Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 46551 

present substantial information, nor do 

we have substantial information in our 

files, to suggest that fisheries or oil and 

gas activities, with the possible 

exception of potential oil spills, may 

threaten the Pacific walrus. However, all 

factors will be evaluated when we 

conduct our status review. 

Finding 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires 

that we make a finding on whether a 

petition to list, delist, or reclassify a 

species presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

We are to base this finding on 

information provided in the petition, 

supporting information submitted with 

the petition, and information otherwise 

available in our files. To the maximum 

extent practicable, we are to make this 

finding within 90 days of our receipt of 

the petition and publish our notice of 

the finding promptly in the Federal 

Register. 

Our process for making this 90-day 

finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the 

Act is limited to a determination of 

whether the information in the petition 

presents ‘‘substantial scientific and 

commercial information,’’ which is 

interpreted in our regulations as ‘‘that 

amount of information that would lead 

a reasonable person to believe that the 

measure proposed in the petition may 

be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). As 

described in our threats evaluation, 

above, the petition presents substantial 

information indicating that listing the 

Pacific walrus throughout its entire 

range may be warranted based on 

Factors A, D, and E. Based on our 

threats evaluation, the petition does not 

present substantial information 

indicating that Factors B and C may be 

a threat to this species. 

Based on this review and evaluation, 

we find that the petition presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that listing the 

Pacific walrus throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range may be 

warranted due to current and future 

threats under Factors A, D, and E. 

Therefore, we are initiating a status 

review to determine whether listing the 

Pacific walrus under the Act is 

warranted. 

The ‘‘substantial information’’ 

standard for a 90-day finding is not the 

same as the Act’s ‘‘best scientific and 

commercial data’’ standard that applies 

to a status review to determine whether 

a petitioned action is warranted. A 90- 

day finding is not a status assessment of 

the species and does not constitute a 

status review under the Act. In a 12- 

month finding, we will determine 

whether a petitioned action is warranted 

after we have completed a thorough 

status review of the species, which is 

conducted following a substantial 90- 

day finding. Because the Act’s standards 

for 90-day and 12-month findings are 

different, as described above, a 

substantial 90-day finding does not 

mean that the 12-month finding will 

indicate that listing is warranted. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the Alaska Regional Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Author 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Alaska Regional 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Authority: The authority for this action is 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: September 1, 2009. 

Sam D. Hamilton, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–21759 Filed 9–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R8–ES–2009–0047] 

[MO 92210530083-B2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition to List the Amargosa Toad 

(Bufo nelsoni) as Threatened or 

Endangered 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 90–day petition 

finding and initiation of status review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90–day finding on a petition to list the 

Amargosa toad (Bufo nelsoni) as 

threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). We find that the petition 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing this species may be warranted. 

Therefore, with the publication of this 

notice, we are initiating a status review 

to determine if listing the Amargosa 

toad is warranted. To ensure that the 

status review is comprehensive, we are 

soliciting scientific and commercial data 

and other information regarding this 

species. 

DATES: We made the finding announced 

in this document on September 10, 

2009. To allow us adequate time to 

conduct this review, we request that we 

receive information on or before 

November 9, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit 

information by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R8– 

ES–2009–0047; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will post all information received on 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Information Solicited section 

below for more details). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert D. Williams, Field Supervisor, 

Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, 4701 

North Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV 

89130, by telephone (702–515–5230), or 

by facsimile (702–515–5231). Persons 

who use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Information Solicited 

When we make a finding that a 

petition presents substantial 

information indicating that listing a 

species may be warranted, we are 

required to promptly commence a 

review of the status of the species. To 

ensure that the status review (12–month 

finding) is complete and based on the 

best available scientific and commercial 

information, we are soliciting 

information concerning the status of the 

Amargosa toad. We request information 

from the public, other concerned 

governmental agencies, Native 

American Tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested parties concerning the status 

of the Amargosa toad. We are seeking 

information regarding: 

(1) The species’ historical and current 

status and distribution, its biology and 

ecology, and ongoing conservation 

measures for the species and its habitat. 

(2) Information relevant to the factors 

that are the basis for making a listing 

determination for a species under 

section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.), which are: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
46552 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(a) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the species’ habitat or 

range; 

(b) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(c) Disease or predation; 

(d) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(e) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

(3) Any proposed projects or 

development plans that may result in 

increased water use in the Oasis Valley. 

(4) Information on methods to control 

crayfish (Procambarus spp.) in desert 

riparian systems. 

(5) Information on effects of 

mosquitofish on eggs and larvae of the 

Amargosa toad or other species of toad 

where mosquitofish are not native. 

(6) Data on surface water quality or 

groundwater monitoring in the Oasis 

Valley, including transport or 

movement of environmental 

contaminants from mining operations 

and the Nevada Test Site. 

(7) Information on whether or not UVB radiation is increasing in the Oasis 

Valley and, if so, the effects of this 

increase on Amargosa toads. 

(8) Information as to any other threats 

to Amargosa toads asserted in the 

petition. 

If we determine that listing the 

Amargosa toad is warranted, it is our 

intent to propose critical habitat to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable at the time we propose to 

list the species. Therefore, with regard 

to areas within the geographical range 

currently occupied by the Amargosa 

toad, we also request data and 

information on what may constitute 

physical or biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, where these features are 

currently found, and whether any of 

these features may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. In addition, we request data 

and information regarding whether or 

not there are areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species that are essential to the 

conservation of the species. Please 

provide specific comments and 

information as to what, if any, critical 

habitat you think we should propose for 

designation if the species is proposed 

for listing, and why such habitat meets 

the requirements of the Act. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for or opposition to the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, will not be considered 

in making a determination, as section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered or threatened 

species must be made ‘‘solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ Based on 

the status review, we will issue a 12– 

month finding on the petition, as 

provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. 

You may submit your information 

concerning this status review by one of 

the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. We will not consider 

submissions sent by e-mail or fax or to 

an address not listed in the ADDRESSES

section. 

If you submit information via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this personal 

identifying information from public 

review. However, we cannot guarantee 

that we will be able to do so. We will 

post all hardcopy submissions on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Information and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this finding, will be 

available for public inspection on http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or by appointment 

during normal business hours, at the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4701 

North Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, 

NV. 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires 

that we make a finding on whether a 

petition to list, delist, or reclassify a 

species presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

We are to base this finding on 

information provided in the petition, 

supporting information submitted with 

the petition, and information otherwise 

available in our files at the time we 

make the determination. To the 

maximum extent practicable, we are to 

make this finding within 90 days of our 

receipt of the petition and publish our 

notice of the finding promptly in the 

Federal Register. 

Our standard for substantial scientific 

or commercial information within the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with 

regard to a 90–day petition finding is 

‘‘that amount of information that would 

lead a reasonable person to believe that 

the measure proposed in the petition 

may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). 

If we find that substantial scientific or 

commercial information was presented, 

we are required to promptly commence 

a status review of the species. 

On February 27, 2008, we received a 

petition dated February 26, 2008, from 

the Center for Biological Diversity and 

Public Employees for Environmental 

Responsibility (PEER; hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘petitioners’’) requesting 

that the Amargosa toad be listed as 

endangered or threatened 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. We also stated that, although 

we were currently required to complete 

a significant number of listing and 

critical habitat actions, we anticipated 

making an initial finding on the petition 

during Fiscal Year 2008. However, due 

to unforeseen delays, we were not able 

to complete the finding at that time. 

This notice constitutes our initial 

finding on the petition. 

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, 

beginning in 1982, we assigned the 

Amargosa toad as either a category 1 or 

category 2 candidate species under the 

Act (47 FR 58454, December 30, 1982; 

50 FR 37958, September 18, 1985; 54 FR 

554, January 6, 1989; 56 FR 58804, 

November 21, 1991; 59 FR 58982, 

November 15, 1994). 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, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 46553 

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). 

Species Information 

Taxonomy and 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 was the 

first to publish species rank for the 

Amargosa toad. 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 on 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). 

Adult male Amargosa toads are 

typically 1.6 to 2.7 inches (in.) (42 to 68 

millimeters (mm)) snout-vent length, 

females typically 1.8 to 3.5 in. (46 to 89 

mm) snout-vent length (Nevada 

Department of Wildlife [NDOW] 2000a, 

p. A–2). The dorsal body of the 

Amargosa toad has three paired rows of 

tubercles, or wart-like skin projections, 

with brown center coloration. The back 

has black speckling or asymmetrical 

spots. Background coloration ranges 

from almost black to brownish or buffy 

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.’’ 

Historical and Current Range 

Amargosa toads are endemic to Oasis 

Valley in southern Nye County, Nevada. 

The area occupied by the Amargosa toad 

is isolated with no known or probable 

connections to members of the western 

toad complex (NDOW 2000a, p. A–1). 

The nearest known record for a western 

toad is approximately 35 linear miles 

(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 is estimated to be a 10- 

mile (16-km) stretch of the Amargosa 

River and nearby spring systems 

roughly between the towns of 

Springdale and Beatty. In 1996, the 

Amargosa Toad Working Group (ATWG) 

was organized to provide 

recommendations for management and 

conservation of the Amargosa toad. The 

ATWG consists of representatives of the 

Service, NDOW, Nevada Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

Nye County and local community, the 

University of Nevada at Reno, and other 

stakeholders. In 2007, the 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%5Fspecies/amargosa_toad.html. 

The total amount of known and 

potential Amargosa toad habitat 

delineated on the ATWG map is 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, or areas of 

dense vegetation (NDOW 2000a, p. A– 

2). Adult toads also require adjacent 

vegetated uplands for nocturnal 

foraging. Upland habitat typically 

consists of Mojave and Great Basin 

desert vegetation with leaf litter, rock 

outcrops, rodent burrows, woody debris, 

and open areas that are sparsely 

vegetated. 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 2000a, p. A–2). 

The breeding season for the Amargosa 

toad begins in mid-February and may 

extend into July during which time 

adults congregate at breeding sites. 

Jones (2004, p. 19) found 82 percent of 

clutches were laid from February 27 to 

March 23 in the 2001 season. Eggs are 

deposited in strings among vegetation in 

shallow water. A female may lay up to 

6,000 eggs in a single clutch. The eggs 

typically develop into larvae (tadpoles) 

within 1 to 2 weeks, but as quickly as 

3 days in thermal waters (NDOW 2000a, 

p. A–2). Larvae are blackish with silvery 

speckles, rounded tail tips, and 

translucent tail fins. Larvae feed on 

algae, decaying plant material, and 

organic detritus that is suspended in the 

water column or on the substrate. 

Larvae may be swept downstream if a 

current is present. Larval mortality may 

be very high, although recruitment 

estimates have not been made (CBD and 

PEER 2008, p. 10). Amargosa toad 

tadpoles require relatively open water 

that persists long enough for the 

completion of metamorphosis and 

development into toadlets at which time 

they leave the water. Tadpoles 

metamorphose into toadlets in about 4 

to 8 weeks, though development is 

highly variable depending on water 

temperature and site conditions (Jones 

2004, p. 7). Predation and early 

desiccation of wetlands needed for 

breeding may destroy an entire breeding 

effort. Amargosa toads are believed to 

typically live 3 to 4 years in the wild, 

but a toad marked in 1998 was 

recaptured in 2008. 

Amargosa toads may be active any 

time of the year. Toads eat invertebrates 

including spiders, scorpions, ants, 

harvester ants, wasps, beetles, flies, 

grasshoppers, stink bugs, water striders, 

damsel flies, mosquitoes, mites, and 

snails. They use their sticky tongue to 

grab prey items in a sit-and-wait 

predator strategy (CBD and PEER 2008, 

p. 11). 

The mean home range of adult 

Amargosa toads has been studied at the 

Torrance Ranch site and at Amargosa 

River Narrows. Home ranges at these 

sites are estimated to be approximately 

1.5 ac (0.6 ha), with no difference 

between males and females (Jones 2004, 

p. 48). Rare movements occur over 0.8 

mile (1.3 km) between breeding sites 

along the Amargosa River and 0.5 mile 

(0.8 km) across uplands (NDOW 2000b, 

p. 9). During rain events, toad 

movements are not always confined to 

riparian corridors and reports exist of 

Amargosa toads moving over upland 

ridges (Jones 2004, p. 49). However, 

significant genetic differentiation of 

Amargosa toads among sites suggests 

Amargosa toads do not make extensive 

use of upland habitat for movement or 

migration (Simandle 2006, p. 38). 

Amargosa toads are attracted to 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
46554 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

disturbed areas where they forage and 

breed (NDOW 2000b, pp. 7–8 and 19), 

and seemingly co-exist with humans as 

indicated by survey data collected at 

developed study sites (urban and 

residential). 

Predators of toads include common 

raven (Corvus corax), white-faced ibis 

(Plegadis chihi), great egret (Ardea 

alba), snowy egret (Egretta thula), great 

blue heron (Ardea herodias), red-tailed 

hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), redshouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), 

spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularius), 

American robin (Turdus migratorius), 

American badger (Taxidea taxus), 

crayfish (Procambarus spp.), and 

various fish species (CBD and PEER 

2008, p. 11). 

Status 

Since 1998, the Amargosa toad has 

been classified as a Protected Species by 

the State of Nevada. No Federal 

protection is currently afforded the 

species other than designation as a 

Special Status Species by the BLM. 

Conservation and management oversight 

for the Amargosa toad is provided 

through the ATWG. The ATWG is 

comprised mostly of biologists, 

managers, and private landowners with 

a common interest in Amargosa toad 

conservation. The Amargosa Toad 

Conservation Agreement and Strategy 

was completed in 2000 (CA/S) (NDOW 

2000a, pp. 1–12) and provides 

management and conservation guidance 

for the Amargosa toad. Efforts to update 

the CA/S were initiated at the November 

7, 2007, meeting of the ATWG. 

In 1998, the Nevada Department of 

Wildlife (NDOW) initiated a long-term 

population monitoring program for the 

Amargosa toad using mark/recapture 

methods at key sites. The study involves 

capture and marking (with implanted 

tags) of all adult Amargosa toads found 

that are 2 in. (50 mm), or greater in 

length. As of November 2007, a total of 

5,666 Amargosa toads had been 

captured and tagged since 1998. The 

2007 estimate for the number of toads 2 

in. (50 mm) or greater in length from all 

surveyed sites is 5,179, which is 13 

percent less than the estimate for 1998 

through 2006 (Hobbs 2007, p. 1). 

Further, additional populations of toads 

may occur on unsurveyed sites on 

private land (NDOW 2000b, p. 18). 

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. 

Rare events such as intense floods 

demonstrate that these are dynamic, 

disturbance-dependent ecological 

systems upon which the Amargosa toad 

depends. Events such as floods may 

simultaneously destroy existing 

occupied habitat, create new suitable 

habitat, and facilitate infrequent 

movement among different sites. 

Five Factor Evaluation 

Section 4 of the Act, and its 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424, set forth the criteria and procedures 

for adding species to the Federal Lists 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. The Service determines 

whether a species is an endangered or 

threatened species due to one or more 

of the following five factors described in 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

In making this 90–day finding, we 

evaluated whether information 

regarding the Amargosa toad, as 

presented in the petition and other 

information available in our files at the 

time of the petition review, meets the 

definition of substantial information as 

stated in 50 CFR 424.14(b)(1), indicating 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted. Our evaluation of this 

information is presented below. 

Factor A. 

Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of the 

Species’ Habitat or Range 

The petition outlines numerous 

assertions regarding the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the Amargosa toad’s 

habitat or range. Several assertions point 

to Amargosa toad habitat being 

threatened by proposed Federal land 

sales and by development projects on 

private land. The petitioners claim that 

federal land proposed for sale and 

private lands subject to development 

encompass the majority of the range of 

the Amargosa toad (CBD and PEER 

2008, pp. 3, 19, and 29). The petition 

states that threats to the Amargosa toad 

resulting from federal land sales are the 

development that would take place on 

these and the surrounding private lands, 

and the increased demand for 

groundwater to support that 

development (CBD and PEER 2008, pp. 

3, 17, and 20). 

The petition raises the issue of 

potential development plans for the 

Town of Rhyolite that would include 

the need for water (CBD and PEER 2008, 

p. 20). Indian Spring has been identified 

as a potential water extraction site that 

would support Rhyolite development. 

The petition states that if this were to 

occur, it would likely adversely affect 

the water table at that site. 

The petition also states that the 

proposed Reward Mine on BLM land 

has the potential to affect groundwater 

in the area. The Reward Mine is 

approximately 3 miles (4.8 km) 

southeast of the Amargosa River at the 

Narrows, south of Beatty. The mine 

operations would use up to 287 acre-feet 

of groundwater per year over a period of 

6 years (John Shomaker and Associates, 

Inc. 2008, p. 1). The petitioners claim 

that proposed water withdrawal 

potentially may create a cone of 

depression that could lower water levels 

upstream and impact toad habitat. The 

February 2008 analysis provided by 

BLM on the Reward Mine indicates 

water for operations would be provided 

by a well in alluvium next to the 

Amargosa River (John Shoemaker & 

Associates Inc. 2008, p. 1). The 

petitioners assert the combination of 

river water and local groundwater 

extracted from the well could lower 

groundwater levels in Oasis Valley 

(particularly southern Oasis Valley); 

however, the petitioner did not provide 

any support for these assertions. 

The petitioners assert that lowering of 

the water table from increased 

groundwater use could seriously impact 

toad habitat (CBD and PEER 2008, p. 

17). Further, they claim that portions of 

the Amargosa River may have become 

dewatered from overuse by humans 

(CBD and PEER 2008, p. 17). A detailed 

analysis of the impacts of groundwater 

and surface water withdrawals on water 

levels in the Amargosa River would be 

required to demonstrate the above 

effects. There is no indication in our 

files or submitted with the petition that 

such an analysis has been completed. 

However, we have in our files a 1998 

ruling on an application for 

groundwater withdrawal in the Oasis 

Valley issued by the Nevada State 

Engineer (NSE). This ruling recognized 

a high degree of connection between 

groundwater and surface water in Oasis 

Valley (NSE Ruling 4669). The NSE 

found that combined groundwater and 

surface water allocations significantly 

exceeded the current estimate of 

perennial yield in the basin. Proposed 

land uses and development in and near 

the area of Oasis Valley could lead to 

additional groundwater allocations, 

accompanied by a reduction in 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 46555 

Amargosa toad habitat through a 

lowering of local groundwater levels. A 

small decrease in groundwater levels in 

Oasis Valley could lead to a significant 

reduction in the area of open pools of 

water at springs, along spring branches, 

or along the Amargosa River 

(particularly during dry summer 

months), all of which provide habitat for 

the Amargosa toad (Braumiller 2008, p. 

1). Therefore existing and future water 

use in the Oasis Valley may pose a 

threat to the Amargosa toad. 

Other potential threats identified by 

the petitioners include alterations of the 

riparian corridor that may affect toad 

movements and habitat connectivity; 

habitat loss and fragmentation resulting 

from proposed projects including flood 

control projects, a railroad, and a 

mineral material site; overgrowth of 

vegetation as a result of fencing; feral 

burro and livestock effects on springs 

and toads; direct mortality associated 

with roads and highways; and offhighway vehicle (OHV) use. 

The petitioners generally describe the 

potential effects that could result from 

flood control projects (CBD and PEER 

2008, pp. 17 and 20). However, the 

petitioners do not provide information 

on any specific flood control projects 

that may threaten the species or its 

habitat, and the Service is unaware of 

any proposed flood control actions that 

would alter the Amargosa River. 

The petitioners state that construction 

of a new railroad, as proposed by the 

U.S. Department of Energy to transport 

nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, may 

cross the northernmost portion of the 

Oasis Valley, north of Colson pond, 

disturbing approximately 20 ac (8 ha) of 

Amargosa toad habitat (CBD and PEER 

2008, p. 18). Although habitat is 

suitable, Amargosa toads are not known 

to occur in this area (ATWG 2006, pp. 

1–2). 

Vegetation overgrowth and use of 

springs by feral burros and cattle are 

other land management issues raised by 

the petitioners that may result in 

degraded habitat and depressed 

Amargosa toad numbers (CBD and PEER 

2008, pp. 17–18, 21 and 23–25). Fencing 

has been installed at the Crystal and 

Indian springs sites to exclude feral 

burros. While burros and livestock 

(ungulates) may trample Amargosa toad 

eggs and larvae, light to moderate 

disturbance is important to Amargosa 

toads (ATWG 2005, p. 2). In the absence 

of disturbance, vegetation grows 

uncontrolled and reduces open areas 

necessary for Amargosa toads. Intensive 

and uncontrolled use of Amargosa toad 

habitat by ungulates may threaten the 

species by resulting in habitat 

degradation and potential loss of 

individual Amargosa toads; however, 

light to moderate use may be beneficial 

to the Amargosa toad. Targeted grazing 

on the Torrance Ranch by The Nature 

Conservancy improved habitat, and 

Amargosa toads responded positively as 

indicated by use of the area by 

Amargosa toads for feeding and 

breeding. 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. 

The petitioners claim that OHV 

activity has been increasing around the 

Beatty area and results in decreased 

habitat quality, loss of riparian habitats, 

and direct mortality of Amargosa toads 

(CBD and PEER 2008, pp. 21 and 27). 

Most OHV use in the Beatty area, 

including the Terrible’s 200 Las Vegas 

to Reno race, occurs during the daytime 

when toads are likely sheltering. OHVs 

are used by community residents within 

the town limits of Beatty mostly along 

existing roads and trails. However, OHV 

travel within the river corridor, washes, 

or other areas used by toads for breeding 

or for sheltering during daylight hours 

may impact Amargosa toads, 

particularly eggs and tadpoles that are 

known to occur in road depressions. 

Although the extent of impacts to the 

Amargosa toad as a result of OHV use 

is largely unknown, we believe this 

current OHV use could pose a threat to 

the Amargosa toad. 

In summary, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 

well as information in our files, presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that listing the 

Amargosa toad as threatened or 

endangered may be warranted due to 

the present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range, including existing and 

future water development, use of 

groundwater to support land 

development, overgrowth of vegetation, 

excessive habitat use by ungulates, and 

OHV use in toad habitat. We will 

investigate whether there are additional 

potential threats to the Amargosa toad 

related to Factor A during our status 

review. 

Factor B. 

Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

The petitioners state that there is no 

evidence that scientific research has 

resulted in negative consequences on 

studied populations of the Amargosa 

toad (CBD and PEER 2008, p. 22). We 

have no information in our files that 

indicates overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes is a threat to the 

Amargosa toad. However, we will 

further investigate whether 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes is a potential threat to the toad 

during our status review. 

Factor C. 

Disease or Predation 

The petitioners did not present 

evidence, and no evidence exists in our 

files, that disease may be a threat to the 

Amargosa toad at this time. However, 

we will further investigate whether 

disease is a potential threat to the toad 

during our status review. 

The petitioners claim that exotic 

species or nonnative predators and 

competitors, including nonnative 

crayfish (Procambarus spp.), largemouth 

bass (Micropterus salmoides), nonnative 

trout (Oncorhynchus spp.), black 

bullhead catfish (Ictalurus melas), 

mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), and 

nonnative bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana), 

are a serious threat to the Amargosa 

toad. Since their introduction in the 

mid-1980s, nonnative crayfish have 

become established along most of the 

Amargosa River and springs occupied 

by the Amargosa toad, and occur in 

large numbers (CBD and PEER 2008, p. 

3). Crayfish consume toad eggs and 

larvae, and were located in 7 of 11 sites 

surveyed during a study (CBD and PEER 

2008, p. 23; Jones 2004, pp. 24–25). Bass 

are known to occur in at least one pond 

on private property in Oasis Valley, but 

there is no information in our files to 

support the claim that trout currently 

occur in Oasis Valley. Black bullhead 

catfish are known at one pond that is 

also occupied by Amargosa toads. 

Catfish and toads have co-occurred at 

this site for at least 9 years. 

Mosquitofish have been introduced into 

waters of Oasis Valley and occur at most 

sites occupied by toads. Mosquitofish 

have been observed to remove and 

consume eggs of the arroyo toad (Bufo 

californicus; Lannoo 2005, p. 399) and 

may also prey on Amargosa toad eggs. 

It is conceivable that nonnative 

predators have an impact on Amargosa 

toads; however, the overall effects of 

these introduced aquatic species 

specifically to the Amargosa toad are 

unknown. 

In summary, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 

well as information in our files, presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that listing the 

Amargosa toad may be warranted due to 

the threat of predation by introduced 

species. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
46556 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Factor D. 

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

The petitioners cite BLM’s failure to 

protect the Amargosa toad through 

designation of important toad habitat as 

an Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACEC) or through provision of 

a comparable level of protection through 

other means (CBD and PEER 2008, pp. 

19 and 27). Further, they claim that the 

Town of Beatty and Nye County have 

failed to cooperate in local community 

efforts to develop a conservation area in 

Oasis Valley (CBD and PEER 2008, p. 

20), and, therefore, that Amargosa toad 

habitat on private land is threatened by 

potential development which may 

proceed without conservation for the 

Amargosa toad (CBD and PEER 2008, p. 

19). Finally, the petitioners assert 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 and 

habitat threats on private lands (CBD 

and PEER 2008, pp. 20 and 28). 

The petitioners also claim that BLM 

allows OHV racing near the Crystal 

Springs exclosure and in a wash 

potentially used by Amargosa toads. 

They further state that BLM usually 

does not enforce OHV exclusion from 

riparian areas in Oasis Valley (CBD and 

PEER 2008, p. 27). 

Finally, the petition claims that BLM 

failed to follow through with habitat 

projects (CBD and PEER 2008, pp. 20 

and 25) and the CA/S has failed at 

protecting toad habitat and increasing 

toad populations (CBD and PEER 2008, 

p. 27). 

Water development may adversely 

affect areas occupied by Amargosa toad. 

The State of Nevada permits exemptions 

for up to 1,800 gallons per day for 

residential use, which may collectively 

result in a substantial volume of 

groundwater withdrawal. The structure 

of State water regulations and absence 

of sufficient data on groundwater and 

surface water to support development 

without affecting toad habitat 

constitutes a potential threat to the 

Amargosa toad. Further, the Service is 

unaware of a final master plan that 

guides community planning in concert 

with toad conservation. The Service 

acknowledges that activities and 

potential development on private lands 

within Oasis Valley are significant 

threats to the toad. 

Near the Crystal Spring exclosure, 

BLM has approved OHV events that 

occur over a 2–day period during the 

daytime when Amargosa toads are 

sheltering. The BLM imposes permit 

conditions to minimize impacts to the 

area. The Service is unaware of any 

information that indicates these events 

or casual OHV use are threats to the 

Amargosa toad or that BLM fails to 

enforce OHV exclusion from riparian 

areas. In 2008, BLM chose an alternate 

route away from toad habitat for OHV 

events near Crystal Spring. 

Following a recent review of the CA/ 

S, the ATWG concluded that 

implementation of the CA/S was an 

overall success. While some projects 

have not been completed, a number of 

important activities not identified in the 

CA/S have been conducted. The 

updated CA/S will include information 

on all accomplishments that benefit the 

toad. The petition asserts that several 

habitat enhancement projects proposed 

in the CA/S (CBD and PEER 2008, p. 20) 

were not completed, but these projects 

will be revisited in the upcoming review 

of CA/S. 

In summary, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 

well as information in our files, does 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing the Amargosa toad may be 

warranted due to the inadequacy of the 

existing regulatory mechanisms, 

particularly State regulations that allow 

for residential groundwater use up to 

1,800 gallons per day without the need 

for a permit and the lack of a final 

master plan for the Oasis Valley. 

Factor E. 

Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Species’ Continued 

Existence 

The petitioners assert that the 

Amargosa toad is particularly 

vulnerable to extinction due to its 

exceedingly small range and small 

population size; most of its range has 

been impacted by humans (Simandle 

2006, p. 14; Petition, pp. 16 and 29), and 

small populations are particularly 

vulnerable to genetic drift. Information 

in our files also suggests that the 

historical and current range of the 

Amargosa toad is small, i.e., 

approximately 10 miles (16 km) long 

consisting of 8,440 ac (3,416 ha) 

centered on the Amargosa River and 

including movement corridors among 

adjacent spring sites and the river. 

Small population size and range, 

compounded by threats under Factor A, 

could threaten the Amargosa toad. 

Therefore, we find that the information 

in the petition and in our files presents 

substantial information that small range 

and population size may be an 

important threat to the Amargosa toad 

when combined with potential threats 

from development identified in Factor 

A. 

The petition states that species found 

in few locations, such as the Amargosa 

toad, are susceptible to stochastic events 

such as fire or floods (CBD and PEER 

2008, p. 22). Controlled burns 

conducted on Torrance Ranch in 2008 

were successful at reducing vegetation 

and improving toad habitat; toad 

reproduction was documented 

immediately following the burn (ATWG 

2008, p. 1). Flood events are a natural 

disturbance and may benefit the 

Amargosa toad through periodic habitat 

disturbances. We will further investigate 

whether susceptibility to stochastic 

events is a potential threat to the toad 

during our status review. 

Radiation poisoning through 

groundwater contamination (from 

atomic testing on the Nevada Test Site) 

was also cited by the petitioners (CBD 

and PEER 2008, p. 21). 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). No information on groundwater 

connections or the types, amounts, 

infiltration speed, or locations of 

pollution was provided in the petition 

or exists in our files to support this 

claim as an important threat to the 

Amargosa toad. However, we will 

further investigate whether radiation 

poisoning through groundwater 

contamination is a potential threat to 

the toad during our status review. 

Environmental factors, including 

global warming, were identified by the 

petitioners as factors that could decrease 

habitat for the Amargosa toad through 

drought. The petitioners also mentioned 

increased UV-B radiation, which could 

weaken the Amargosa toad’s immune 

system and result in mortality from 

disease (CBD and PEER 2008, p. 22). As 

acknowledged in the petition (CBD and 

PEER 2008, p. 23), disease has not been 

observed in Amargosa toads, and no 

field observations of Amargosa toad 

mortalities suggesting disease have been 

reported. 

We acknowledged in Factor A that 

management of water resources to meet 

the needs of the Amargosa toad is 

important for Amargosa toad 

conservation. Environmental changes 

due to climate change, including 

drought, could exacerbate the threats 

under Factor A. Therefore, we find that 

the information in the petition and in 

our files presents substantial 

information to indicate environmental 

changes due to climate change could 

exacerbate threats under Factor A and 

combine to threaten the Amargosa toad. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 46557 

Finally, the petitioners claim 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). Since the CA/S 

was signed in 2000, removal of invasive 

trees, tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima) 

and Russian olive (Elaeagnus 

angustifolia) has been ongoing and 

successful as a joint effort involving 

State, Federal, and private landowners. 

Amargosa toads are known to use areas 

underneath tamarisk and Russian olive 

trees for feeding and sheltering. 

Tamarisk and Russian olive removal 

efforts generally include replacement 

with native riparian species that will 

provide the same function. We will 

further investigate whether invasive 

trees are a potential threat to the toad 

during our status review. 

In summary, we find that the 

information provided in the petition 

and in our files presents substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that listing the Amargosa 

toad may be warranted due to threats 

from other natural or manmade factors. 

These factors, particularly small 

populations, small range size, and 

environmental changes due to climate 

change, could exacerbate threats 

identified under Factor A. 

Finding 

We have reviewed the petition and 

the literature cited in the petition, and 

evaluated the information to determine 

whether the sources cited support the 

claims made in the petition. We also 

reviewed information that was readily 

available in our files. Based on our 

evaluation of the information provided 

in the petition, and information in our 

files, we find that the petition presents 

substantial scientific information 

indicating that listing the Amargosa 

toad may be warranted. 

Our process for making this 90–day 

finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the 

Act is limited to a determination of 

whether the information in the petition 

presents ‘‘substantial scientific or 

commercial information,’’ which is 

interpreted in our regulations as ‘‘that 

amount of information that would lead 

a reasonable person to believe that the 

measure proposed in the petition may 

be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). 

Section 4(a) of the Act states the 

Secretary shall, by regulation 

promulgated in accordance with 

subsection (b) of the Act, determine 

whether any species is an endangered 

species or a threatened species because 

of any of the five listing factors. 

Furthermore, regulations at 50 CFR 

424.11(c) state a species shall be listed 

or reclassified if the Secretary 

determines, on the basis of the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

after conducting a review of the species’ 

status, that the species is endangered or 

threatened because of any one or a 

combination of the five listing factors. 

As described in our Five-Factor 

Evaluation above, the petitioners 

presented substantial information 

indicating that the Amargosa toad may 

be threatened throughout its entire 

range due to four of the five listing 

factors described in the Act. Therefore, 

based on our determination that the 

petitioned action may be warranted due 

to substantial information presented 

under Factors A, C, D and E, we are 

initiating a status review to determine 

whether listing the Amargosa toad 

under the Act is warranted. We will 

address any other potential threats 

during our status review. To ensure that 

the status review is comprehensive, we 

are soliciting scientific and commercial 

information regarding the Amargosa 

toad relevant to all five listing factors. 

The ‘‘substantial information’’ 

standard for a 90–day finding differs 

from the Act’s ‘‘best scientific and 

commercial data’’ standard that applies 

to a 12–month finding after a status 

review to determine whether a 

petitioned action is warranted. A 90– 

day finding is not a status assessment of 

the species and does not constitute a 

status review under the Act. Our final 

determination as to whether a 

petitioned action is warranted is not 

made until we have completed a 

thorough status review of the species, 

which is conducted following a positive 

90–day finding. Because the Act’s 

standards for 90–day and 12–month 

findings are different, as described 

above, a positive 90–day finding does 

not mean that the 12–month finding 

also will be positive. 

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, Las Vegas, Nevada (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Author 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Nevada Fish 

and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: August 26, 2009. 

Daniel M. Ashe, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–21762 Filed 9–9– 09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1