsin SanBernardinoCountyis on DeepCreekintheSanBernardinoNationalForest.

Severalfactorspresentlythreatentheremaining25 percentof the habitat ofthearroyotoad including: (1) Short- andlong-termchangesin riverhydrology,including constructionof damsandwater diversions; (2) alterationofriparianwetlandhabitatsby agriculturearid urbanization;(3) constructionofroads;(4) site-specificdamageby off-highwayvehicleuse;(5) developmentofcampgroundsandother recreationalactivities; (6) over-grazing;and (7)mining activities.

Damconstructionwasresponsibleforthe lossof approximately40 percentoftheestimatedoriginal rangeof thearroyotoad.Twenty-sixlargeimpoundmentsarecurrently locatedwithin therangeof this species,inundatingover190 km (120 miles)ofsuitablehabitat,Additional areashavebeenidentified aspotentialdarnsitesand, if constructed,would destroy25percentof thecurrentrange(6 to 7percentof theoriginal range)of thearroyotoad (Sweet1991a).

In additionto habitatlossthroughdirect inundation,darnscanhavesignificanteffectson habitatqualitydownstream.Artificial flow regulationdisruptsthenaturalprocessesthatproducethe terraceandpool habitatsrequiredby arroyotoads.Unseasonalwater releasesmay prevent arroyotoadsfrom breedingdueto habitatchanges(Sweet1992).

Anotherconsequenceof sustainedunnaturalperennialflowsbelowdamsis anadverseeffecton thehabitatof thisspeciesby encouragingvegetativegrowth in aripariancorridor,whichincreasesgroundstability andhenceconfinesanddeepensthecreekchannel.Water temperaturesare reducedbelowthetemperaturesneededfor larvaldevelopment(Sweet1991a).

Thearroyo toadisalsosensitivetostreamdiversionsasthey causetheriparianareasto dry. Water diversionsthatalternormal flows have degradedhabitatsandadverselyaffectedarroyotoadsby leadingto: (1)The earlydryingof breedingpools,causingbreedingfailuresor lossof the larval population;

FederalRegister/ Vol. 59, No. 241 1 Friday, December 16, 1994 I Rules and Regulations 64863

(2) restrictionof theperiodessentialforrapidgrowthwhen newly-metamorphosedtoadscanforage ondampgravelbarsand(3) lossof dampsubsurfacesoil, whichmay resultinhigh adult mortality during latesummerandearlyfall (Sweet1992).

Developmentprojectsin riparianwetlandshavecausedpermanentlossesof riparianhabitatsandarethe mostconspicuousfactorin thedeclineof thearroyo toad(S. Sweet,pers.comm.,1991).Agricultureandurbanizationhavealreadydestroyedmuch of thesuitablearroyotoadhabitatsouthof theSantaClaraRiver inVenturaCounty(S.Sweet,pers.comm., 1991). Streamterraceshavebeenconvertedto farming,roadcorridors,andresidentialandcommercialuses,whilethestreamsthemselveshavebeenchannelizedforflood control.Largestretchesof ripariancorridorhabitathavealsobeendegradedor destroyedby cattleandferal pigs (S.Sweet,pers.comm.,1991).

Recreationalactivitiesin riparianwetlandshavehadsubstantialnegativeeffectsto arroyotoadhabitatandindividuals,asdiscussedin FactorE.Off-highwayvehiclescauseextensivedamageto theshallowpoolsin whicharroyotoadsbreed (Sweet1992).

Streamsidecampgroundsin southernCalifornianationalforestshavefrequentlybeenlocatedadjacenttoarroyotoadhabitat(Sweet1992). In theLos PadresNationalForest,eachofthethreecampgroundson Piru andSespeCreeksweredevelopedon terracesusedby arroyotoadswithin 50 to 100meters(150 to 300 feet) of theirbreedingpools.OntheupperSantaYnezRiver, also inLos PadresNationalForest,threeof fourcampgroundsarealsolocatedin arroyotoad habitat(Sweet1991a,1991b).Theplacementof campgroundsis similar intheClevelandNationalForestin SanDiegoCounty;upperSanJuanCreek,upperSanLuis ReyRiver, andCottonwoodCreekall havecampgroundssituatedadjacentto arroyotoad breedinghabitats(M. Jennings,initt., 1993).

Theuseof heavyequipmentin yearlyreconstructionof roadsandstreamcrossingsin thenationalforestshashadsignificantandrepeatedImpactstoarroyotoadsand toad habitat.Maintenanceof theroadto OgilvyRanch,a privateinholding in theLosPadresNationalForest,is likelyresponsiblefor adepressedpopulationof arroyotoadsin Mono Creek.TheOgilvy Ranchroad makes 18 crossingsof Mono Creek,manydirectlythroughor neararroyotoadbreedingpools.Insummer1992,theLos PadresNationalForestdeclinedto opentheOgilvyRanchroadin orderto protect

populationsof arroyn toadsandothercandidateamphibiansandreptiles.However,theroadwasopenedwith abulldozerin the fall. As juvenilearroyotoadswerelikely burrowedin thesoftsandadjacenttothecreek,gradingtheroadup the creekdestroyedhabitatandprobablykilled individual toads.Regularmaintenanceof roadsin theLosPadresNationalForestnegativelyaffectsarroyotoadindividuals andtoadhabitaton the SantaYnezRiver, Piru andSespeCreeks,aswell.

Mining activitiesareanadditionalthreatto this species.Recreationalsuctiondredgingfor gold adverselyaffectstoadhabitatandindividuals.Dredgingdestroysbreedingpoolsusedby arroyotoads and causesexcessivesiltation downstream,whichasphyxiateseggsandsmall larvae.Forexample,during theMemorialDayweekendof 1991,four smalldredgesoperating on Piru Creek(Los PadresNationalForest)producedsedimentationvisible more than Ikilometer(0.6 mile) downstreamandadverselyaffected40,000to60,000arroyotoad larvae.Subsequentsurveysrevealednearlytotal destructionof thespeciesin this streamsection;fewerthan100 larvaesurvived,andonly 4juvenile toadswerelocated(Sweet1992).

Severalriversin the LosPadresNationalForestwererecentlytemporarilyclosedto gold mining, andit is uncertainwhether the ban will bemadepermanent.In December1992,agroupof minerschallengedtheForestService’sauthority to closePiru Creektomining.Theseindividuals practicedvariousmethodsof gold extractionuntilcitedby theForestService.It isprobablethat future challengeswilloccurand, if successful,will threatenthepopulationof arroyotoadson PiruCreek.

B. Overutilizotionfor Commercial,Recreational,Scientific,or EducationalPurposes

Populationsof thearroyotoadarebecomingsosmallandconfinedthatevenlimited takingby campers,recreationists,andscientificresearcherscouldadverselyaffectthis species’viability. Thesetoadsarethreatenedfrom collectingby childrennearthecampgrounds.No dataexistson theextentof suchcollectionactivities,butit is probablethat it continuesto occur.

C. Diseaseor PredationOverthepast20 years,at least60

speciesof fisheshavebeenintroducedto the westernU.S. States,59 percentofwhicharepredatory(HayesandJennings1986; Jennings1988).The

introduction of exoticpredatorstosouthern California waters hasbeenfacilitated, in part, by the interbasintransport of water(e.g., CaliforniaAqueduct).Introducedpredators hadsubstantialimpactson thesizesofextant populationsof arroyo toadsandmay have contributed to regionalextinctions(HayesandJennings1986).

Virtually all riversthatcontainoroncecontainedarroyotoadssupportpopulationsof introducedpredatoryfish,suchas greensunfish (Lepomiscyaneilus).largemouthbass(Micropterous salmoides),mosquitofish(Gambusiaafflais), blackbullhead(Ictalurusnebulosus),arroyochub (Gunorcutti), prickly sculpin (Cottusosper).rainbowtrout(Oncorhynchusmykiss),orientalgobies(Tridentigersp.),andredshiners(Notropislutrensis) (Sweet1992).All of theseintroducedfish preyon tadpolesandhavebeenobservedinducinghigh arroyo toadlarvalmortality in breedingpoolsonthePiru,Sespe,andSantaYnez drainages.It isprobablethatpredationby introducedfish speciesoccurselsewhere(Sweet1992).

Arroyo toadsoccurin streamswithperennialornearperennialflow. Moststreamswith populations of arroyotoadsalsohavepopulationsofintroducedbullfrogs (Ronacatesbeiana).Adultbullfrogsarehighlypredatoryand have been observedtoprey on adult arroyo toads(Sweet1993).Habitat for bullfrogs has been enhancedwithin theexisting rangeof thearroyotoad via diversions andartificiallymaintained perennial flowsbelowdams. Increasedbullfrog populations inthesepermanent waterareasthreatenthe survival of arroyo toad populations.

D. TheInadequacyof ExistingRegulatoryMechanisms

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(Corps)is responsiblefor administeringsection404 of the Federal WaterPollution Control Act Amendmentsof1972 (CleanWaterAct) andhasauthority to regulate theplacementofdredgedand fill materialsinto watersofthe United States.Individual actionsundernationwidepermitsundergominimal outsideagencyreview.Individual permits, which are subject tomore extensivereview, arerequiredforprojects that affect greater than 4hectares(10 acres).

TheCorpscannotissuea nationwideor individual permitwhereafederallyproposedor listedspeciesmaybeaffected,without first conferringorconsulting with theServiceundersection 7 of theEndangeredSpeciesAct.In addition, the Service,as partof thesection 404 reviewprocess,provides

64864 FederalRegister / Vol. 59, No. 241 / Friday, December16, 1994 I Rules and Regulations

commentson both pre-dischargenoticesfor nationwidepermitsandpublicnoticesfor individual permits.

Most constructionprojectsin or neararroyotoad habitatwould requireapermit from theCorpspursuanttosection404of theCleanWaterAct. Inpractice,theCorps’actionsundersection404havenot adequatelyprotectedarroyotoads,astheCorpshasrarelyrequiredindividual permitswhereimpactsto the toadwould occur.TheCorpshaseitherapprovedtheprojectsundernationwidepermits,ortherehovebeenrepeatedunauthorizedactivities.Federallisting of this specieswill ensuregreaterconsiderationof theeffectsof permittedactionsduringthereviewprocess,as well as providetheprotectionof section7 of theAct.

TheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct (NEPA) andCaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality Act (CEQA)requireanintensiveenvironmentalreview of projectsthatmayadverselyaffectFederalcandidatespecies.However,projectproponentsarenotrequiredto avoidimpactsto thesespecies,andproposedmitigationmeasuresarefrequentlynot adequately~rnplemented.As with section404permits, theService’scommentsthroughtheseenvironmentalreviewprocessesareonly advisory.

ForestServicepolicy, as describedintheNationalForestManagementAct,states“Fish andwildlife habitatshall bemanagedto maintainviablepopulationsof existingnativeanddesirednon-nativevertebratespeciesin theplanningarea’(36CFR 219.19).TheLos PadresNationalForesthasrecentlyfundedstudieson theecologyof arroyotoads(Sweet1992, 1993).TheLos PadresandClevelandNationalForestshavebegunto usethis information to developaripariarl habitatconservationstrategytoprovidebetterprotectionfor arroyotoadsandothersensitiveriparianspecieson thetwo forests.This positivesiepmay addresstheimpactsassociatedwith roadmaintenance,off-highwayvehicleuse,placermining, recreation,andtheissuanceof specialusepermitsfor dam andwaterdiversionconstruction,all of whichhavecontributedto thedeclineof thearrovotoad on nationalforestslandsinsouthernCalifornia. Conservationactionsby theForestServiceandtheStateof California will assistin therecoveryof thespecies.Recoveryof thespeciescannot beassured,however.without theimplementationofprotectivemeasuresfor arroyotoadpopulationson privatelands.

Alterationof thenaturalintermittentflow regimesby damshashadsi~niflcantadverseimpactsto arrovo

toads.Prior to 1992,theCaliforniaDepartmentof WaterResources,whichoperatesPyramidDamonPiru CreekintheLos PadresandAngelesNationalForests,frequentlydischargedexcessflows from the reservoirresultingin thedepressedpopulationof arroyo toadsonlower Piru Creek.RecentcoordinationamongtheDepartmentof WaterResources,ForestService,andFish andWildlife Servicehaveresultedinreleasesfrom thedam thatmorecloselymimic naturalflows, benefittingthearroyotoad.Waterreleasesof severalmillion gallonsperdayfrom BarrettDamon CottonwoodCreekduringtheperiodwhenlarval arroyotoadsweremetamorphosingnegativelyaffectedthepopulationin SanDiegoCounty insummer1993.

Although thearroyotoad is classifiedasa“Speciesof SpecialConcern”by theStateof California (Steinhart1990)andmay not betakenwithout anapprovedscientificcollectingpermit, thisdesignationprovidesno special,legallymandatedprotectionof thespeciesandits habitat.

E. OtherNatural or ManmadeFactorsAffectingIts ContinuedExistence

Severalotherfactorshavealsocontributedto thedeclineof thespeciesincluding drought, fire, and light andnoisepollution. Additionally, therehasbeendirect mortality of thetoadsduetoroadconstructionandmaintenance,waterinundationor drainagefrom damsanddiversions,off.highwayvehicleuse.cattleandpig trampling.mining, andrecreationalactivities

By far, themostsignificantnaturalfactoradverselyaffectingthearroyotoadis droughtandresultantdeteriorationof riparianhabitats.SouthernCalifornia recentlyexperienced5 consecutiveyearsoflower than averagerainfall. Thesedroughtconditions,whencombinedwith human-inducedwaterreductions(i.e.. diversionsof waterfrom streams),havedegradedriparianecosystemsandhavecreatedextremelystressfulconditionsfor mostaquaticspecies.

Droughtalsoaffectsarroyotoadsinanothermanner.Femalearroyotoadsmust feed for at least2 monthsin orderto developthefat reservesneededtoproduceaclutchof eggs(Sweet1992).In droughtyears,femalesmay findinsufficient insectpreyto produceeggsbeforemalesceasetheir courtshipbehaviorof calling, resultingin noreproductionin that year.Theextremelylow reproductionof 1990 was likely dueto 4 yearsof severedrought(Sweet1992). Although rainfall patternsin1992 and1993 returnedto nearnormallevels,droughtis a naturallyrecurring

phenomenonin southernCalifornia.Thereis no doubtthatarroyotoadsevolvedwith periodic,severedrought.However,therecurrenceof this naturaleventcombinedwith themanymanmadefactorsnegativelyaffectingarroyotoad survivalremainsasignificantthreatto thespeciespersistence.

Periodicfiresmayadverselyaffectarroyotoadsby causingdirectmortality,destroyingstreamsidevegetation,oreliminatingvegetationthatsustainsthewatershed.Recentnaturalandhuman-inducedwildfires haddevastatingeffectson populationsof arroyotoads.The 1991Lions Fire on upperSespeCreekin the Los PadresNationalForestdestroyedhabitatcontainingthe largestknown extantpopulationof arroyotoadsincluding 15 knownbreedingpoolsandover50 percentof theknownadult populationon theSespedrainage(Sweet1991c).Surveysin 1992 revealedthattheeffectsof the fIre andsubsequentflooding, erosion,andsiltation causedthedeathof not lessthan 50 percentof theresidentadultpopulationofarroyo toads.

Thevocalizationsof maletoadsarecrucial to thebreedingsuccessof thisspecies,astheir callsarethekeyfactorto finding mates.Light andnoisepollutionfrom adjacentdevelopmentsor campgroundsmayalsoreducearroyotoad reproductivesuccessby disruptingthe~recalizatjonbehaviorof malesduringthebreedingseason(M.Jennings,in )itt., 1993). Generally,thelocal populationof arroyotoadsdeclinesas campgrounduseincreases(Sweet1992).

Unseasonalwaterreleasesfrom damsmay preventarroyotoadsfrom breedingaltogether,as discussedin FactorA, ormay washawayeggsandlarvaeifreleasesaremadeafter breedinghasoccurred(Sweet1992). Forexample,largeunscheduledreleasesfrom -

PyramidLake in May 1991virtuallyeliminatedall reproductionby arroyotoadsbelowthedam in Piru Creekinwhat would havebeenthebestyearforreproductionfollowing 5 yearsofdrought(Sweet1992).A proposaltoconveyStateWaterProjectwaterfromPyramidLake to Piru Lakevia PiruCreekwould alsothreatenarroyotoadsurvival on Piru Creek,if releasessubstantiallyalternaturalflow regimes.

Grazingbringsanotherpotentialsourceof mortality to this species.Horsesandcattlegrazein riparianareasandmaytrampleeggsandlarvaeofarroyo toads(S. Sweet,pers.comm.,1991).Grazingalso increaseslevelsofsedimentationin streamsthatcansmothereggsandlarvae(M. Jennings.inlitt., 1993)

FederalRegister I Vol. 59, No. 241 / Friday~December16, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 64865

Off-highwayvehicleuseisbelievedtobethe primaryfactorresponsiblefor thedecimationof theMoaveRiverpopulationofthe arroyotoad(Jennings1991). OnMemorial Dayweekendin1991,a fenceprotectinga breedingpoolon PiruCreekwascut, andoff-highwayvehicleshadaccesstothe creek.Thedisturbancedestroyedasinai!sandbarthatmaintainedashallowpool,resultingin thelossof 12,000to 16,000arroyo southwesterntadpoles(Sweet1992).

Recreationaluseof campgroundsisheaviestin earlysummer,whenarroyotoad larvaeandjuvenilesarepresentandmostvulnerable.As theyoungtoadsarediurnal, sedentary,andlive onthesandbars,they areoftencrushed.Recreationalusehasresultedin thealterationof streamandbreedingpoolmorphologyandtramplingof juveniletoads(Sweet1992).Adult arroyo toads,which foragein openareasin thecampgrounds,arefrequentlykilled oncampgroundroadsat night (Sweet1992;M. Jennings,in )itt., 1993).

Habitatloss, high mortality, andlowreproductionfrom all of thesourcesdiscussedabovealso resultin thefragmentationof surviving populationsinto isolatedsubpopulations.Whilethesesubpopulationsmay continuetosurviveandreproduceovertheshortterm,their long-termsurvival is notsecure,becauselittle opportunityexistsfor naturaldispersalandrecolonizationfollowing local extirpations(Sweet1991a). Habitat fragmentationincreasestheprobabilityof local extirpationdueto stochasticeventsandalso likelyresultsin reductionofgeneticvariability within thesmall, isolatedsubpopulations.

The recentyearsof extremelylowreproductivesuccesshavelikely beenabottleneckin the remainingpopulationsof arroyotoads,in which fewindividualswill reachsexualmaturityuntil 1995 (Sweet1992). As matureadultsageanddiein thenext 2 years,little recruitmentinto thebreedingpopulationis likely, andnumerouslocalextinctionsof alreadysmallpopulationsareprobable.As individualsmay notsurviveandreproduceduetodetrimentaleventssuchasdroughtorroadmaintenance,and,asthepopulationnumbersarelow andtherangeis restricted,sucheventscouldcausetheextinction of thespecies.

TheServicehascarefullyassessedthebestscientificandcommercialinformation availableregardingthepast,presentand futurethreatsfacedby thearroyo toad in determiningto makethisfinal rule. The arroyotoad hasbeenextirpatedfrom asubstantialportion ofits historicrange.Virtually all

remaIningpopulationsaresmallandfaceavariety of immediatethreatstotheir continuedviability. This toadlivesin highly specializedhabitatsthathavebeenandwill continueto betargetedfordevelopmentanddegradationby humanactivities andis extremelyvulnerabletohabitatmodificationandwaterqualitychanges.Basedon this evaluation,thepreferredactionis to list thearroyotoadasendangered.Otheralternativesto thisactionwereconsideredbut notpreferredbecausenot listing this speciesatall or listing it asthreatenedwouldnot bein keepingwith thepurposesoftheAct. For thereasonsdiscussedbelow,critical habitatis not beingproposedat thistime.

Critical Habitat

Section4(a)(3)of theAct requirestothemaximumextentprudentanddeterminablethattheSecretarydesignatecritical habitatat thetime aspeciesis determinedto be endangeredor threatened.The Servicefinds thatdesignationof critical habitat is notpresentlyprudentfor thearroyo toad.

As discussedunderFactorB in the‘Summaryof FactorsAffecting theSpecies,”thearroyotoadis threatenedby taking,an activity difficult to control.Remainingpopulationsof thearroyotoadaresmallandgeographicallyrestricted,sothatthey arenowvulnerableto unrestrictedcollection.Publicationofspecificlocalities,whichwould berequiredin proposingcriticalhabitat,wouldrevealpreciselocalitydataand,thereby.makethespeciesmorevulnerableto additionalcollectionandactsof vandalismandincreasethedifficulties of enforcement.

TheForestServicehasbeennotifiedof the locationsandimportanceofprotectingthis species’habitat.Protectionof this species’habitatwill beaddressedin the recoveryprocessandthroughthesection7 consultationprocess.Therefore,it would not now beprudentto determinethecritical habitatof thearroyotoad.

AvailableConservationMeasuresConservationmeasuresprovidedto

specieslisted asendangeredorthreatenedundertheEndangeredSpeciesAct include recognition,recoveryactions,requirementsforFederalprotection,andprohibitionsagainstcertainactivities.Recognitionthroughlisting encouragesandresultsin conservationactionsby Federal,State,andprivateagencies;groups;andindividuals.TheEndangeredSpeciesAct providesfor possiblelandacquisitionandcooperationwith theStatesandrequiresthat recoveryactionsbe carriedout for all listed species.The

protectionrequiredof Federalagenciesandtheprohibitionsagainsttakingandharmarediscussed,in part,below.

Section7(a) of theAct, asamended,requiresFederalagenciesto evaluatetheiractionswithrespectto anyspeciesthat isproposedor listedasendangeredor threatenedandwith respecttoits‘critical habitat,if anyis beingdesignated.Regulationsimplementingthis interagencycooperationprovisionof the Act arecodifiedat 50 CFR part402. Section7(a)(2)requiresFederalagenciesto insurethatactivitiestheyauthorize,fund,or carryout arenotlikely to jeopardizethecontinuedexistenceof a listedspeciesor todestroyor adverselymodify its criticalhabitat.If aFederalactionmay affectalisted speciesor its critical habitat,theresponsibleFederalagencymustenterinto formal consultationwith theService.

TheForestService(DepartmentofAgriculture) andthe Corps(Departmentof Defense)arethemain Federalagenciesthatwill berequiredto protectthis speciesif it is listed.Federalagenciesmustconsultwith theService,asdescribedin section7 of theAct, onany projectthatmay affectthis species.TheForestServiceharborsa substantialportion of knownarroyotoadpopulations;hence,someof ForestServiceactionswithin thespecies’habitatmaybeaffected.ForestServiceactivities,suchas theconstructionandmaintenanceof roads,andtheissuanceof specialusepermitsfor darnandbridgeconstruction,mining,andwaterdiversionprojectswould besubjecttotheAct’s section7 requirements.Corpsactivitiesor issuancesof permits subjectto section404 of theCleanWaterActwould besubjectto theEndangeredSpeciesAct section7 requirements.AnyFederalactionsthataresubject toenvironmentalreviewundertheNationalEnvironmentalPolicy Act maybesubjectto therequirementsof section7 of theAct.

Listing of thearroyotoadasendangeredwill providefor thedevelopmentof arecoveryplan. Such aplan will bringtogetherboth StateandFederalefforts for its conservation.Theplan will establishaframework forcooperationandcoordinationamongagenciesin conservationefforts.Theplanwill setrecoveryprioritiesandestimatecostsof varioustasksnecessarto accomplishthem. It will alsodescribesite-specificmanagementactionsnecessaryto achieveconservationandsurvival of thearroyotoad.

TheAct andimplementingregulationsfound at 50 CFR 17.21setforth a seriesof prohibitionsandexceptionsthatapplyto endangered

64866 FederalRegister / Vol. 59, No. 241 / Friday, December 16, 1994 I Rules and Regulations

wildlife. Theseprohibitions,in part,makeit illegal for anypersonsubjecttothejurisdiction of theUnited Statestotake(includesharass,harm,pursue,hunt, shoot,wound,kill, trap.capture,or collect;orattemptany suchconduct),import orexport,transportin interstateor foreign commercein thecourseofcommercialactivity, or sell oroffer forsalein interstateor foreigncommerceany listedwildlife species.It is alsoillegal to possess,sell,deliver, carry,transport,or ship anysuchwildlife thathasbeentakenillegally. Certainexceptionsapplyto agentsof theServiceandStateconservationagencies.

It is thepolicy of theService(59 FR34272)to identify to themaximumextentpracticablethoseactivitiesthatwould or would not constituteaviolation of section9 of theAct at thetime of listing. Theintent of this policyis to increasepublic awarenessof theeffectof this listing on proposedandongoingactivitieswithin aspecies’range.For further information,contacttheField Supervisor(see“ADDRESSES’section).During thepublic commentperiodinquiries weremadeasto theeffect listing would haveon theminingindustry,waterprojects.andrecreationalactivities.The Servicebelievesthat,basedon thebestavailableinformation, thefollowing actionswillnot result in aviolation of section9,providedtheseactivities arecarriedoutin accordancewith existing regulationsandpermit requirements:momentarymoving of individual adult toadsout ofdanger(e.g..road, path);release,diversion,or withdrawalof waterin amannerthat does.notdisplacetadpolesor eggsor disrupt breedingof adults:normal lighting arid noisesaroundcampgrounds;andnon-destructiverecreationaluseof breedinghabitatoutsideof thebreedingperiod (JanuarvthroughMay).

Activities that the Servicebelievescouldpotentiallyresult in the takeof

thearroyo toad,include,but arenotlimited to, unauthorizedcollecting orcaptureof the species,exceptasnotedaboveto momentarilymoveanindividual out ofharm’sway;introductionof exoticspeciesintooccupiedhabitat (e.g.,fish, otherspeciesof toads);unauthorizeddestructionlalterationof thespecies’habitat (e.g.,in-streamdredging,rockremoval,channelization,dischargeof fillmaterial,operationof anyvehicleswithin thestreamchannel);violation ofa construction,dischargeorwithdrawalpermit thataffectsoccupiedhabitat;pesticideapplicationsaffectingoccupiedhabitatin violation of labelrestrictions;or otherillegal dischargesor dumping of toxic chemicals,silt, orotherpollutantsinto waterssupportingthe species.

Otherunauthorizedactivitiesnotidentified in theabovetwo paragraphswill be reviewedon acase-by-casebasisto determineif aviolation of section9of theActmay haveoccurred.TheServicedoesnot considertheselists tobe exhaustiveandprovidesthem for theinformation of thepublic.

TheAct and50 CFR 17.22 and17.23alsoprovide for the issuanceof permitsto carryout otherwiseprohibitedactivitiesinvolving endangeredwildlifespeciesundercertaincircumstances.Such permitsareavailablefor scientificpurposes,to enhancethepropagationorsurvivalof thespecies,andforincidentaltakein connectionwithotherwiselawful activities.Requestsforcopiesof the regulationson listedwildlife andinquiriesregardingthemmaybe addressedto the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service,EcologicalServices,EndangeredSpeciesPermits,911 N.E.11th Avenue,Portland,Oregon97232—4181 (503/231—2063;FAX 503/231—6243).

NationalEnvironmentalPolicyActTheFish andWildlife Servicehas

determinedthatan Environmental

Assessmentor EnvironmentalImpactStatement,asdefinedundert~eauthority of theNationalEnvironmentalPolicy Act of 1969,neednotbepreparedin connectionwith regulationsadoptedpursuantto section4(a) of theEndangeredSpeciesAct of 1973, asamended.A noticeoutlining theService’sreasonsfor this determinationwaspublishedin theFederalRegisteron October25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

ReferencesCited

A completelist of all referencescitedhereinis availableuponrequestfromtheVenturaField Office (seeADDRESSESabove).

Author

The primary authorof this final ruleis CathyR. Brown of theVenturaFieldOffice (seeADDRESSESsection).

List of Subjectsin 50 CFR Part17

Endangeredandthreatenedspecies,Exports. Imports, Reportingandrecordkeepingrequirements,andTransportation.

RegulationPromulgationAccordingly, part 17, subchapterB of

chapterI, title 50 of theCodeof FederalRegulationsis amended,as setforthbelow:

PART 17—(AMENDED]

1. The authoritycitation for part 17continuesto readas follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361—1407;16 U.S.C.1531—1544: 16U.S.C.4201—4245;Pub. L. 99—t~25,100 Stat.3500; unlessotherwisenoted.

2. Amend § 17.11(h)by addingthefollowing, in alphabeticalorderunderAMPHIBIANS, to theList of EndangeredandThreatenedWildlife:

§ 17.11 Endangeredandthreatenedwildlife.

(hi *

SpeciesHistoric range

Vertebratepopu-lation whereendan-geredor threatened

Status When listed c ,thb~t peciaa i a ruesCommonname Scientific name

AMPreBIANS

Toad. arroyo south- Bufo microscaphus U S.A. CA). Mexico Entire E 568 NA NAssestern. californicus.

FederalRegister/ Vol. 59, No. 241 / Friday, December16, 1994 I Rules and Regulations 64867

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Natwnal Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration

50 CFR Part 675

(Docket No. 940958—4329; l.D. 081894A]

RIN 0648-AH29

Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Seaand Aleutian Islands Area

AGENCY: NationalMarine FisheriesService(NMFS),NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration (NOAA).Commerce.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: NMFS issuesregulationstodelaytheopeningof the first (roe)directedfishing seasonfor the 1995offshorecomponentpollock fishery intheBeringSeaandAleutianIslandsmanagementarea(BSAI) by delayingtheopeningof thetrawl fishery,theonlygeartypeusedin thefishery, ~omJanuary20 to January26. Thisactionisnecessaryto increasethelikelihood ofharvestingpollock whenroequality isoptimumandthusincreaserevenuesfrom theBSAI pollock processedby theoffshorecomponentduringthe roeseason.Theregulationsalsoprohibitvesselsusedto fish for BSAI orGulf ofAlaska(GOA) groundfishor BSAI kingor Tannercrabprior to January26 fromparticipatingin theoffshorecomponentpollock fisheryuntil February5. This10-dayprohibition on entry into theoffshorecomponentfisherydoesnotapplyto vesselsusedto fish exclusivelyin theWesternAlaskaCommunityDevelopmentQuota(CDOJ programprior to January26 andis necessarytodiscou;ageparticipantsin theoffshorecomponentpollock fisheryfromcontributingto increasedfishing effortin otherfisheriesprior to thestart of theoffshorecomponentroeseason.Theseactionsareintendedto promotethefishery managementobjectivesof theFishery ManagementPlan (FMP) for theGroundfishFisheryof theBering SeaandAleutianIslandsArea.EFFECTIVEDATE: January12, 1995.ADDRESSES:Copiesof theenvironmentalassessment/regulatoryimpactreview/final regulatoryflexibility analysis(EA/RIRJFRFA)maybeobtainedfrom theAlaskaRegion,NationalMarine

FisheriesService,P.O.Box 21668,Juneau,AK 99802,Attn: Lori Gravel.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:SusanJ. Salveson,907—586—7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

BackgroundFishingfor groundfishby vesselsin

theexclusiveeconomiczoneof theBSAI is managedby NMFS accordingtotheFMP for theGroundfishFishery oftheBering SeaandAleutianIslandsArea.TheFMP waspreparedby theNorthPacific FisheryManagementCouncil (Council) undertheMagnusonFisheryConservationandManagementAct andis implementedby regulationsgoverningtheU.S. groundfishfisheriesat 50 CFRparts620, 675,676, and677.

Regulationsat 50 CFR 675.23(e)establishtwo fishing seasonsfor BSALpollock. Thefirst (roe) directedfishingseasonextendsfrom January1 untilApril 15. Thesecond(nonroe)seasonextendsfrom August 15 throughtheendof the fishing year.Since1992,regulationsat§673.23(d)haveprohibitedfishing for groundfishwithtrawl gearuntil January20 of eachfishing year(57 FR 381, January6,1992).Nontrawlfisheriesfor pollock donot exist.

This actiondelaystheopeningdateofthe1995 offshorecomponentdirectedpollockroetrawl fisheryin the BSAIfrom January20 to January26 toincreasethe likelihood of harvestingpollock whenroe quality is optimum.Thelargeharvestingcapacityin theoffshorecomponenthasresultedin afast-pacedfisheryof decreasingduration(in 1994.thedirectedtrawl fisherywasopenedfor a 29-dayperiodfrom January20 until February18)that, in thepast,hasclosedbeforetheperiodof primeroequality, which peaksbetweenthe10th and20th of February.This delayoftheoffshorecomponentpollock roefishery(all gear)will increasethelikelihood thattheoffshorecomponentseasonwill encompassthe time periodof primeroequality.

This actionalsoprohibitsvesselsusedto fish for BSAI orGOA groundflshorBSAI king or Tannercrab prior toJanuary26 from participatingin theoffshorecomponentpollock fisheryuntil February5. This 10-dayprohibition on entry into theoffshorecomponentfisherydoesnot applytovesselsusedto fish exclusivelyin theBSAI poliock CDQprogramprior toJanuary26. This prohibition is intendedto discourageashift in fishing effortinto otherfisheriesby pollock vesselsprior to January26.

A proposedruleto implementthisactionwaspublishedin theFederal

RegisterSeptember26, 1994 (59 FR49051).Commenton the proposedrulewasinvitedthroughOctober26, 1994.Two letterswerereceivedin supportoftheproposedactionandoneletter wasreceivedin opposition.The threelettersaresummarizedin theResponsetoCommentssection,below.

NMFS hasdeterminedthat adelayoftheoffshorecomponentpollock roeseasonis consistentwith theMagnusonAct andhasapprovedit. Thenecessityfor anddescriptionof this actionareexplainedfurther in thepreambleto theproposedrule.This seasondelayiseffectiveonly throughDecember31,1995,whenregulationsauthorizingtheallocationof pollock betweentheinshoreandoffshorecomponentexpire.

Responseto ~ominents

Threeletterswerereceivedwithin thecommentperiod. A summaryof thecommentsandNMFS’ responsefollows:

C’omment1. The proposeddelayoftheroeseasonfor theoffshorecomponentpollock fisherywill haveapositiveeconomiceffectby increasingthechancethat pollock will beharvestedwhenroequality andyieldarebestandthepricefs highest.

Response.NMFS agreesthata delayof theoffshorecomponentpollock roeseasonshouldhavepositiveeconomicbenefitsandhasapprovedtheaction.

Comment2. The proposed10-daydelayof theopeningdateto February.5for nonCDQvesselsthatareusedtoparticipatein otherfisheriesbeforeJanuary26 sufficiently addressesconcernsaboutthepotential forincreasedfishing effort in other fisheriesprior to this date.

Response.Theproposedrule requiresvesselowners/operatorsto choosebetweenparticipatingin theoffshorecomponentpollock fisheryduring theperiodJanuary26 throughFebruary5 orparticipatingin otherfisheriesbetweenJanuary20, thestart of theBSAI trawlseason,andJanuary26. Thosevesselsusedto fish for BSAI or GOA groundfishorBSAI crab prior to January26 areprohibitedfrom enteringtheoffshorepollock roeseasonuntil February5.This prohibition doesnot apply tovesselsusedto participateexclusivelyin theBSAI pollock CDQprogrampriorto January26. NMFS agreesthat thisprohibition addressestheintentof theCouncil to significantly reducetheincentiveto participantsin theoffshorepollock fisheryto enterotherfisheriesprior to January26. This prohibition,therefore,wasapprovedaspartof therule implementingtheproposeddelayof theoffshorepollock roefishery

Comment3. Theproposedactionprecludespollock catchervesselsfrom

Dated:November22, 1994Mollie H.Beattie,Director, U.S.Fish andWildlifeServiceIFR Doc. 94—30994Filed 12—15—94;8:45 am]BILUNG CODE 4310-65-P