[Federal Register: July 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 138)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 42040-42054]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20jy10-26]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R8-ES-2009-0047]
[92210-1111-0000 B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition to List the Amargosa Toad as Threatened or Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list the Amargosa toad (Anaxyrus
nelsoni) as threatened or endangered and to designate critical habitat
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. After review of
all available scientific and commercial information, we find that
listing the Amargosa toad is not warranted at this time. However, we
ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes
available concerning the threats to the Amargosa toad or its habitat at
any time.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on July 20,
2010.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R8-ES-2009-0047. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, 4701 N.
Torrey Pines Dr., Las Vegas, NV. Please submit any new information,
materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding to the above
address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert D. Williams, State Supervisor,
Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office; by mail (see ADDRESSES); by telephone
at 775-861-6300; or by facsimile at 775-861-6301mailto:. Persons who
use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for any petition
to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Species that
contains substantial scientific or commercial information that listing
the species may be warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the
date of receipt of the petition. In this finding, we will determine
that the petitioned action is: (1) Not warranted, (2) warranted, or (3)
warranted, but the immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the
petitioned action is precluded by other pending proposals to determine
whether species are threatened or endangered, and expeditious progress
is being made to add or remove qualified species from the Federal Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Species. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act
requires that we treat a petition for which the requested action is
found to be warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date
of such finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made
within 12 months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the
Federal Register.
Previous Federal Actions
On August 2, 1977, the Service included the Amargosa toad on a list
of amphibians that we were reviewing to determine whether those species
should be proposed for listing as endangered or threatened (42 FR
39121). Subsequently, we assigned the Amargosa toad as a category 1
candidate species under the Act in 1982 (47 FR 58454, December 30,
1982) and 1994 (59 FR 58982, November 15, 1994); and designated it as a
category 2 candidate in 1985 (50 FR 37958, September 18, 1985); 1989
(54 FR 554, January 6, 1989); and 1991 (56 FR 58804, November 21,
1991). A category 1 species was a taxon for which the Service has
substantial information on hand to support the biological
appropriateness of proposing to list as endangered or threatened under
the Act. A category 2 species was a taxon for which the Service has
information indicating that proposing to list the species as endangered
or threatened is possibly appropriate, but that information is not
conclusive data on biological vulnerability or threats that would
support a proposed listing.
On September 21, 1994, the Service received a petition from the
Biodiversity Legal Foundation of Boulder, Colorado, requesting
emergency listing of the Amargosa toad as endangered. At the time we
received the petition, the Amargosa toad was a category 1 candidate
species. On March 23, 1995, we announced our 90-day finding that the
petitioned action may be warranted and initiated a status review of the
species (60 FR 15280). On July 26, 1995, the Service recommended
removal of the Amargosa toad from category 1 candidate status based on
information we obtained during the status review. On February 28, 1996
(61 FR 7596), we removed the Amargosa toad from candidate status. On
March 1, 1996, we announced our 12-month finding that listing the
Amargosa toad as endangered or threatened was not warranted (61 FR
8018).
On February 27, 2008, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity (CBD) and Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility (PEER), hereinafter referred to as ``petitioners,''
requesting that the Amargosa toad be listed as endangered or threatened
and that critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition
clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite
identification information for the petitioners, as required in 50 CFR
424.14(a). In a letter to the petitioners dated May 1, 2008, we
responded that we had reviewed the petition and found that an emergency
listing was not warranted and we anticipated making an initial finding
on the petition during Fiscal Year 2008. On March 11, 2009, we received
a 60-day notice of intent to sue from CBD alleging violations of the
Act because we did not publish our 12-month finding within 12 months of
receiving the petition. On September 10, 2009, we published a 90-day
finding stating the petition contained substantial information to
indicate the petitioned action may be warranted, and we announced the
initiation of a status review of the species (74 FR 46551).
On April 26, 2010, CBD amended its Complaint in Center for
Biological Diversity v. Salazar, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Case
No.: 1:10-cv-230-PLF (D.D.C.), adding an allegation that the Service
failed to issue its 12-month petition finding on the Amargosa toad
within the mandatory statutory timeframe. This notice constitutes the
12-month finding on the February 27, 2008, petition to list the
Amargosa toad as threatened or endangered with critical habitat.
Species Information
In addition to the information provided below, refer to the 90-day
finding (74 FR 46551) for additional information on the Amargosa toad.
[[Page 42041]]
Taxonomy and Species Description
The Amargosa toad is a member of the family Bufonidae, which
includes North American true toads. Stejneger (1893, cited in Lannoo
2005, p. 427) described the Amargosa toad as Bufo boreas nelsoni, a
subspecies of the western toad (Bufo boreas). Savage (1959, pp. 251-
254) was the first to refer to the Amargosa toad as Bufo nelsoni in
accordance with the rules of the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature. Feder (1997, cited in Lannoo 2005, p. 428) diagnosed Bufo
nelsoni by allozymic data and concluded that the Amargosa toad warrants
species status. Mitochondrial DNA analyses by Goebel (1996, cited in
Lannoo 2005, p. 429) are consistent with species status for the
Amargosa toad. In 2002, Bufo nelsoni was listed as a full species in
the Integrated Taxonomic Information System database compiled by the
Smithsonian Institution, with the highest credibility rating by their
Taxonomic Working Group (Lannoo 2005, p. 427). Frost et al. (2006)
moved North American toads from Bufo to Anaxyrus (Tschudi 1845, cited
in Frost et al. 2006, p. 363), which was accepted in 2008 by the
Committee on Standard and Scientific Names (Committee; Crother 2008,
pp. 2-4). The Committee, sanctioned by the Society for the Study of
Amphibians and Reptiles, the American Society of Ichthyologists and
Herpetologists, and The Herpetologists' League, is tasked to develop
standard English names and publish a list of the current scientific
names of North American herpetofauna. This is considered the official
list for those societies.
Adult male Amargosa toads typically have a snout-vent length of 1.6
to 2.7 inches (in.) (42 to 68 millimeters (mm)); for females it is
typically 1.8 to 3.5 in. (46 to 89 mm) (Nevada Department of Wildlife
(NDOW) 2000, p. A-2). The dorsal body of the Amargosa toad has three
paired rows of wart-like skin projections called tubercles. Their backs
have black speckling or asymmetrical spots. Background coloration
ranges from almost black to brownish or pale yellow-brown or olive, and
may vary considerably among individual toads in the same population. A
light mid-dorsal stripe occurs along the backbone. The large, wart-like
parotid glands located behind the eye are tawny to olive. Underneath,
the Amargosa toad is whitish or pale olive, with scattered black spots
that merge above the legs to form the appearance of ``pants.''
Current and Historic Ranges
Amargosa toads are endemic to the Amargosa River drainage in
southwestern Nevada (Goebel et al. 2009, p. 210). Available historic
accounts (Maciolek 1983a, p. 11) do not provide any specific indication
of wider distribution. Toads that occur in downstream reaches of the
Amargosa River corridor (e.g., Ash Meadows area) anecdotally exhibit
some taxonomic similarities; however, they have not been identified as
Amargosa toads. The area occupied by the Amargosa toad is isolated,
with no known or probable connections to members of the western toad
complex (NDOW 2000, p. A-1). The nearest known record for a western
toad is approximately 35 linear miles (mi) (56 kilometers (km)) away at
Furnace Creek in Death Valley National Park, California, where an
introduced population of western toad occurs. The historical and
current range of the Amargosa toad occurs within Oasis Valley, along an
approximately 10-mi (16-km) stretch of the Amargosa River and nearby
spring systems, roughly between the towns of Springdale and Beatty.
Oasis Valley occurs along U.S. Highway 95 between Bullfrog Hills and
the Nevada Test Site.
In 2007, the Amargosa Toad Working Group (ATWG) prepared a map of
all known and potential habitat for the species, including potential
movement corridors, and posted the map on the Internet at: http://
www.fws.gov/nevada/nv_species/amargosa_toad.html. The total amount of
known and potential Amargosa toad habitat delineated by the ATWG is
approximately 8,440 acres (ac) (3,416 hectares (ha)).
Life History and Ecology
Amargosa toad habitat requirements for breeding and population
recruitment include the presence of open, ponded, or flowing water,
with riparian vegetative cover in an early-to-intermediate successional
stage to form a partial canopy for shade with minimal emergent
vegetation at the water's edges. Immature (metamorphs or toadlets) and
adult Amargosa toads are dependent upon the areas described above, as
well as areas they can use for shelter, including burrows, debris
piles, spaces under logs or rocks, and areas of dense vegetation (NDOW
2000, p. A-2). Adult toads also require adjacent vegetated uplands for
nocturnal foraging. Dense vegetation and advanced successional stages
of riparian vegetation appear to limit habitat suitability and
occupancy by all life stages, particularly where open water is not
present (NDOW 2000, p. A-2). Toads can be abundant in irrigated and
disturbed areas.
The breeding season for the Amargosa toad begins in mid-February
and may extend into July, during which time adults congregate at
breeding sites. A female toad may produce over 6,000 eggs in a single
reproduction event (Altig 1987, p. 277; Heinrich 1995, p. 2). Amargosa
toad tadpoles require relatively open water that persists long enough
for the completion of metamorphosis and development into toadlets,
which occur over approximately 30 days. Predation and early desiccation
of wetlands needed for breeding may destroy an entire breeding effort.
Although Amargosa toads typically live 4 to 5 years, individual toads
are known to live up to 17 years based on data from NDOW's population
monitoring program (Hobbs 2010, p. 1.).
Population Status and Trends
In 1998, NDOW initiated a long-term population monitoring program
for the Amargosa toad using mark-recapture methods at 11 sites of the
18 known sites occupied by toads. The 11 sites are grouped into 4
spatial areas described below (see distribution map available at http:/
/www.fws.gov/nevada/nv_species/amargosa_toad.html). The monitoring
program was identified in the Amargosa Toad Conservation Agreement and
Strategy (CAS) as an conservation action (NDOW 2000, p. A-11) and
involves capture and marking (with implanted tags) of all juvenile to
adult age-class Amargosa toads found that are 2 in. (50 mm) or greater
in length. The NDOW maintains a database on Amargosa toad population
monitoring data as prescribed in the CAS (NDOW 2000, pp. A-12 and 13).
As of November 2009, a total of 6,739 Amargosa toads had been captured
and tagged. In 2009, captures increased 77 percent over 2008, with a
total of 768 toads captured and tagged, 519 of which were captured for
the first time. The 2009 population estimate for monitored sites is
1,623, which is 13.6 percent less than the average of 1,826 for the
period 1998 through 2008 (Hobbs 2009, p. 1). Unsuitable weather
conditions during the 2007 and 2008 surveys may have resulted in lower
than average toad activity (Figure 1; Hobbs 2009, p. 2). Habitat
improvements and disturbance of aquatic systems at monitored sites have
resulted in increases in toad captures and reproduction (Hobbs 2009,
pp. 2-4; Saving Toads thru Off-Road Racing, Ranching, and Mining in
Oasis Valley (STORM-OV) 2009b, p. 1).
[[Page 42042]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JY10.020
Simandle (2006, p. 42) determined that Amargosa toads meet the
criteria and expectations of metapopulations. This means that occupied
habitats, unoccupied but suitable habitats, and intervening habitat
that may be occasionally used during infrequent migration events should
all be considered as conservation priorities. Metapopulations can be
expected to have local extirpations in some patches, resulting in the
existence of empty but suitable habitat that subsequently may be
recolonized in the future (Simandle 2006, p. 8). Events such as floods
may simultaneously destroy existing occupied habitat, create new
suitable habitat, and facilitate infrequent movement among different
sites. Habitat conditions and the number of toads that occur at
specific sites and metapopulations change from year to year, thus
requiring site-specific management strategies.
Population Groups
The 11 monitored sites occupied by the Amargosa toad occur in three
groups: Harlan-Keal, Amargosa River, and Spicer/Mullin/Torrance; and
Angel's, a single site outside the three groups. The sites associated
with each group are discussed below.
Harlan-Keal Group
The Harlan-Keal Group consists of four sites: 5 ac (2 ha) of
private land (Harlan-Keal), including an irrigated garden area and 200-
square foot (ft\2\) (18.6-square meter (m\2\)) pond; a spring and
associated pond (Crystal Spring); and two seeps named Trespass and Wild
Burro. Crystal Spring and the two seeps occur on lands administered by
the BLM.
The Harlan-Keal pond was restored in 2003-2004, and has early
successional habitat where toad reproduction occurs and may serve as a
source population. The 2009 population estimate for the Harlan-Keal
Group was 156, which was 22 percent below the 12-year average for this
group of sites (Hobbs 2009, p. 2). Because of its elevation, ambient
air temperatures at this site are always cooler than at other sites.
This will likely affect the number of toads captured during surveys.
The Crystal Spring site consists of a spring, pond, and outflow on
BLM land. In 1995, a wild burro exclosure was constructed around
Crystal Spring to reduce trampling and overuse of the spring. This
caused an increase in emergent vegetation that has reduced the extent
of open water, which in turn resulted in few toads remaining at the
site. Historically, this site was maintained by ranchers and other
private efforts which removed sediment and excess vegetation that
maintained open water in the pond. Planning is under way to
rehabilitate this site in 2010 to benefit Amargosa toads (STORM-OV
2009a, pp. 1-3).
Trespass Seep is a low-flow spring site without any substantial
ponded area that has never supported many toads. During surveys, the
highest number of toads captured at Trespass Seep was 12 in 1998. In
August 2009, improvements were made to Trespass Seep by a private
landowner that resulted in a substantial increase in ponded surface
water and toad habitat. Within a few weeks after improvements to the
seep, Amargosa tadpoles were observed at the site (STORM-OV 2009b, p.
1).
Wild Burro seep consists of a low-flow spring, an excavation with
groundwater exposed, and wet meadow. In 1998, 12 ac (4.9 ha)
surrounding the seep was fenced by BLM to exclude wild burros that
overused the site. Currently this site provides little habitat for the
Amargosa toad, with only a few toads documented at this site each year.
In November 2009, STORM-OV submitted a plan to the BLM to create and
enhance toad habitat at this site (STORM-OV, 2009c, pp. 1-6). STORM-OV
is a local nonprofit organization representing the off-road, ranching,
and mining interests, dedicated to Amargosa toad conservation projects.
Amargosa River Group
The Amargosa River consists of three monitored segments
characterized by riparian vegetation interspersed with flowing, open
water. Amargosa toad population monitoring occurs along a 2-mi (3.2-km)
section of the Amargosa
[[Page 42043]]
River that is mostly perennial, from just north of the Stagecoach
Casino and Hotel to the Narrows, south of Beatty, Nevada (see
distribution map available at http://www.fws.gov/nevada/nv_species/
amargosa_toad.html). Land ownership is a mosaic of private, local, and
Federal (BLM) lands. Most habitat for the Amargosa toad exists along
this monitored section of the river, and most toads are found along the
river corridor where perennial water occurs and bullfrogs (Lithobates
(=Rana) catesbeiana) and crayfish (Procambarus sp.) are few or absent.
In a typical year, tens or hundreds of thousands of Amargosa toad
tadpoles are produced within the Amargosa River. The 2009 population
estimate for this group was 14 percent lower than the 12-year average
(Hobbs 2009, p. 3). This lower population estimate for the Amargosa
River may be the result of low detectability of Amargosa toads due to
dense vegetation, no substantial habitat improvements during the last
few years, and predation from bullfrogs and crayfish.
Spicer/Mullin/Torrance Group
This group consists of three privately held properties which
include the Spicer site (320 ac; 129 ha); Mullin site (80 ac; 32 ha);
and Torrance Ranch (130 ac; 52 ha). The Torrance Ranch was purchased by
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in 1999 to protect the Amargosa toad and
to provide a site for experimental habitat management to benefit the
Amargosa toad. All three sites are contiguous or in close proximity to
each other, which allows movement of Amargosa toads among all three
sites. The 2009 population estimate for this group was 86 percent above
the 12-year average for these sites. All three property owners are
conservation partners with the Service and NDOW, and have accomplished
or cooperated on numerous toad habitat improvement projects.
Angel's Site
This 296-ac (120-ha) site consists of a single location on private
property. A spring-fed, cement lined pond that has an outflow to a
wetland pasture provides breeding and oviposition habitat for the
Amargosa toad. No habitat changes have been observed in at this site
since monitoring efforts began in the mid-1990s. The pond was dry in
2007 and no evidence of reproduction was observed in 2008. The
population estimate for this site declined 33 percent in 2009 compared
to 2008, and 23 percent below the 12-year average for this site (Hobbs
2009, p. 5). Crayfish and bullfrogs occur at this site.
Other Sites
A 2.6 mi (4.2 km) stretch of the Amargosa River north of the
Stagecoach Hotel and Casino, has intermittent and perennial flow in
sections, mostly associated with spring outflow. Land ownership is a
mosaic of private and BLM lands. Cursory surveys conducted in this area
by NDOW biologists have detected Amargosa toads. Several private
properties are known to have suitable Amargosa toad habitat. Surveys
have not been conducted on these properties; however, anecdotal
observations of toads have been reported (Maciolek 1983a, pp. 9-10;
1983b, pp. 4, A1-4). In 1993 and 1994, Heinrich (1995, p. 8) documented
toads at eight sites, including the Manley property (spring and
outflow), Parker Ranch (Ute Spring), and LaFleur Spring site (Roberts
Field). No population size estimates or trends have been made for these
other sites. Amargosa toads at these sites are not included in the
rangewide population estimates.
LaFleur Spring is a historic site for Amargosa toads near the
northern range limit of the species. Altig (1987, p. 277) found up to
74 toads at this site during 5 visits to the site in 1981. Altig
further concluded that the toad population at the LaFleur site is
small, with no recruitment observed in 1980 or 1981. No surveys have
been conducted at this site since the 1980s. The Springdale site
provides approximately 1 ac of (2.5 ha) toad habitat; toads were
reported to be present in July and August 1983 by Maciolek (1983a, p.
8). Habitat improvements have occurred, including the removal of salt
cedar. The Springdale site is not included in the population monitoring
program for Amargosa toads.
Parker Ranch (24 ac; 212 ha) was purchased by TNC in December 2000,
with assistance from the State of Nevada, the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), to protect and restore unique
biological resources, including Amargosa toad habitat. Parker Ranch is
approximately 4 mi (6.4 km) north of Beatty and includes Ute Spring.
Parker Ranch is currently being grazed by 74 cattle by a local rancher
to reduce the amount of emergent wetland vegetation to increase open
water areas (Moore 2010, p. 3). The spring source was fenced off and
outflow stream channels were reconstructed in recent years to prevent
damage to stream banks (Moore 2010, p. 3). The NRCS is monitoring the
vegetation condition to determine when cattle should be moved to other
properties in Oasis Valley. The newly constructed stream channel and
toad pond system has been dry for almost 2 years due to insufficient
water and overgrowth of emergent wetland vegetation near the spring.
Amargosa toads continue to breed in the fenced-off spring and outflow
channel on the 6-ac (2.5-ha) private inholding. No population estimates
are available for this area.
The Indian Springs Complex consists of Upper, Middle, and Lower
Indian Springs. Lower Indian Spring consists of two springs, Lower
Indian and Cave Springs. Upper Indian Spring is the location of a
municipal well that provides water to the town of Beatty. Middle Indian
Spring is mostly dry, with several mature cottonwood trees. Little if
any toad habitat currently occurs at either Upper or Middle Indian
Springs. At Lower Indian Spring, an approximate 10-ac (4-ha) wild
burro/livestock exclosure that surrounds two springs was constructed by
the BLM in 1994, along with a water pipe and trough outside the
exclosure to provide water to burros, livestock, and wildlife.
Currently, this site is nearly dry, with no water exiting the
exclosure. Toads have been captured at Lower Indian Spring as recently
as 1996. No population estimates are available for this area. Attempts
to restore toad habitat at this site in 1998 were unsuccessful, but new
techniques have been developed, and the ATWG proposed habitat
rehabilitation in 2010.
Other private lands have been or could be occupied by Amargosa
toads. Revert Spring (303 ac; 123 ha) is privately owned by the owner
of the Stagecoach Hotel and Casino. Revert Spring is an important water
source for Amargosa toad habitat in the river. Although Maciolek
(1983a, p. 10) documented Amargosa toads at Revert Spring in July and
August 1983, the current status of toads at the Revert Spring site is
unknown. Coffer Ranch (900 ac; 364 ha) occurs at the northernmost edge
of the range of the Amargosa toad and is owned and managed by a cattle
company. Maciolek (1983b, p. A-1) reported that Amargosa toads were
present at the Coffer Ranch, and suitable Amargosa toad habitat was
present. However, no population estimates are available for these or
other privately owned lands where Amargosa toads may occur.
Amargosa Toad Working Group (ATWG) and Amargosa Toad Conservation
Agreement and Strategy (CAS)
In 1996, the ATWG was organized to provide recommendations for
[[Page 42044]]
management and conservation of the Amargosa toad. The ATWG consists of
representatives of the Service, NDOW, TNC, Nevada Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
Nye County, Beatty Town Board, Beatty Habitat Committee, The Amargosa
Conservancy, private landowners in the Beatty community, the University
of Nevada at Reno, and others. The ATWG meets semiannually to present
and exchange information on the toad and its habitat, including the
status of habitat conditions and ongoing habitat projects, potential
threats to the toad, and population monitoring data, and to identify
new conservation tasks.
In 2000, the ATWG completed the Amargosa Toad CAS (NDOW 2000, pp.
1-12), which provides management and conservation guidance for the
Amargosa toad. The CAS informs management of the conservation needs of
the toad, prioritizes tasks, and provides an implementation schedule.
The ATWG is currently updating the CAS to include accomplishments and
updated conservation needs for the toad.
The CAS was developed to expedite toad conservation over a period
of 10 years by providing guidance and a framework for implementation of
cooperative long-term conservation actions to benefit the toad and co-
occurring species. Signatories to the CAS include NDOW, Nye County
Department of Natural Resources, the Service, BLM, TNC, the Nevada
Natural Heritage Program, and the University of Nevada at Reno. The
signatories provide representatives to the ATWG. The signatories and
ATWG are committed to implementing specific conservation actions
(tasks) which identify, reduce, or eliminate threats to the species,
and maintain and enhance a properly functioning ecosystem for the
Amargosa toad and other indigenous species of Oasis Valley. The ATWG
meets semiannually to plan Amargosa toad conservation actions. Most
conservation actions in the CAS are implemented by local private land
owners, and land and resource managers.
Many of the conservation actions implemented by the ATWG and its
various partners are a direct result of the commitments made in the CAS
for the Amargosa toad (NDOW 2000, pp. 1-12). The goals of the CAS are
to manage threats, maintain habitats, monitor populations, and test and
evaluate habitat manipulations. Completed conservation actions
identified in the CAS have addressed threats identified in Factors A,
B, C, and E (see below). We consider the CAS successful if considerable
progress is made towards achieving these goals. CAS accomplishments
that have contributed towards success include 12 years of population
monitoring and maintaining population data in a database; salt cedar
removal; habitat rehabilitation and enhancement; research; public
education and outreach; and habitat acquisition as discussed in Factor
A. Other CAS accomplishments include control of predators through
habitat manipulation and work with the local community to achieve
conservation such as an open space plan. The CAS signatories and the
ATWG, in cooperation with local landowners, have planned and initiated
multiple projects to protect, restore, and enhance toad habitat, and
create new habitat. Overall success is measured by population
monitoring data that show that rangewide, Amargosa toad populations are
relatively stable and respond promptly and positively to habitat
improvements. Previous habitat improvements on the Amargosa River,
Harlan-Keal, Mullin, and Spicer sites have all resulted in substantial
population increases of toads. In 2005, vegetation was removed by NDOT
at the U.S. 95 Highway bridge over the Amargosa River in Beatty. This
resulted in a positive response by toads as shown by a large
reproductive event and a 2006 population estimate of 1,854 for the
river which was the highest on record (ATWG 2005, p. 2; Wixson 2006, p.
3). Again in 2005, vegetation was cleared from the pond at the Harlan-
Keal site with funding from the Service and NDOW which resulted in an
estimated 90 percent increase in the population in 2006 over the 2005
estimate (Wixson 2006, p. 2).
The ATWG is in the process of updating the CAS and anticipates a
revised CAS by the end of 2010. The revised CAS will acknowledge
accomplishments and identify the conservation needs of the toad for the
next 10 years. The revised CAS will operate in a similar manner as the
existing one. The CAS has proven, based on its 10 year track record, to
be an effective tool in furthering the long-term conservation of the
species.
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to the
Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under
section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be
endangered or threatened based on any of the following five factors:
(1) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3)
disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. In making this finding, information pertaining to
the Amargosa toad in relation to the five factors provided in section
4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below.
In making our 12-month finding on a petition to list the Amargosa
toad, we considered and evaluated the best available scientific and
commercial information. The analysis of potential threats to the
Amargosa toad discussed below includes those identified in the petition
and those that we considered to be substantial in our 90-day finding
(74 FR 46551).
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Private Land Development
The petition identified several potential residential or commercial
developments on private land that could adversely affect the Amargosa
toad or its habitat. However, based on information provided by TNC
during our review (Moore 2010, pp. 1-3), none of the proposed
developments appear to be viable. Real estate and development markets
in nearby Pahrump and Las Vegas influence markets in the Beatty area,
and each of these three areas have experienced a downturn in both the
general economy and the housing market. Plans for a shooting range
across from Torrance Ranch have been abandoned and the property was
recently sold to an individual who plans to build a home on the 40-ac
(16-ha) site (Moore 2010, p. 3). A geothermal project at a hot spring
on private lands identified by CBD as a threat (2009, p. 2) has been
abandoned (Moore 2010, pp. 1-3). Although development may occur within
the range of the Amargosa toad over the near term, it is difficult to
predict the scope of that development based on the available
information. Furthermore, humans and Amargosa toads have coexisted in
the Beatty area since the early 1900s. Amargosa toads at the Harlan-
Keal site and other sites where residential or commercial development
and toads co-occur demonstrate that toad and human interface can be
compatible. Toads occur in most disturbed and developed areas with
surface water and may be locally abundant. During our review, we
[[Page 42045]]
found no indication that the economic growth of Beatty will change
substantially in the foreseeable future. Due to the absence of
potential developments identified in the petition and the ability of
toads to coexist with humans in developed and disturbed areas, we
conclude habitat loss as a result of development on private land is not
a substantial threat to the Amargosa toad now or in the foreseeable
future.
Groundwater Development and Extraction
The petitioners provided information that claimed existing and
future water uses and developments are important threats that reduce
surface water available for Amargosa toads in Oasis Valley and that
result in habitat loss. The majority of water right allocations within
the basin are spring diversions for irrigation and livestock watering.
Priority dates for groundwater rights, including those of Beatty Water
and Sanitation District (BWSD), range from the 1920s to 1996, with the
majority dating to the late 1980s or earlier. The priority dates are
the dates the application are submitted and determine the seniority of
the water right relative to other water rights in the affected basin.
Spring diversions are located primarily along or near the Amargosa
River channel. Groundwater rights are limited to approximately one
sixth of water right allocations in the valley (by volume), 85 percent
of which are held by the BWSD as a source of supply for homes and
businesses in the town of Beatty. The BWSD holds water rights for three
wells in the town of Beatty and two wells several miles northwest of
town (including one at Indian Springs), in addition to a groundwater
right at the Barrick Mine in Amargosa Valley (Nevada Division of Water
Resources, http://water.nv.gov/). Other groundwater rights in Oasis
Valley (a total of 8) are for irrigation, recreation, livestock
watering, and minor commercial and mining activities, most in the
amount of 20 acre-feet per year (afy) or less.
Currently, TNC is negotiating purchase of the water rights (500
afy) at Revert Spring with the owner of the Stagecoach Hotel and Casino
to establish long-term protection measures for the water flowing from
the spring source into the Amargosa River. Acquisition of this
important water source can reduce the threat of its use for commercial
purposes and enable TNC to meet its commitment in the CAS to work with
private landowners to pursue conservation actions such as acquisitions
and easements (NDOW 2000, p. A-20). However, we recognize that this
transaction has yet to be completed, and cannot be certain that these
rights will be secured.
Groundwater level records for Oasis Valley, which are both recent
and long enough to assess trends (e.g., over the last 10 years or
more), are limited to monthly and bimonthly measurements collected by
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for the U.S. Department of Energy
(USDOE) as part of the USDOE Environmental Restoration Program (USGS/
U.S. DOE Cooperative Studies in Nevada, http://nevada.usgs.gov/doe_nv/
). Specifically, groundwater level measurements are available for seven
wells or nested wells along or near the Amargosa River channel in Oasis
Valley and a number of additional wells to the north and east within
the valley and up gradient basins for the period 1998 to late 2009. The
wells range in depth from 200 ft (61 m) or less in consolidated
sedimentary deposits to thousands of feet in the volcanic rock aquifer.
Trends in groundwater levels along the Amargosa River channel from 1998
to 2009 are mixed, some increasing moderately, some decreasing
moderately, and some relatively constant on an annual basis. Water
levels in two of the seven monitoring wells located along or near the
Amargosa River channel (well ER-OV-03 and the Beatty Wash Terrace Well)
decreased 1.3 to 1.5 ft (0.4 to 0.5 m) from 2000 to late 2009. However,
these declines occurred in no clear relation to permitted or
certificated groundwater rights (pumping at permitted supply wells).
Rather, they may be indicative of local evapotranspiration responses.
Elsewhere along the river channel, groundwater levels were unchanged,
or increased a few tenths of a foot from 2000 to late 2009 (ER-OV04a,
Springdale Upper Well, ER-OV-02, ER-OV-05, and ER-OV-06a).
In areas to the north and east which supply groundwater to the
vicinity of the Amargosa River channel and Amargosa toad habitat in
Oasis Valley, specifically northeastern Oasis Valley and the area of
Pahute Mesa (the latter located in the Gold Flat and Forty mile Canyon-
Buckboard Mesa basins) (Laczniak et al. 1996, pp. 18-19; Reiner et al.
2002, pp. 8-9; Fenelon et al. 2010, pp. 22-23 and Plate 5), water
levels in USDOE Environment Restoration Program wells increased a few
tenths of a foot to approximately 1.5 ft over this same period.
No groundwater level data are available for the vicinity of the
BWSD supply wells. As such, the effects of BWSD pumping on surface
water resources cannot be evaluated at this time except as they may be
judged from the results of biannual Amargosa toad surveys. This
suggests that any reduction in population is limited to the area of
Indian Springs. BWSD pumping at the Indian Springs well has decreased
since the late 1990s, but Indian Springs remains one of three primary
supply wells in Oasis Valley for the town of Beatty. With respect to
the potential for additional groundwater pumping in Oasis Valley,
actual groundwater withdrawals by the BWSD have been limited to
approximately 10 to 15 percent of their existing rights over most of
the last decade (Eng 2010, p. 1). Whereas substantially more
groundwater could be pumped for municipal purposes under existing BWSD
rights, their pumping within Oasis Valley has been fairly constant.
Overall demand has decreased approximately 25 percent (coupled with a
decrease in pumping at the Barrick Mine) over this same period of time
based on pumping inventories provided by the Nevada State Engineer
(NSE). Additionally, BWSD demand varies seasonally, with demand at a
minimum from December through March, the latter of which coincides with
the beginning of the Amargosa toad breeding season. Moreover, the NSE
has ruled that the degree of hydraulic connection between groundwater
and surface water in Oasis Valley is such that they constitute a single
source (NSE Ruling 4669, 1998) and that no unappropriated water existed
in the basin as of 1995 (NSE Ruling 4174, 1995), making additional
allocations, groundwater or surface water, unlikely.
Excessive groundwater withdrawals have the potential to affect
springs and rivers that depend on groundwater for recharge or base
flows. Field reconnaissance and Nevada Division of Water Resources well
drilling records identified approximately 15 springs and 20
nonmunicipal wells that supply water to individual homes and ranches in
Oasis Valley (Reiner et al. 2002, p. 33). A reasonable estimate of
groundwater withdrawal consumed from each of these sources is 1 afy
(Reiner et al. 2002, p. 33). Based on this consumption rate and the
number of supply sources, a reasonable estimate of the nonmunicipal use
of groundwater from Oasis Valley is 35 afy. Estimates of the total
annual groundwater withdrawal from Oasis Valley, computed by combining
municipal and non-municipal estimates, declined from 440 afy in 1996,
when Beatty's human population was 2,068, which was the highest during
the period 1991-2007 (Stantec 2009, p. 22), to 210 afy in 1999, when
Beatty's population declined to 1,703.
[[Page 42046]]
The population estimates for Beatty in 2007 indicate a resident
base of approximately 1,068 persons (Stantec Consulting 2009, p. 22).
This estimate reflects a declining population trend during the period
1991-2007. While the future population size of Beatty is unknown, we
found no indication that the human population will increase beyond
historic levels and we do not anticipate an increase in use of
groundwater to support new residential development. We conclude that
future human population effects on the Amargosa toad are driven by the
economic status and growth of the Beatty. Since there is no indication
that growth will increase, we conclude that demand for groundwater is
not likely to rise.
The petitioners submitted comments that identified a proposed solar
energy project in Amargosa Valley requiring 3,000 afy of groundwater
for wet-cooling and operation (CBD 2009, pp. 1-2). This energy project
remains proposed but has been modified to use dry-cooling that would
reduce groundwater use to 400 afy. The 400 afy of groundwater proposed
for the project is currently used for agriculture and, therefore this
level of groundwater use is not anticipated to significantly affect
existing groundwater levels in the up gradient areas where Amargosa
toads occur (Peterson 2010, p. 1).
The petitioners also identified 11 Department of Energy (DOE)
applications for water rights in Oasis Valley as a potential threat to
the toad through groundwater withdrawal effects (CBD 2009, p. 2). The
DOE applications were submitted for construction of a railroad to a
proposed nuclear waste repository and were protested by the petitioners
and others. The Service recommended that DOE transport water needed for
this project from sources other than those associated with the Amargosa
toad, Ash Meadows, and Devils Hole. In February 2010, DOE withdrew
their applications for water rights in the Oasis Valley.
Based on the available information on volume, timing, and location
of groundwater withdrawals, historic use of groundwater, and water-
level measurements, we conclude that water use and development in Oasis
Valley is not a substantial threat to the Amargosa toad at this time or
in the foreseeable future. No declines in groundwater or toad numbers
have been observed at monitored sites as a result of pumping. The
current and foreseeable demand for groundwater in Oasis Valley remains
consistent with historical uses.
Inadequate Habitat Enhancement Planning and Implementation
The petitioners state that BLM failed to initiate planning for
habitat enhancement projects including Wild Burro Seep and Upper Cave
Spring in the Lower Indian Spring system (CBD 2009, p. 20). In fall
2009, STORM-OV, in cooperation with BLM and the ATWG, modified Wild
Burro Seep and greatly increased the extent of surface water and toad
habitat at the site. STORM-OV and BLM developed plans to restore Lower
Indian Springs and Crystal Spring in 2010 and 2011 (STORM-OV 2009a, pp.
1-3; Spicer 2009, pp. 1-5). Habitat enhancement is a conservation
action in the CAS (NDOW 2000, p. A-11).
The Stagecoach Hotel and Casino owner is a conservation partner
with TNC and the Service. In 2001, the Service's Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Program funded habitat improvements in the vicinity of the
Stagecoach to benefit the Amargosa toad. The owner and TNC continue to
improve habitat along the river behind the property, which is part of a
parcel identified as a fee-title donation to TNC for conservation
purposes pursuant to prescribed conservation actions in the CAS. In
addition, TNC and the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) are
working to remove debris from the riverbank, which should improve
habitat for the Amargosa toad.
In 2007, 30 ac (12 ha) of nonnative trees were removed from the
Mullin site and replaced with native willows and cottonwoods as
prescribed in the CAS (NDOW 2000, p. A-11). During the 2009 survey, 137
Amargosa toads larger than 2 in (50 mm) were captured on the Mullin
site. This was the highest number of captures for this site (Hobbs
2009, p. 4).
Three springs on the Spicer site have been enhanced for the
Amargosa toad by the landowner. Surface water is distributed on the
Spicer site through a system of pipes which provides most of the water
for toad habitat. Manipulation of the distribution pipes provides a
habitat management tool to allow ponds to be created, or dried to
remove crayfish and bullfrogs as prescribed in the CAS (NDOW 2000, pp.
A-11 and A-12). Amargosa toads responded positively to the habitat
improvements in 2009, increasing by 300 percent of captured and marked
toads since 2008 (Hobbs 2009, p. 4).
The Amargosa River Planning Team was formed in October 2009 as a
result of a recommendation by the ATWG that was included in the CAS
(NDOW 2000, p. A-14). The team consists of ATWG representatives
including the Service, NDOW, Nye County, BLM, and TNC, but also local
landowners. The purpose of the team is to monitor habitat conditions of
the river, develop management recommendations, and coordinate habitat
improvement with landowners and managers on behalf of the signatories
of the CAS and the ATWG.
The overall habitat suitability of individual sites varies from
year to year depending on conditions and may become unsuitable for
toads. Because the Amargosa toad occurs as metapopulations, toads will
move back into these sites from neighboring sites once the habitat
becomes more suitable. In the absence of natural disturbance such as
flood events and wildfires, toad habitat will likely require periodic
manipulation or other forms of disturbance such as burro or cattle use
to sustain toad populations. Based on the metapopulation structure of
the toad, successful habitat projects and disturbance by burros and
cattle, we anticipate that habitat planning and implementation have
resulted in positive responses by toads. We expect the Amargosa River
Planning Team, TNC, BLM, Service, and private landowners to continue
their efforts to maintain and improve toad habitat into the foreseeable
future in accordance with the CAS. We expect members of the ATWG and
private landowners to continue their current efforts to maintain and
improve toad habitat, as they have in the past, in accordance with the
CAS into the future. As a result, we have determined that habitat
planning and implementation is not a threat to the Amargosa toad now,
nor is it expected to be so in the foreseeable future.
Vegetation Overgrowth
Overgrowth of vegetation in aquatic habitats is an ongoing
management objective for the Amargosa toad as specified in the CAS
(NDOW 2000, pp. A-11 and A-16). Habitat for Amargosa toads at several
spring sites including Torrance Ranch, Lower Indian Spring, and Crystal
Spring, has degraded as a result of overgrowth of emergent vegetation
and loss of open water. Overgrowth of vegetation occurs mostly at small
spring sites and in the absence of disturbance or management. Although
Lower Indian Spring and Crystal Spring are small spring sites and
represent only a small fraction of the species' individuals and
distribution, the ATWG considers vegetation management a priority for
these sites. Mechanical removal, controlled burns, and grazing are
proven tools to manage vegetation in spring systems at Harlan-Keal
(ATWG 2004, p. 3) and Torrance Ranch (ATWG 2007, attachment 1, p. 1).
[[Page 42047]]
Spring-supplied ponds typically require disturbance or periodic removal
of vegetation to maintain suitable habitat conditions (e.g., open
water) for the Amargosa toad. Local ranchers historically managed
Crystal Spring and other springs to maintain open water (Spicer 2010,
p. 1). Limited use by livestock or feral burros provides disturbance
that benefits toads; however, excessive use by livestock or feral
burros result in degradation of habitat. Current and future habitat
projects at spring sites are designed to minimize vegetation growth,
compensate for potential reductions in spring flow due to overgrowth of
vegetation, and maintain proper habitat conditions for the toad.
Currently, excess vegetation conditions occur at Crystal and Lower
Indian Springs, but habitat modification proposed for 2010 and 2011 at
these sites (STORM-OV 2009a, pp. 1-3; Spicer 2009, pp. 1-5) is
anticipated to substantially improve habitat conditions for the toad.
As stated previously, we expect the efforts to maintain and improve
toad habitat which includes control of vegetation to continue in
accordance with the CAS. Therefore vegetation overgrowth is not a
significant threat to the Amargosa toad now, nor is it expected to be
so into the foreseeable future.
Grazing and Trampling
The petitioners state that use of springs by feral burros and
cattle may result in degraded habitat and reduced numbers of Amargosa
toads (CBD and PEER 2008, pp. 17-18, 21 and 23-25). The current level
of burro occurrence in Amargosa toad habitat varies by site and ranges
from zero to moderate with most use along the Amargosa River. Cattle
use of Amargosa toad habitat is limited to the northern sites where a
cattle operation is located (Coffer Ranch) and sites targeted for
vegetation reduction. While burros and livestock (ungulates) may
trample Amargosa toad eggs and larvae, light to moderate disturbance is
important to the Amargosa toad which is a disturbance-dependant species
(ATWG 2005, p. 2). In the absence of disturbance, vegetation grows
uncontrolled and reduces open areas necessary for the toads. Intensive
and uncontrolled use of Amargosa toad habitat by ungulates may threaten
the species by degrading habitat and killing individual toads; however,
light to moderate use is known to be beneficial to the Amargosa toad.
Complete removal of ungulates could lead to overgrowth of vegetation,
and may pose a more serious threat to the Amargosa toad than moderate
ungulate use. Fencing installed at the Crystal and Indian spring sites
to exclude feral burros most likely has contributed to declines in toad
populations at these sites by reducing habitat disturbance. BLM manages
the burro population and conducts burro ``gathers'' when the burro
numbers exceed the appropriate management level for the area in
accordance with the CAS (NDOW 2000, p. A-16). Most feral burro use of
monitored sites occurs along the river. We conclude that light to
moderate ungulate use is not a substantial threat to the toad and
likely provides some benefit to the Amargosa toad. Although the number
of feral burros fluctuates, we do not anticipate the level of burro use
in Amargosa toad habitat to increase so that it would affect toad
populations in the foreseeable future.
Recreation and Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Activity
OHV activity affects Amargosa toads most during the breeding season
and during the especially vulnerable egg and tadpole stages of
development. OHV effects are only known to be a concern along the
Amargosa River near the Stagecoach Hotel and Casino. TNC biologists
have observed small isolated pools containing egg strands or tadpoles
in various stages of development that were affected by OHVs in the
riverbed within the Town of Beatty. The local nonprofit group, STORM-
OV, is attempting to educate the OHV users about the need to avoid
ponded water during the toad breeding season, a conservation action
prescribed in the CAS (NDOW 2000, p. A-18). In addition, TNC plans to
use its river properties behind the Stagecoach Hotel and Casino and
northward in educational opportunities. These two groups propose to
conduct town meetings to inform Beatty residents of the need to avoid
damaging toad breeding pools during the defined breeding season. While
localized OHV use may cause a relatively small number of eggs or
tadpoles to be removed from the affected population, this level of loss
is not substantial in the context of the potentially tens or hundreds
of thousands of Amargosa toad eggs and tadpoles produced in a typical
year.
No landowners or managers have identified, nor are we aware of any
spring sites that are substantially affected by OHV activity. The
petitioners identified an OHV race that passes near Crystal Spring as a
potential threat to the toad. In 2008, BLM chose an alternate route
away from toad habitat for OHV events near Crystal Spring and continues
to consider the toad during OHV permitting actions. Due to the absence
of substantial effects resulting from recreation or OHV use in toad
habitat and the location of many of the spring sites on private land
that have no OHV use, we do not expect effects from recreation and OHV
use to increase or become a threat to the toad in the foreseeable
future.
Invasive Plant Species
The petitioners assert that introduced invasive trees have become
established along stretches of the Amargosa River and springs, which
may reduce prey and microhabitat available for the Amargosa toad (CBD
and PEER 2008, pp. 24 and 26).
Salt cedar is an exotic, invasive species that grows in shrub form
to medium tree size and is native to Eurasia. Removal of salt cedar is
identified as a conservation action in the CAS (NDOW 2000, p. A-11).
Native aquatic and wetland herpetofauna may be negatively impacted in
areas where salt cedar draws down surface water (Shafroth et al. 2005,
pp. 237-238). Water-use studies indicate that increases in water yield
following salt cedar control are likely to occur only when a salt cedar
stand containing high leaf area is replaced by vegetation with a lower
leaf area (Shafroth et al. 2005, pp. 237-238). The native vegetation in
Oasis Valley requires more water than is provided by local rainfall. As
a result of high evapotranspiration rates during the summer, these
plants must rely on local groundwater for sustenance (Reiner et al.
2002, p. 42). Anderson et al. (2004, cited in Shafroth et al. 2005, pp.
237-238) present data from the lower Colorado River suggesting that
abundances of several of the most common insect families in riparian
areas occur in comparable or greater abundance on salt cedar than on
most native vegetation. Efforts to remove salt cedar and other
nonnative, invasive plants from the Amargosa River watershed have
occurred since 2003. Replacing salt cedar with native vegetation may
result in lower evapotranspiration rates. Eleven grants provided
$118,500 for salt cedar removal from 11 private properties and BLM,
NDOT, and BWSD-managed land. Salt cedar has been removed from
approximately 1,895 ac (767 ha) of Amargosa toad habitat, and salt
cedar removal efforts will likely continue. Amargosa toad population
monitoring data may be used to assess and measure the effect of salt
cedar removal on the toad. We do not believe salt cedar is a
significant threat to the Amargosa toad now or in the foreseeable
future because salt cedar has been removed from toad habitat and those
efforts continue in accordance with the CAS.
[[Page 42048]]
Failure of the CAS to Protect Toads and Habitat
The petitioners claim that the CAS failed to protect Amargosa toads
and increase toad populations. The CAS is a voluntary, non-regulatory
agreement. The CAS was developed to expedite Amargosa toad conservation
over a period of 10 years by providing guidance and a framework for
implementation of cooperative long-term conservation actions to benefit
the toad and co-occurring species. Signatories to the CAS include NDOW,
Nye County Department of Natural Resources, the Service, BLM, TNC, the
Nevada Natural Heritage Program, and the University of Nevada at Reno.
The signatories provide representatives to the ATWG. The signatories
and ATWG are committed to implementing specific conservation actions
(tasks) which identify, reduce, or eliminate threats to the species,
and maintain and enhance a properly functioning ecosystem for the
Amargosa toad and other indigenous species of Oasis Valley. The ATWG
meets semi-annually to assess the conservation needs of the toad and
plan Amargosa toad conservation actions. Most conservation actions in
the CAS are implemented by local private land owners, and land and
resource managers.
Many of the conservation actions implemented by the ATWG and its
various partners are a direct result of the commitments made in the CAS
for the Amargosa toad (NDOW 2000, pp. 1-12). The goals of the CAS are
to manage threats, maintain habitats, monitor populations, and test and
evaluate habitat manipulations. Completed conservation actions in the
CAS have addressed threats identified in Factors A, C, and E. We
consider the CAS successful as considerable progress has been made
towards achieving these goals. The CAS accomplishments that have
contributed towards success include 12 years of population monitoring
and maintaining population data in a database; burro management through
monitoring and gathers; salt cedar removal; habitat rehabilitation and
enhancement; research; public education and outreach; and habitat
acquisition as discussed above in this factor. Other CAS
accomplishments include control of predators through habitat
manipulation and work with the local community to achieve conservation
such as an open space plan. The CAS signatories and the ATWG in
cooperation with local landowners have planned and initiated multiple
projects to protect, restore, and enhance toad habitat, and create new
habitat. Overall success is measured by population monitoring data that
show that rangewide, Amargosa toad populations are relatively stable
and respond promptly and positively to habitat improvements. Previous
habitat improvements on the Amargosa River, Harlan-Keal, Mullin, and
Spicer sites have all resulted in substantial population increases of
toads. In 2005, vegetation was removed by NDOT at the U.S. 95 Highway
bridge over the Amargosa River in Beatty. This resulted in a positive
response by Amargosa toads as shown by a large reproductive event and a
2006 population estimate of 1,854 for the river which was the highest
on record (ATWG 2005, p. 2; Wixson 2006, p. 3). In 2005, vegetation was
cleared from the pond at the Harlan-Keal site with funding from the
Service and NDOW which resulted in an estimated 90 percent increase in
the population in 2006 over the 2005 estimate (Wixson 2006, p. 2).
The ATWG is in the process of updating the CAS and the group
anticipates a revised CAS by the end of 2010. The revised CAS will
acknowledge accomplishments and identify the conservation needs of the
Amargosa toad for the next 10 years. The existing CAS and revision will
function similarly. Although the CAS is a voluntary, non-regulatory
agreement, we conclude that the CAS efforts have been very successful
in establishing a coalition of partners, including State and Federal
agencies, local government, private landowners, and conservation
organizations committed to reduce or eliminate the threats to the
species and assure long-term conservation for the Amargosa toad. In the
absence of the CAS, conservation progress would proceed at a reduced
rate but would not result in the species becoming threatened.
Therefore, based on implementation of various conservation actions
resulting from the CAS as discussed in the factor above, we find that
the existence and implementation of the CAS do not pose a threat to the
species.
Summary of Factor A
Development on private lands and use of groundwater are not
significant threats to the Amargosa toad. Most previously proposed
developments have been abandoned. With potential development stalled,
growth activity within Beatty is not expected to change substantially
in the foreseeable future. Groundwater use in the Beatty area has
decreased or remained constant, and groundwater levels have fluctuated
but these fluctuations do not appear to affect Amargosa toad numbers or
distribution. Habitat has been improved at several sites and
improvements at other sites are planned for 2010 and 2011. Although
some sites are affected by overgrowth of vegetation, past and ongoing
conservation and management actions have improved toad habitat and
contributed to stable Amargosa toad populations, as reflected in the 11
years of population monitoring. In one particular instance, a habitat
manipulation project was developed and implemented, and was very
successful in transforming a small seep into a new breeding site for
toads (STORM-OV 2009a, p. 1). Amargosa toad population estimates are an
indication of habitat quality at a given site, and in those areas where
habitat improvements have been conducted, Amargosa toad populations
have increased substantially. Grazing by cattle and feral burros may be
locally excessive, but moderate use provides needed disturbance to the
aquatic systems that improves Amargosa toad habitat. Some local areas
are impacted by OHV use but not to the extent that population declines
can be identified. There has been no apparent reduction in the current
range of the Amargosa toad compared to the historical range. As a
result of conservation efforts accomplished by TNC through habitat
acquisition and improvements, and by various groups through other
habitat improvement projects at Mullins, Harlan-Keal, Spicer, and
Torrance, along the River, and at Parker Ranch and Trespass Seep, there
has been an increase in habitat quality or quantity for the Amargosa
toad at these sites. Additionally, private landowners have recently
become and remain involved in conservation efforts. Salt cedar has been
substantially removed from private and BLM land. Completed actions
prescribed in the CAS to conserve the Amargosa toad have been shown to
be successful in meeting the objectives in the CAS and reducing or
eliminating the threats to the Amargosa toad under Factor A. We
conclude that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the habitat or range of the Amargosa toad is not a
significant threat to this species now or in the foreseeable future,
due to the limited growth projected for Beatty, current and anticipated
groundwater use and levels; completed and proposed habitat improvements
including removal of salt cedar; continuing management of the Amargosa
River and adjacent habitat under the direction of the Amargosa River
Planning Team, a subcommittee of the ATWG; and continued implementation
of conservation
[[Page 42049]]
measures in accordance with the revised CAS.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The petitioners provided no information regarding threats under
this factor, nor do we have information on the potential threat of
overcollection or overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes. There is no information to
indicate this factor will become a threat to the species in the
foreseeable future. We find overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes does not threaten the
Amargosa toad. Based on a review of the best available scientific and
commercial data, we find no indication that overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is a
threat to the Amargosa toad now or in the foreseeable future.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
Disease
Chytridiomycosis is an infectious disease of amphibians caused by
the chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Although the fungus
has been detected in bullfrogs in the Oasis Valley, it has not been
detected in Amargosa toad populations. Chytrid fungus has been
identified in western toad (Anaxyrus boreas) populations in Colorado
where western toad occurrence is restricted to high elevations (7,200
to 11,150 ft [2,200 to 3,400 m]; Muth et al. 2003, p. 358). The Service
and NDOW have no evidence that chytrid or other diseases are affecting
or will affect the Amargosa toad population. No sign of chytrid fungus
or other disease has been observed in the hundreds of Amargosa toads
captured and inspected rangewide every year since 1995. Further, no ill
or dying toads have been reported by landowners or agency biologists.
Population monitoring data do not indicate a decline in Amargosa toad
numbers. Therefore, we find disease is not a threat to the Amargosa
toad now or in the foreseeable future.
Predation
Predation of all life stages of the Amargosa toad by nonnative
crayfish and bullfrogs is a threat to the Amargosa toad at the
metapopulation level. However, metapopulations of a species allow for
the coexistence of predators and prey, or coexistence of competitors.
While local extinctions may occur, the species may persist regionally
if the metapopulation structure ensures that predator and prey are not
present in all occupied patches all of the time (Simandle 2006, p. 9).
Currently, the most promising management tool for nonnative
predators involves manipulating and enhancing habitat for Amargosa
toads while making habitat less suitable for bullfrogs and crayfish, as
prescribed in the CAS (NDOW 2000, p. A-12). This is accomplished by
drawing down ponded areas that contain nonnative predators and allowing
them to be dry for a period of time long enough to kill the nonnative
predators and cause toads to move to nearby sites. Recently completed
and proposed habitat projects have incorporated the capability of
adding or removing water to allow sites to dry to remove or reduce
numbers of bullfrogs and crayfish, and are designed to provide an
advantage to Amargosa toads including substrate selection and water
depth. One of the goals of the CAS is to manage threats to the Amargosa
toad. We consider the CAS successful as considerable progress has been
made towards achieving this goal and addressing threats to the Amargosa
toad under Factor C.
The life history of the toads further reduces the threat of
nonnative predators. Under average conditions, toads produce tens or
hundreds of thousands of eggs, larvae, and toadlets each year, most of
which will not survive to adults with or without predatory pressure.
Although bullfrogs are known to occur at 10 of 18 sites occupied by
Amargosa toads, the monitoring data do not indicate a declining toad
population trend. We have documented Amargosa toads in the stomach
contents of bullfrogs (ATWG 2003, p. 2). While there is no coordinated
control effort, bullfrogs are removed from the Amargosa River and other
sites occupied by Amargosa toads during population surveys. All toad
habitat improvement projects consider the needs of the toad and select
against bullfrogs. Bullfrogs generally require deeper, impounded
perennial waters, which are more limited than shallow stream and spring
outflow habitat in Oasis Valley. Observation and removal of bullfrogs
from stream and spring outflows can be very effective in controlling
bullfrog numbers.
Since their introduction in the mid-1980s, nonnative crayfish have
become established along most of the Amargosa River and at seven spring
sites occupied by the Amargosa toad. We have no Amargosa toad
population data prior to the introduction of crayfish, bullfrogs, or
other nonnative Amargosa toad predators into Oasis Valley; therefore,
we cannot assess the potential impact of predators on the Amargosa toad
population. However, we do have Amargosa toad survey data collected
since 1998 for sites occupied and unoccupied by bullfrogs and crayfish.
Population numbers at sites with predators and without predators have
fluctuated in a similar manner, which indicates there is no population
level of effect that can be attributed to predation. This is consistent
with the way in which a metapopulation structure of interconnected
populations functions; thus, in certain areas Amargosa toads may become
extirpated, but repopulate those areas at a later time. The capability
of toads to move among these sites in response to threats and habitat
condition allows toads to coexist with nonnative predators. For
instance, the population estimate for the Spicer property in 2009
increased from 53 to 167, even though it is a site where crayfish and
bullfrogs are abundant. The increase in Amargosa toad numbers in 2009
at the Spicer site is most likely a result of habitat improvements,
which demonstrates the success of habitat condition. We are unaware of
any extirpations that can be attributed to crayfish or bullfrogs, but
Amargosa toads have been extirpated or nearly extirpated from Lower
Indian Spring and Crystal Spring as a result of poor habitat conditions
mostly due to overgrowth of vegetation.
In 2009, NDOW, TNC World Wide Office, and Arizona Game and Fish
Department provided funding to TNC to develop crayfish removal
strategies which included habitat characterization, crayfish
distribution, and control techniques in a five-state effort (AZ, NM,
CA, UT, and NV). These studies are currently under contract; the first
phase is to be completed by June 30, 2010.
We expect the current level of predation by crayfish and bullfrogs
to continue into the foreseeable future, but do not consider this level
of predation a significant threat due to the life history
characteristics of the Amargosa toad and their ability to coexist with
nonnative predators and move among metapopulations. This determination
is based on the Amargosa toad metapopulation structure; habitat
projects that select for toads; the life history of the toad; and 12
years of toad population monitoring data that shows toads can coexist
with nonnative predators.
Predation by Fish Species
The majority of habitats in Oasis Valley supporting Amargosa toad
populations are not structurally capable of supporting the large-bodied
predatory
[[Page 42050]]
fish that would be capable of significant predation on Amargosa toads
(NDOW 2009, p. 4). Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) are known to
occur in at least one pond on private property in Oasis Valley, but
Amargosa toads are not a primary component of their diet. Black
bullhead catfish (Ictalurus melas) and Amargosa toads have co-occurred
at one pond on private land at the Harlan-Keal site for at least 10
years; however, the pond dried during the summer 2009, and catfish are
not expected to persist at this site. Therefore, we do not consider
largemouth bass or catfish to be a significant threat to the Amargosa
toad now or in the foreseeable future.
Mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis) have been introduced into waters
of Oasis Valley and occur at most sites occupied by toads. Mosquito
fish have been observed to prey on eggs of the arroyo toad (Anaxyrus
(=Bufo) californicus; Lannoo 2005, p. 399) and may also prey on
Amargosa toad eggs. During our review of the status of the Amargosa
toad, no information was available that suggests mosquito fish are
important predators of toad eggs. No observations of mosquito fish
preying on toad eggs have been reported during the 12 years of
population monitoring. NDOW is actively working with a variety of
partners, including Nye County, to limit the use and distribution of
mosquito fish in the Oasis Valley and to develop alternative vector
control strategies that do not use mosquito fish as the control agent.
We have no information to indicate that the presence of, or predation
by, mosquito fish is a significant threat to the Amargosa toad or that
such predation will become a threat in the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor C
Based on a review of the best available scientific and commercial
data, we find no indication of a potential threat of disease. We have
no reason to conclude disease is currently or will become a threat to
the species in the foreseeable future, due to an absence of sign of
disease in Amargosa toads. Predation by bullfrogs, crayfish, and
mosquito fish continues to affect Amargosa toad populations but not to
an extent that threatens the species. Largemouth bass do generally
occur in waters occupied by toads and do not substantially affect the
toad. Based on the best scientific information available, there is no
indication that predation is resulting in negative population wide
effects. Completed actions prescribed in the CAS to conserve the
Amargosa toad have been shown to be successful in meeting the
objectives in the CAS and reducing or eliminating the threats to the
Amargosa toad under Factor C. Therefore, after a review of the best
scientific and commercial information, we conclude disease and
predation are not significant threats to the Amargosa toad and are not
likely to become significant threats in the foreseeable future. This
determination is based on the absence of signs of disease; Amargosa
toad metapopulation structure; habitat projects that select for toads;
the life history of the toad; and 12 years of toad population
monitoring data that shows toads can coexist with nonnative predators.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The petitioners claim the existing regulatory mechanisms, including
Nevada State law protections, have been ineffective in preventing the
decline of and mitigating the principal threats to the species. The
petitioners claim that the State of Nevada fails to provide adequate
protection for the Amargosa toad through existing statutes,
particularly regarding permit exemptions for residential groundwater
use up to 1,800 gallons per day (CBD and PEER 2008, pp. 20 and 28).
Generally, domestic wells that draw less than 1,800 gallons per day do
not require a permit (NRS 534.180). However, the NSE may require the
registration of domestic wells in certain groundwater basins that it
designates and may limit the amount of groundwater extracted from a
permitted well to an amount below the full permitted amount under
certain conditions. No declines in groundwater levels or toad numbers
have been observed at monitored sites as a result of groundwater
pumping. In our review in Factor A, we concluded that Amargosa toad
populations have not been affected and are not likely to become
affected by groundwater extraction. Groundwater use is currently
consistent with historic use and will not likely increase due to lack
of growth in the area.
The Amargosa toad was classified as a protected amphibian by the
State of Nevada through an action of the Nevada Board of Wildlife
Commissioners in 1998, under authority of NAC 503.075, and NAC 503.090
provides that no open season shall be designated for species of
resident wildlife classified as protected which includes collection or
possession. Through NDOW, the State plays an important role in ensuring
conservation actions are achieved for this species under these and
other authorities.
The Amargosa toad is designated by the BLM Nevada State Director as
a BLM sensitive species. This requires BLM to ensure that actions they
authorize, fund, or carry out do not contribute to the need to list the
species as threatened or endangered (BLM Manual section 6840.06 C). The
BLM's Tonopah Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision (RMP)
determined that habitat for BLM sensitive species be managed to
maintain or increase current populations of these species (BLM 1997, p.
9).
The petitioners identified privately owned Amargosa toad habitat
and the lack of a final master plan for the Oasis Valley as potential
threats to the toad. Considering the limited extent and use of private
lands in Oasis Valley, a master plan would likely be unnecessary to
guide development. However, on November 3, 2009, the Nye County Board
of County Commissioners approved the Beatty Open Space Plan (Stantec
Consulting 2009, pp. 1-45 plus appendices). This final plan provides
the framework by which the County may pursue more specific actions to
preserve BLM land for the benefit of the Town of Beatty and private
land for the preservation of Amargosa toad habitat and a walking trail
along the Amargosa River. Open space in the plan is defined as land
that is not intensively developed for residential, commercial,
industrial, or institutional use. The plan identifies 26,778 ac (10,837
ha) of land administered by the BLM as open space, which includes most
of the range of the Amargosa toad (Stantec Consulting 2009, Appendix
A). The broad goals for the Beatty Open Space Plan as defined by the
stakeholders include: Install signage and implement a community-wide
education program on the importance of staying out of the riverbed,
particularly with ATVs, to protect the toad habitat; protect sensitive
habitats; and identify appropriate activities in Amargosa toad habitat
(Stantec Consulting 2009, p. 24). As a signatory to the CAS, Nye County
committed to coordinate conservation with the local community such as
development of the open space plan (NDOW 2000, p. A-15). We conclude
that the completion of a final open space plan is an important
conservation achievement that demonstrates the cooperative relationship
and strong partnership among all levels of government, Beatty
landowners, and the Beatty community. Adoption of an open space plan
and BLM's protection of Amargosa toad habitat through implementation of
the Tonopah RMP provide some mechanisms that reduce the potential
threats to the species.
[[Page 42051]]
Summary of Factor D
We have reviewed the best available scientific and commercial
information, and conclude that the Amargosa toad is not threatened by
the existence of inadequate regulatory mechanisms. There are no
significant threats to the species, and Amargosa toad populations are
stable based on annual population estimates.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
In our 90-day finding, we concluded that natural or manmade
factors, particularly small populations, small range size, and
environmental changes due to climate change, could exacerbate threats
identified under Factor A. In this 12-month finding, we determined that
no significant threats were found under Factor A.
Small Range and Population Size
The range of the Amargosa toad is approximately 8,440 ac (3,416 ha)
and the rangewide total number of adult toads is estimated at 2,500 to
4,000 toads. No reductions in the range of the Amargosa toad have been
documented. Although no historic estimates of population size are known
(NDOW 2009, p. 1), there is also no indication that historical
population levels were significantly higher than current levels.
Population data collected over the past 12 years show 5 years of
population increases, 6 years of declines, and data for 2000 was
essentially the same as 1999; no declines occurred over any consecutive
3-year period (Hobbs 2009, p. 2). Amargosa toad data collected by NDOW
as prescribed in the CAS (NDOW 2000, p. A-13), and as part of the mark-
recapture program document individual toad movements among
metapopulations and across dry desert uplands to remote Trespass Seep
and from the Harlan-Keal site to the river south of Beatty
(approximately 8 mi (13 km)). Amargosa toad metapopulations are mostly
limited by habitat conditions. Amargosa toads disperse among sites when
habitat conditions are suitable, and Amargosa toad numbers at any given
site can range from historic lows to record highs in one year (Hobbs
2009, pp. 1-6). Small population and small range sizes are not
necessarily threats to a species. With the ability to move across large
expanses of unsuitable habitat, and recolonize suitable habitat
patches, the Amargosa toad exhibits a classic and strong metapopulation
structure. This allows the Amargosa toad to take advantage of newly
available resources, or quickly rebound after localized population
extirpations. Therefore, we conclude that the small range and
population size of the species is not a significant threat to the
species, nor do we expect the range or population size to decrease in
the foreseeable future due for the reasons stated above.
Climate Change
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has high
confidence in predictions that extreme weather events, warmer
temperatures, and regional drought are very likely to increase in the
northern hemisphere as a result of climate change (IPCC 2007, pp. 15-
16). Climate models show the southwestern United States has
transitioned into a more arid climate of drought that is predicted to
continue into the next century (Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181). In the
past 60 years, the frequency of storms with extreme precipitation has
increased in Nevada by 29 percent (Madsen and Figdor 2007, p. 37).
Changes in local southern Nevada climatic patterns cannot be
definitively tied to global climate change; however, they appear to be
consistent with IPCC-predicted patterns of extreme precipitation,
warmer than average temperatures, and drought. Information on specific
effects from climate change to the Amargosa toad and to individual
habitats and aquatic systems is not available, and effects are
difficult to predict and likely to vary from site to site over time.
However, as detailed under Factor A, previous habitat improvements on
the Amargosa River, Harlan-Keal, Mullin, and Spicer sites have all
resulted in substantial positive responses by Amargosa toads. To meet
objectives under the CAS, Amargosa toad conservation partners have
implemented design strategies and are continuing to develop and
implement appropriate strategies that build resiliency into habitat
projects. We conclude that continuing to maintain and actively manage
the matrix of habitats that support the population of the Amargosa toad
reduces the potential threat of climate change to the toad to the
extent that Amargosa toads will continue to occupy most sites currently
occupied by the species which will continue into the foreseeable
future. In the absence of active management, several spring sites may
become degraded; however, the river and larger spring sites are
expected to maintain their function to provide the ecological needs for
the species.
Stochastic Events
The petitioners claim stochastic events such as drought, floods,
and fires are threats to the Amargosa toad because of the limited
distribution of the toad. Major flood events have occurred in the
Amargosa River; however, Amargosa toads continue to occur in the river
and may benefit from the disturbance created by such events. Although
floods may result in short-term adverse effects to the Amargosa toad,
the disturbance created by flooding events may scour dense emergent
vegetation and create and increase open water pools that are preferred
by the species.
Some studies suggest that amphibian responses to fire and
associated habitat alteration are species-specific, incompletely
understood, and variable among habitats and regions (Pilliod et al.
2003, p. 165). We found no information that any wildfire occurred in
Amargosa toad habitat in recent history. However, controlled burns on
TNC properties have resulted in positive responses by toads by reducing
emergent aquatic vegetation and providing open water (ATWG 2009, p. 3)
that is beneficial to the species.
The metapopulation structure of the Amargosa toad allows local
extirpations and recolonization following stochastic events. Such
fluctuation in Amargosa toad numbers has been observed after prescribed
burns and habitat improvement projects that resulted in disturbance to
Amargosa toad habitat. Drought effects on the Amargosa toad may include
a reduction of surface water, prey, and wetland habitat; however, we
found no evidence of long-term effects to the Amargosa toad as a result
of drought. We expect stochastic events to occur periodically in the
future; however toads may benefit from the disturbance. If the number
of toads at a given site is reduced or toads become extirpated from a
site, we expect recolonization to occur from other metapopulations.
Therefore, we do not expect stochastic events to be a threat to the
toad in the foreseeable future.
Contaminants
Radiation poisoning through groundwater contamination from atomic
testing on the Nevada Test Site (NTS) was cited as a threat by the
petitioners (CBD and PEER 2008, p. 21). The movement of radiation in
groundwater in Oasis Valley is currently being studied. Geologic faults
allow alluvial groundwater connection between the Amargosa River and
the Pahute Mesa aquifer, which includes areas used for atomic testing
(Reiner et al. 2002, p. 61). There have been no reports of abnormal
toads, reduced reproduction, or death of multiple toads at any given
site that would suggest radiation or contaminant
[[Page 42052]]
effects. In 2006, DOE contracted sampling of nine wells and three
springs in Oasis Valley wells for radioactivity (tritium) in
groundwater (DOE 2006, pp. 4.1-4.30). The investigators concluded that
no groundwater (wells or springs) sampled downgradient of the NTS,
including Oasis Valley where Amargosa toads occur, had been impacted by
NTS nuclear test operations as of 2006. In all cases, measured tritium
levels in wells and springs sampled in Oasis Valley were below or just
above the laboratory detection limit, and three orders of magnitude
less than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency established maximum
contaminant level for drinking water. Because the Town of Beatty uses
groundwater from the Oasis Valley, monitoring for potential
contaminants in groundwater will continue for human health. Based on
the available information, there is no indication that radioactive
groundwater is a concern for the Amargosa toad, or that radioactive
groundwater from the Pahute Mesa aquifer will become a threat to the
toad in the foreseeable future.
The petitioners also assert that pollution of unknown levels on
private land is a threat to the Amargosa toad (CBD and PEER 2008, p.
25). During monitoring of toad populations from 1998 to 2009 as
prescribed in the CAS, no environmental evidence was observed to
suggest that contaminants from private lands are affecting Amargosa
toads. Although Amargosa toads have not been examined to assess
contaminant levels, no Amargosa toad developmental anomalies or die-
offs have been reported. Due to the high level of monitoring and close
proximity to residents who consistently communicate with the Service on
the Amargosa toad, we believe any detrimental environmental effects
would be observed and reported. Therefore, we conclude that
contaminants are not a threat to the toad. We do not anticipate that
contaminants will become a threat to the toad in the foreseeable future
due to our expectation that the metapopulation structure will persist
and monitoring will continue which would detect any effects of
contaminants at the level of the individual or population.
The petitioners claim that the CAS failed to protect Amargosa toads
and increase toad populations. The CAS is a voluntary and non-
regulatory agreement. As discussed above, the CAS has proven to be an
effective tool in furthering the long term conservation of the species,
as well as reducing or eliminating the threats to the species. Please
see our discussion for specific information regarding the CAS in the
background section of this finding. Based on implementation of various
conservation actions resulting from the CAS as discussed in the factors
above, we find that the existence and implementation of the CAS do not
pose a threat to the species.
Summary of Factor E
We have reviewed the best available scientific and commercial
information and find that small range and population size, climate
change, stochastic events, or contaminants are not significant threats
to the species. While we have no Amargosa toad population estimates
prior to the mid-1990s, the best available information indicates that
the historic range of the toad approximates its current range. Based on
12 years of population monitoring data, toad populations estimates are
stable. The range and population numbers will not decrease in the
foreseeable future in consideration of the habitat improvements
identified in Factor A and overall absence of significant threats to
the species. While climate change effects are mostly uncertain, we
conclude that sufficient resiliency has been provided to the toad
through project that established of a matrix of habitats and
metapopulations. Stochastic events will continue but will benefit the
toads by providing disturbance or result in recolonization from
adjacent populations. Monitoring and oversight by the signatories of
the CAS, ATWG, and local landowners will continue and detect any
impacts to the toad that may result from contaminants. Therefore, we
conclude that other natural or manmade factors are not affecting the
continued existence of the Amargosa toad, now or in the foreseeable
future.
Finding
As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing
whether the Amargosa toad is threatened or endangered throughout all or
a significant portion of its range. We examined the best scientific and
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and
future threats faced by the Amargosa toad. We reviewed the petition,
information available in our files and other available published and
unpublished information, and we consulted with recognized Amargosa toad
experts and other Federal, State, local agencies, and nongovernment
organizations. In considering what factors might constitute threats, we
must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to
determine whether the species responds to the factor in a way that
causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor,
but no response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a
threat. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the
factor may be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant
a threat it is. If the threat is significant, it may drive or
contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that the
species warrants listing as threatened or endangered as those terms are
defined by the Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof
of a threat. The combination of exposure and some corroborating
evidence of how the species is likely impacted could suffice. The
identification of factors that could impact a species negatively is not
sufficient to compel a finding that listing is appropriate; we require
evidence that these factors are operative threats that act on the
species to the point that the species meets the definition of
threatened or endangered under the Act.
We analyzed the potential threats to the Amargosa toad including:
Private land development resulting in habitat loss and water use;
groundwater development/extraction; habitat degradation including
overgrowth of vegetation; grazing and trampling by livestock;
recreation and OHV activity; invasive plants species; disease;
predation by nonnative bullfrogs, crayfish, and fishes; lack of
regulatory control of residential groundwater withdrawal; inadequate
protection on privately owned land including lack of a final master
plan for the Oasis Valley; small range and population size; climate
change; stochastic events; and contaminants.
We found that habitat loss as a result of development on private
land is not a substantial threat to the Amargosa toad, and we do not
believe that the toad population is declining rangewide. In addition,
we found no indication that the human population will increase beyond
historic levels, and we do not anticipate an increase in future use of
groundwater to support new residential development in the Town of
Beatty and Oasis Valley. Based on the volume, timing, and location of
groundwater withdrawal; historic use of groundwater, and water-level
measurements, we concluded that water use and development in Oasis
Valley are not a substantial threat to the Amargosa toad. Overgrowth of
vegetation in aquatic habitats is an ongoing management concern for the
Amargosa toad because it can result in degraded habitat. However,
various tools, such as habitat improvement and
[[Page 42053]]
enhancement projects, have been and continue to be implemented to
manage this potential threat to the Amargosa toad. Continued
implementation of conservation actions as outlined in the CAS by
regulatory agencies and a coalition of partners has reduced and
continues to minimize threats to the Amargosa toad. Light to moderate
ungulate grazing and trampling are not a substantial threat to the toad
and likely provide some benefit to the habitat for the Amargosa toad.
Excessive ungulate grazing in Amargosa toad habitat is localized and
mostly occurs in the Amargosa River channel south of Beatty. Use by
OHVs, particularly in wet areas (along the Amargosa River), can be an
issue, especially when Amargosa toad eggs and tadpoles are present.
However, efforts have been undertaken (e.g., rerouting of OHV races out
of habitat) or are proposed to reduce OHV use in these areas so that
OHV use is not a significant threat to the species. In addition, no
spring sites have been identified that are substantially affected by
OHV activity. Efforts to remove salt cedar and other nonnative,
invasive plants from the Amargosa River watershed have occurred since
2003. Efforts will continue to remove salt cedar and replace it with
native shrubs and trees, which may improve toad habitat and increase
toad numbers. We conclude that the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of toad habitat or its range is not a
significant threat to the Amargosa toad now or in the foreseeable
future.
We found no information that overcollection or overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is a
threat or will become a threat to the species in the future. Therefore,
we find overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes does not threaten the Amargosa toad now or in the
foreseeable future.
We also found no evidence that chytrid or other diseases are
affecting the Amargosa toad population, and therefore, disease does not
threaten the Amargosa toad. Predation by nonnative species has
affected, and will continue to affect Amargosa toad populations;
however, metapopulations are allowing the coexistence of the Amargosa
toad with predators and competitors. Amargosa toad populations appear
to be generally stable over the long-term, including sites where toads
coexist with nonnative predators and competitors. Habitat projects have
been designed and constructed to provide an advantage to Amargosa toads
and reduce numbers of nonnative predators. Therefore, we conclude that
disease or predation are not significant threats to the Amargosa toad
now or in the foreseeable future.
The Amargosa toad is classified as a protected amphibian by the
State of Nevada under authority of NAC 503.075, and it is also
designated as a BLM sensitive species in Nevada. Completion of a final
open space plan for the Oasis Valley, approved by the Nye County Board
of Commissioners, indicates a cooperative conservation effort among all
levels of government, Beatty landowners, and the Beatty community to
protect Amargosa toad habitat.
The current range of the Amargosa toad is approximately the same,
and possibly larger, than its historical range as a result of
conservation efforts accomplished by the various entities working to
ensure long-term conservation of the Amargosa toad. In summary, we
concluded that inadequate regulatory mechanisms are not a threat to the
Amargosa toad now or in the foreseeable future.
The range and small population size of the toad have characterized
the species during modern times with no significant changes. Current
monitoring efforts will continue and inform the ATWG and others of any
habitat improvement needs for the species. Climate change is likely to
continue for the foreseeable future, but there is substantial
uncertainty as to how climate change will affect the Amargosa toad and
its habitat. We found no information to suggest that climate change
will result in an altered landscape to the extent that it will
negatively affect Amargosa toads. Stochastic events (such as floods,
fire and drought) have occurred on the landscape where Amargosa toads
occur in Oasis Valley. The metapopulation structure of the Amargosa
toad would allow local extirpations as a result of these stochastic
events, but also recolonization following the events. Controlled burns
have resulted in positive responses by Amargosa toads by reducing
vegetation and providing open water. By maintaining and actively
managing the matrix of habitats that support the population of the
Amargosa toad, the uncertainties and threats of climate change and
stochastic events should be reduced. The ability to modify site
conditions where Amargosa toads occur in response to environmental
changes has been demonstrated as a significant management tool for
Amargosa toad conservation efforts to address various threats,
including stochastic events and invasive species, as well as possible
changed conditions from climate change in the future. No environmental
evidence has been observed to suggest that contaminants from private
lands are affecting Amargosa toads. We believe any detrimental
environmental effects would be observed and reported to the Service or
NDOW. Continued implementation of conservation actions as outlined in
the 2000 CAS by NDOW, other signatories, and a coalition of partners
has reduced and continues to minimize threats to the Amargosa toad. We
conclude that other natural or manmade factors are not significant
threats to the Amargosa toad now or in the foreseeable future.
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the threats
are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate
that the Amargosa toad is in danger of extinction (endangered), or
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened).
Therefore, we find that listing the Amargosa toad as a threatened or
endangered species is not warranted.
Evaluation of Distinct Population Segment (DPS)
Having determined that the Amargosa toad does not meet the
definition of a threatened or endangered species, we must next consider
whether there are any segments within the population that meet the
Service's DPS policy. Under the DPS policy (61 FR 4722; February 7,
1996), three elements are considered in the decision concerning the
establishment and classification of a possible DPS. These are applied
similarly for additions to or removal from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. These elements include:
(1) The discreteness of a population in relation to the remainder
of the species to which it belongs;
(2) The significance of the population segment to the species to
which it belongs; and
(3) The population segment's conservation status in relation to the
Act's standards for listing, delisting, or reclassification (i.e., is
the population segment endangered or threatened).
Under the DPS Policy, we must first determine whether the
population qualifies as a DPS; this requires a finding that the
population is both: (1) Discrete in relation to the remainder of the
species to which it belongs; and (2) biologically and ecologically
significant to the species to which it belongs. If the population meets
the first two criteria under the DPS policy, we then proceed
[[Page 42054]]
to the third element in the process, which is to evaluate the
population segment's conservation status in relation to the Act's
standards for listing as an endangered or threatened species. The DPS
evaluation in this finding concerns the Amargosa toad that we were
petitioned to list as threatened or endangered.
Discreteness
Under the DPS Policy, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon
may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following
conditions:
(1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same
taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or
behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation. (2) It is
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
Markedly Separated From Other Populations of the Taxon
As described previously (see Species Information above), the
Amargosa toad is characterized by metapopulations across its range.
Individual Amargosa toads move among these metapopulations, and there
is no indication that physical, physiological, ecological, or
behavioral barriers exist that would render any portions of the
species' range markedly separate from other portions. Furthermore, we
have no quantitative data such as genetic information to suggest any
portions of the species to be markedly separate from others. Therefore,
we conclude there are no portions of the species' range that meet the
discreteness criterion of the Service's DPS policy. Since both
discreteness and significance are required to satisfy the DPS policy,
we have determined that there are no populations of the Amargosa toad
that qualify as a DPS under our policy. As a result, no further
analysis under the DPS policy is necessary.
Significant Portion of the Range
Having determined that the Amargosa toad does not meet the
definition of a threatened or endangered species, we must next consider
whether there are any significant portions of the range where the
Amargosa toad is in danger of extinction or is likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future.
We considered whether any portions of the Amargosa toad's range
warrant further consideration. We found that there is no area within
the range of the Amargosa toad where the potential threat of
development or groundwater withdrawal is significantly concentrated or
may be substantially greater than in other portions of the range. Some
sites including Crystal and Lower Indian Springs may become overgrown
with vegetation and cause the site to become unsuitable and require
rehabilitation. Cattle and feral burros may provide the necessary
disturbance to improve and maintain Amargosa toad habitat but may cause
short-term overuse of some sites. Use by OHVs may cause localized
impacts but we do not anticipate these effects to result in population
declines. Although nonnative toad predators such as crayfish,
bullfrogs, and mosquito fish occur throughout much of the range of the
toad and likely impact the toad to some extent, we have found that
toads have, and will continue to coexist with these predators. There is
no indication that stochastic events, climate change, or environmental
contaminants differentially affect any given site.
On the basis of our review, we found no areas within the species'
range where threats are geographically concentrated. The species is
characterized by metapopulations across its range which allows for an
individual site to be extirpated and become repopulated from
neighboring populations. The factors affecting the species are
essentially uniform throughout its range, indicating that no portion of
the Amargosa toad's range warrants further consideration of possible
threatened or endangered status.
We do not find that the Amargosa toad is in danger of extinction
now, nor is it likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore,
listing the Amargosa toad as threatened or endangered under the Act is
not warranted throughout all or a significant portion of its range at
this time.
We request that you submit any new information concerning the
status of, or threats to, the Armargosa toad to our Nevada Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section) whenever it becomes available.
New information will help us monitor the Amargosa toad and encourage
its conservation. If an emergency situation develops for the Amargosa
toad, we will act to provide immediate protection.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Nevada Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Author(s)
The primary authors of this notice are staff with the Nevada Fish
and Wildlife Office, Las Vegas.
Authority
The authority for this section is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: July 9, 2010
Wendi Weber,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-17647 Filed 7-19- 10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE S