21920 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(SI–7J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, IL 60604. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

normal business hours are Monday 

through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

excluding federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983– 

0002. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket 

All documents in the docket are listed 

in the http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information may not be publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in the hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: 

• U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency—Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, Phone: 

(312) 353–1063, Hours: Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

federal holidays. 

• Greenup City Clerk’s Office, 

Greenup Municipal Building, 115 

Cumberland Avenue, Greenup, IL 

62424, Phone: (217) 923–3401, Hours: 

Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gladys Beard, NPL Deletion Process 

Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (SR–6J), 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 

886–7253, or beard.gladys@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of 

today’s Federal Register, we are 

publishing a direct final Notice of 

Deletion of the A & F Material 

Reclaiming Inc. Superfund Site without 

prior Notice of Intent to Delete because 

we view this as a noncontroversial 

revision and anticipate no adverse 

comment. We have explained our 

reasons for this deletion in the preamble 

to the direct final Notice of Deletion, 

and those reasons are incorporated 

herein. If we receive no adverse 

comment(s) on this deletion action, we 

will not take further action on this 

Notice of Intent to Delete. If we receive 

adverse comment(s), we will withdraw 

the direct final Notice of Deletion, and 

it will not take effect. We will, as 

appropriate, address all public 

comments in a subsequent final Notice 

of Deletion based on this Notice of 

Intent to Delete. We will not institute a 

second comment period on this Notice 

of Intent to Delete. Any parties 

interested in commenting must do so at 

this time. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final Notice of Deletion which is 

located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ 

section of this Federal Register. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

waste, Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, and Water supply. 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 

1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

Dated: March 19, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8859 Filed 4–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2012–0003; 

4500030113] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List the Eastern or 

Southern Rocky Mountain Population 

of the Boreal Toad as an Endangered 

or Threatened Distinct Population 

Segment 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 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 either 

the Eastern population or the Southern 

Rocky Mountain (SRM) population of 

the boreal toad (Anaxyrus boreas 

boreas) as a distinct population segment 

(DPS) that is endangered or threatened 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act), and to 

designate critical habitat. Based on our 

review, we find that the petition 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing the Eastern population of the 

boreal toad as a DPS may be warranted. 

We did not find substantial information 

that listing the SRM population of the 

boreal toad as a DPS may be warranted. 

Therefore, with the publication of this 

notice, we are initiating a review of the 

status of the Eastern population to 

determine if listing it as a DPS is 

warranted. To ensure that this status 

review is comprehensive, we are 

requesting scientific and commercial 

data and other information regarding the 

potential DPS. Based on the status 

review, we will issue a 12-month 

finding on the petition, which will 

address whether the petitioned action is 

warranted, as provided in the Act. 

DATES: To allow us adequate time to 

conduct this review, we request that we 

receive information on or before June 

11, 2012. The deadline for submitting an 

electronic comment using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES

section, below) is 11:59 p.m. Eastern 

Time on this date. After June 11, 2012, 

you must submit information directly to 

the Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section below). 

Please note that we might not be able to 

address or incorporate information that 

we receive after the above requested 

date. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 21921 

ADDRESSES: You may submit 

information by one of the following 

methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. In the Enter 

Keyword or ID box, enter Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2012–0003, which is the 

docket number for this action. Then 

click on the Search button. You may 

submit a comment by clicking on ‘‘Send 

a Comment or Submission.’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand–delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R6–ES–2012– 

0003; Division of Policy and Directives 

Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 

2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will post all information we receive on 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Request for Information section 

below for more details). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Western Colorado Supervisor, Western 

Colorado Ecological Services Office, 

Grand Junction, CO; by telephone at 

970–243–2778; or by facsimile at 970– 

245–6933. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), please call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Information 

When we make a finding that a 

petition presents substantial 

information indicating that listing a 

species may be warranted, we are 

required to promptly review the status 

of the species (status review). For the 

status review to be complete and based 

on the best available scientific and 

commercial information, we request 

information on the Eastern population 

of the boreal toad from governmental 

agencies, Native American tribes, the 

scientific community, industry, and any 

other interested parties. We seek 

information on: 

(1) The species’ biology, range, and 

population trends, including: 

(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range 

including distribution patterns; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the species, its habitat or 

both. 

(2) 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: 

(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. 

If, after the status review, we 

determine that listing the Eastern 

population of the boreal toad is 

warranted, we will propose critical 

habitat (see definition in section 3(5)(A) 

of the Act) under section 4 of the Act, 

to the maximum extent prudent and 

determinable at the time we propose to 

list the species. Therefore, we also 

request data and information on: 

(1) What may constitute ‘‘physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species,’’ within the 

geographical range currently occupied 

by the species; 

(2) Where these features are currently 

found; 

(3) Whether any of these features may 

require special management 

considerations or protection; 

(4) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species that are ‘‘essential for the 

conservation of the species’’; and 

(5) 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 section 4 of the Act. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

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. 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.’’ 

You may submit your information 

concerning this status review by one of 

the methods 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 Web site. 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 supporting 

documentation that we received and 

used in preparing this finding is 

available for you to review at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Western Colorado Ecological 

Services Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

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. 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 conduct a 

species status review, which we 

subsequently summarize in our 

12-month finding. 

Petition History 

On May 25, 2011, we received a 

petition of the same date from the 

Center for Biological Diversity, the 

Center for Native Ecosystems, and the 

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, 

requesting that either the Eastern or 

SRM population of the boreal toad be 

listed as an endangered or threatened 

DPS and that critical habitat be 

designated under the Act. The 

petitioners also requested that if boreal 

toads in either the Eastern or SRM 

population are designated as separate 

species during consideration of the 

petition (based on recent and ongoing 

genetic studies) that both species be 

listed under the Act. We note the 

request to list either population as a 

DPS, or, if the two populations are 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21922 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

found to be separate species, to list each 

as a separate species; however, there are 

currently no scientific papers calling for 

species designations for these two 

populations. Consequently, this 90-day 

finding examines only the possibility of 

listing the Eastern or SRM population as 

a DPS or two DPSs, and not the species 

question. 

The petitioners included the requisite 

information in the petition, as required 

at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a June 23, 2011, 

letter to the petitioners, we responded 

that we reviewed the information 

presented in the petition and 

determined that issuing an emergency 

regulation temporarily listing the 

species as endangered under section 

4(b)(7) of the Act was not warranted. We 

also stated that we would initiate 

response to the petition in Fiscal Year 

2011 and would finalize a response in 

Fiscal Year 2012 (approximately March 

2012). This finding addresses the 

petition. 

Previous Federal Action(s) 

On September 30, 1993, the Service 

received a petition from the Biodiversity 

Legal Foundation of Boulder, Colorado, 

and Dr. Peter Hovingh, a researcher at 

the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, 

Utah. The petitioners requested that the 

Service list the SRM population of the 

‘‘western boreal toad’’ (a common name 

sometimes used in the past for 

Anaxyrus boreas boreas) as endangered 

throughout its range in northern New 

Mexico, Colorado, and southeastern 

Wyoming. The petitioners also 

requested that the Service designate 

critical habitat. We published a notice of 

a 90-day finding for the petition in the 

Federal Register on July 22, 1994 (59 FR 

37439), indicating that the petition and 

other readily available scientific and 

commercial information presented 

substantial information that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. 

On March 23, 1995, the Service 

announced a 12-month finding that 

listing the SRM population of the boreal 

toad as an endangered DPS was 

warranted but precluded by other higher 

priority actions (60 FR 15281). At that 

time, a listing priority number of 3 was 

assigned. When we find that a species 

is warranted but precluded for listing, 

we refer to it as a candidate species. 

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act directs that 

when we make a ‘‘warranted but 

precluded’’ finding on a petition, we are 

to treat the petition as being one that is 

resubmitted annually on the date of the 

finding; thus, the Act requires us to 

reassess the petitioned actions and to 

publish a finding on the resubmitted 

petition on an annual basis. Several 

resubmitted candidate assessments for 

the boreal toad were completed. The 

most recent assessment was published 

in the Federal Register on May 11, 2005 

(70 FR 24870). 

On October 7, 2002, as part of an 

agreement regarding multiple species, 

the U.S. Department of the Interior 

reached an out-of-court settlement with 

several conservation organizations and 

agreed to make a final determination for 

listing the SRM population of the boreal 

toad by no later than September 30, 

2005. In the 2005 Annual Notice of 

Findings on Resubmitted Petitions, we 

noted that a determination for the boreal 

toad would be funded in Fiscal Year 

2005 (70 FR 24870). On September 29, 

2005, we reached a determination in the 

revised 12-month Finding that the SRM 

population of the boreal toad did not 

warrant listing because it was not a 

listable entity according to the DPS 

criteria and, therefore, should be 

withdrawn from the candidate list (70 

FR 56880). When the boreal toad was 

put on the candidate list in 1995, the 

DPS policy did not yet exist, so current 

criteria were not used to determine 

whether the toad was a listable entity. 

The combination of using the DPS 

criteria developed in1996 and genetic 

and other information available during 

development of the 2005 finding led to 

determinations that the SRM population 

of the boreal toad was discrete based on 

DPS discreteness criteria but was not 

significant based on DPS significance 

criteria. Therefore, it was not considered 

a listable entity. 

On September 2, 2008, we received a 

notice of intent to sue from the Center 

for Biological Diversity (dated August 

28, 2008) for violations of the Act (i.e., 

failure to issue a proposed rule in 2005 

or subsequently list the toad), but a 

lawsuit never followed. 

Species Information 

Taxonomy 

The Anaxyrus boreas (formerly Bufo 

boreas) group of toads, of which the 

boreal toad is a subspecies, are 

amphibians that occur throughout much 

of the western United States. The 

species was first described from 

specimens collected on the Columbia 

River (Washington or Oregon) and Puget 

Sound (Washington) by Baird and 

Girard (1852). The genus for the boreal 

toad was revised from Bufo to Anaxyrus 

in 2006 (Frost et al. 2006, pp. 10, 213, 

218, 222, 281, 329, 350, 363), and the 

Service accepts this revision. 

Two subspecies of the boreal toad 

have been recognized for many years, 

the boreal toad (A. b. boreas, the subject 

of this finding) and the California toad 

(A. b. halophilus) (Camp 1917, p. 116). 

Other authors recognize up to four 

subspecies, with the Amargosa toad (A. 

nelsoni or A. b. nelsoni) and black toad 

(A. exsul) or (A. b. exsul) being the other 

two potential subspecies (Crother 2000 

(2001), p. 7; 2008, pp. 2–4; Stebbins 

2003, pp. 208–209, map 32). The 

Yosemite toad (A. canorus) also is 

considered to be a distinct but closely 

related species (Stebbins 2003, p. 210– 

211). All of the toad species and 

subspecies mentioned above are 

considered by Goebel et al. (2009, 

pp. 221, 223) and Switzer et al. (2009, 

pp. 25–26) to comprise the A. boreas 

group. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) 

analyses by these two sets of authors 

suggest that a taxonomic change to the 

A. boreas group could be appropriate. 

Two different studies analyzing 

mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 

boreal toads and other closely related 

species and subspecies conclude that 

toads within the SRM population 

(southeastern Wyoming, Colorado, and 

New Mexico) and southwestern 

Wyoming, southeastern Idaho, 

northeastern Nevada, and Utah form a 

population of genetically similar toads 

termed the Eastern Major Clade (Goebel 

et al. 2009, p. 210, fig. 1) or Clade 

3–1 (Switzer et al. 2009, p. 8). The 

combination of these two clades 

(populations of genetically similar 

toads), the Eastern Major Clade and 

Clade 3–1, primarily form the Eastern 

population (see the map in this notice). 

Switzer et al. (2009, fig. 3) also identify 

a smaller clade (named Clade BO by 

Switzer et al.) based on a distinct 

haplotype in southern Utah that 

constitutes a small part of the Eastern 

population (see the map in this Federal 

Register notice). Also examined within 

this finding are boreal toads found 

within the part of the Northwest Major 

Clade that overlaps with the Eastern 

Major Clade (Goebel 2003, p. 2; Goebel 

et al. 2009, p. 210, fig. 1). This overlap 

is further supported by Switzer et al. 

(2009, fig. 3), who found that the area 

they designated as Clade 3–2 overlaps 

with Clade 3–1 (see the map in this 

notice). Clade 3–2 is a weakly supported 

clade that, in combination with Clade 

3–3 and sister Clade 3–4, constitutes the 

larger Clade 4–1 discussed in Switzer et 

al. (2009, pp. 9–10, fig. 2). 

The Northwest Major Clade extends 

from western Wyoming and 

northwestern Utah over to west-central 

California and up to southeastern 

Alaska, including ranges of both the 

boreal toad and the California toad 

(Goebel et al. 2009, p. 215). The Eastern 

Major Clade extends from central 

Colorado to northeastern Nevada, and 

from southern Wyoming to northern 

New Mexico and Arizona (see the map 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 21923 

in this notice). All of the toads within 

the Eastern Major Clade and overlap 

area of the Northwest Major Clade (or 

Clades 3–1 and 3–2) are considered to 

be boreal toads (Goebel et al. 2009, p. 

215; Switzer et al. 2009, 

p. 3) (see the map in this notice). 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP12AP12.006</GPH>
21924 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 

As illustrated in the map in this 

notice, the combination of the outermost 

extent of both 2009 genetic articles’ 

clade boundaries primarily form the 

boundaries of the Eastern population. 

Two exceptions occur in west-central 

Utah and eastern Nevada, where the 

Eastern population boundary extends 

beyond the clade boundaries (see map). 

The petitioners based the Eastern 

population boundaries on gross range 

maps drawn by the International Union 

for Conservation of Nature, creating the 

two exceptions. Reduction in size of the 

Eastern population from clade 

boundaries also occurs in Arizona, 

northwestern New Mexico, and the 

other States, based on lack of habitat 

and no records of boreal toads ever 

occurring in the excluded areas (see 

map). 

Portions of Goebel et al.’s (2009, p. 

210, fig. 1) Northwest Major Clade and 

Switzer et al.’s (2009, fig. 3) Clade 3–2 

are illustrated in the map in this notice, 

and discussed in the ‘‘Evaluation of 

Listable Entities’’ section below, 

because of their geographic and genetic 

overlap with the Eastern Major Clade 

and Clade 3–1 and their necessary 

consideration in making a 

determination on whether the Eastern 

population is a listable entity. The other 

petitioned entity, the SRM population of 

the boreal toad, is a subset of the Eastern 

population (see map). 

Biology 

Boreal toads may reach a length 

(snout to vent) of 12.7 centimeters (5 

inches) (Hammerson 1999, p. 90; 

Stebbins 2003, p. 208). They possess 

warty skin, oval parotoid glands, and 

often have a distinctive light mid-dorsal 

stripe. During the breeding season, 

males develop a dark patch on the inner 

surface of the innermost digit. Unlike 

many other toad species, the boreal toad 

has no vocal sac and, therefore, 

produces no mating call (Hammerson 

1999, p. 90). Tadpoles are black or dark 

brown. 

Boreal toads in the SRM population 

typically occupy habitat at elevations 

between 2,440 meters (m) (8,000 feet 

(ft)) and 3,350 m (11,000 ft) (Loeffler 

2001, p. 6). However, within the Eastern 

population, they have been recorded as 

low as 1,570 m (5,150 ft) and as high as 

3,661 m (12,000 ft) (Livo and Yeakley 

1997, p. 143; Thompson et al. 2004, p. 

256; Hogrefe et al. 2005, p. 7). Boreal 

toads occurring further north and west 

from the SRM population occupy lower 

elevations and are found down to sea 

level on the Pacific coast (Stebbins 

2003, p. 209). At higher elevations, 

adult boreal toads emerge from winter 

refugia when snowmelt has cleared an 

opening from their burrows and daily 

temperatures remain above freezing 

(Campbell 1970a, pp. 22, 99; Campbell 

1970b, p. 281). Breeding can occur from 

late January to July, depending on 

latitude, elevation, and local conditions 

(Stebbins 2003, p. 209). Breeding occurs 

during a 2- to 4-week period from midMay to mid-June at lower elevations, 

and as late as mid-July at higher 

elevations in the SRM population 

(Hammerson 1999, p. 96). Suitable 

breeding sites are large bodies of water 

or small pools, beaver ponds, glacial 

kettle ponds, roadside ditches, humanmade ponds, and slow-moving streams 

(Campbell 1970a, pp. 24–25; 

Hammerson 1999, p. 95). 

Boreal toads have been observed to 

lay up to 16,500 eggs (Campbell 1970a, 

p. 24), and, in Colorado they have been 

observed laying up to 10,900 eggs 

(Hammerson 1999, p. 96), with an 

overall mean clutch size of 6,661 eggs 

(Carey et al. 2005, p. 224). The eggs are 

black and are deposited in long doublelayer jelly strings, with one to three 

rows of eggs (Hammerson 1999, p. 90). 

Eggs hatch 1 to 2 weeks after being laid. 

Egg and tadpole development is 

temperature-dependent, and 

reproductive efforts may fail if tadpoles 

do not have sufficient time to 

metamorphose before the onset of 

winter. Persistent, shallow bodies of 

water are critical to breeding success, 

and if the breeding site dries before 

metamorphosis is complete, desiccation 

of the tadpoles or eggs will occur. 

Tadpoles typically metamorphose by 

late July to late August, but at higher 

elevations metamorphosis may not be 

complete until late September (Loeffler 

2001, p. 7). Recently metamorphosed 

toadlets (metamorphs) aggregate within 

a few meters of the water and move into 

nearby moist habitats later in summer. 

After mating, adults often disperse to 

upland, terrestrial habitats, where they 

are mostly active during the day in early 

and late summer (Mullally 1958, entire; 

Campbell 1970a, pp. 84–86; Carey 1978, 

pp. 203, 206, 211), foraging primarily on 

ants, beetles, spiders, and other 

invertebrates (Schonberger 1945, p. 121; 

Campbell 1970a, p. 69–71). Late in the 

summer the toads will expand their 

home ranges, generally in the direction 

of wintering habitats, which include 

cavities among streamside boulders, 

ground squirrel burrows, and beaver 

lodges and dams (Campbell 1970a, pp. 

50, 87; Hammerson 1999, p. 94). 

Survival of embryos from laying to 

hatching is normally high, but 

catastrophic mortality has been 

observed (Blaustein and Olson 1991, 

entire). Survival of tadpoles and 

juveniles is low, with predation and 

adverse environmental conditions 

primarily responsible for mortality at 

these life stages (Campbell 1970a, p. 61). 

Between 95 and 99 percent of juveniles 

die before reaching their second year of 

life (Samollow 1980, p. 33). The 

minimum age of breeding boreal toads 

is about 4 years in males and 6 years in 

females (Hammerson 1999, p. 97). 

Females may skip 1 to 3 years between 

breeding attempts, and individuals may 

live approximately 11 or 12 years (Olson 

1991, pp. 7, 14). 

Distribution, Abundance, and Trends 

The range of the boreal toad 

subspecies (Anaxyrus boreas boreas) 

extends from coastal Alaska south and 

east through the Yukon Territory, the 

extreme southwest corner of the 

Northwest Territory, British Columbia, 

western Alberta, Washington, Oregon, 

northern California, northern Nevada, 

Idaho, western Montana, western and 

southeastern Wyoming, central and 

northern Utah, central to western 

Colorado, and extreme north-central 

New Mexico (Stebbins 2003, map 32; 

Goebel et al. 2009, p 210). No records 

of the boreal toad exist from Arizona or 

northwestern New Mexico, and, 

therefore, we do not consider the range 

of the boreal toad to include Arizona or 

northwestern New Mexico. 

The range of the SRM population 

includes southeastern Wyoming through 

the mountainous region of central to 

west-central Colorado, and into extreme 

north-central New Mexico. The range of 

the Eastern population encompasses the 

SRM population and also includes 

southwestern Wyoming, southeastern 

Idaho, northeastern Nevada, and Utah 

(Goebel et al. 2009, p. 210; Switzer et al. 

2009, p. 8, figure 3; Greenwald et al. 

2011, pp. 17, 56–72) (see the map in this 

notice). 

SRM Population 

Southeastern Wyoming 

In southeastern Wyoming, the boreal 

toad was once widespread and 

numerous in the Medicine Bow, Pole, 

Snowy, and Sierra Madre Mountain 

Ranges (Baxter and Stone 1985, p. 31; 

Keinath and Bennett 2000, p. 4). 

Declines in populations were 

documented in southeastern Wyoming 

from 1986 through 1988 (Corn et al. 

1989, pp. iv, 26), and the subspecies is 

now rare in southeastern Wyoming 

(Keinath and Bennett 2000, p. 4; Jackson 

2008, p. 4). Distribution, abundance, 

and trends of SRM toads are based on 

field monitoring from 1997 through 

2011, but the latest written report ends 

with the 2007 field season (Jackson 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 21925 

2008, entire). In 2003, toads were 

observed in only seven southeastern 

Wyoming locations (in Albany and 

Carbon Counties). Only one breeding 

population is known to occur in 

southeastern Wyoming (Jackson 2008, 

pp. 91–92; Colorado Division of Wildlife 

2010, p. 1). However, this population 

does not meet the population viability 

criteria established in the SRM 

conservation plan that was written by 

the State-led Boreal Toad Recovery 

Team (composition of Team described 

in Factor D) (Loeffler 2001, p. 17–18). 

The viability criteria specify the number 

of adults required at a breeding site, the 

frequency of breeding activity, and the 

amount of egg production and 

recruitment needed to maintain a viable 

population. The criteria also specify that 

a viable population must face no known 

significant and imminent threats to its 

habitat, health, or environmental 

conditions. 

Colorado 

In Colorado, the boreal toad was 

historically known to occur in 25 

counties, and was common throughout 

the higher elevations (Burger and Bragg 

1947, pp. 61–62; Smith et al. 1965, p. 5; 

Keinath and McGee 2005, p. 22), except 

for the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, Wet 

Mountains, and Pikes Peak region 

(Hammerson 1999, p. 90). 

Disappearances of 11 populations in the 

West Elk Mountains were documented 

between 1974 and 1982 (Carey 1993, pp. 

357–358). Surveys of 59 historically 

occupied localities in Colorado between 

1986 and 1988 failed to find individuals 

in 83 percent (49 locations) of the sites 

(Corn et al. 1989, p. iv). Surveys 

conducted in 1989 (249 locations) and 

1991 (377 locations) in suitable habitat 

and historical locations resulted in 

finding boreal toads at 2 and 1 location, 

respectively (Hammerson 1989, pp. 41, 

46, 50, 52, 53; Hammerson 1992, pp. 2, 

142). The number of known breeding 

populations increased from 1996 to 

2007, from the high teens to mid-40s; 

however, the number of individuals in 

some breeding populations have 

declined significantly from large 

numbers in the late 1990s or early 2000s 

to relatively few individuals as of 2007. 

Many more breeding sites and breeding 

populations have had very few toads 

observed since their initial discovery 

(Jackson 2008, pp. 12–91, 94). Despite 

knowledge of increased numbers of 

locations of boreal toads, the Boreal 

Toad Recovery Team identified only 

one population meeting the SRM 

conservation plan definition of viable in 

2006 and 2007, versus a high of six 

populations in 1999 (Loeffler 2001, p. 

17–18; Jackson 2008, p. 11). The lower 

number of viable populations is 

primarily due to detection of chytrid 

fungus (Batrachochytrium 

dendrobatidis), hereafter abbreviated 

‘‘Bd,’’ a threat suspected in decline of 

boreal toad numbers and distribution 

(Jackson 2008, pp. 6, 10). The above 

information suggests boreal toad 

populations are declining in Colorado. 

New Mexico 

The boreal toad was known to occur 

in three Rio Arriba County, New 

Mexico, localities: Lagunitas, Canjilon, 

and Trout Lakes (Campbell and 

Degenhardt 1971, entire; Jones 1978, p. 

3; New Mexico Department of Game and 

Fish (NMDGF) 1988, p. 1; Degenhardt et 

al. 1996, p. 49). Declines were first 

documented in New Mexico in the mid1980s (Woodward and Mitchell 1985, p. 

5; Carey 1987, pp. 1, 3). Surveys in 1993 

revealed no populations at the three 

previously known locations (Stuart and 

Painter 1994, p. 115). No boreal toads 

were observed during surveys of the 

Trout Lakes and Lagunitas areas of New 

Mexico in 2004 (Jackson 2005, p. 41). 

Consequently, in 2008 a repatriation 

program was started at Trout Lakes with 

over 4,000 Colorado-reared tadpoles 

being released (NMDGF 2008, p. 2; 

USFWS 2009, p. 3). In 2009, over 3,400 

tadpoles were released at Trout Lakes 

(NMDGF 2010, p. 4–5; USFWS 2010, p. 

3). In 2009, only seven boreal toads from 

the 2008 release were recaptured 

(NMDGF 2010, p. 3). 

In summary, based on currently 

available data, the distribution and 

abundance of boreal toads in the SRM 

population appears to be declining. 

Eastern Population, Excluding the SRM 

Portion of the Population (see above) 

Southwestern Wyoming 

Relatively recent records (1993–2003) 

and historical records (pre-1993) of 

boreal toad locations were compiled for 

southwestern Wyoming (McGee and 

Keinath 2004, pp. 65–66). Historically, 

boreal toads occurred in Uinta and 

Lincoln Counties in the southwestern 

corner and west-central edge of 

Wyoming. One (nonbreeding) record 

from far eastern Lincoln County was 

recorded in the 1993–2003 time period. 

Other recent records in the region are 

from Sublette County bordering the 

eastern side of Lincoln County. Juvenile 

or recently metamorphosed toads and 

tadpoles were collected in Sublette 

County, Wyoming, for genetic analysis. 

The most southerly of the three toad 

samples was grouped with the Eastern 

population by Goebel (2003, p. 7). We 

do not have more recent distribution or 

status information in our files for 

southwestern Wyoming. 

Southeastern Idaho 

Two genetic sample sites in 

southeastern Idaho occur within the 

Eastern population (Switzer et al. 2009, 

fig. 3 and table 8). We do not currently 

have additional information on boreal 

toad distribution or status in 

southeastern Idaho. 

Northeastern Nevada 

One boreal toad genetic sample has 

been collected in northeastern Nevada 

(Goebel et al. 2009, pp. 210 and 212). 

We currently have no additional 

information on the distribution or status 

of boreal toads in northeastern Nevada. 

Utah 

The petition states that boreal toads 

are largely distributed throughout most 

of their historical range in Utah, which 

includes northern and central Utah 

(referencing Thompson et al. 2004, 

entire). Toads were considered to be 

irregularly distributed, and not all 

historical areas were occupied at the 

time of the Utah Boreal Toad 

Conservation Plan’s development 

(Hogrefe et al. 2005, p. 5). The Utah 

Conservation Plan states that between 

1995 and 2004, toads were recorded at 

a minimum of 102 localities (Hogrefe et 

al. 2005, p. 5), and eight populations 

were considered viable (Hogrefe et al. 

2005, p. 1). Ten populations in 2009 

were considered viable according to the 

definition in the Utah Conservation Plan 

(Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

(UDWR) 2010, pp. I–16, I–17, II–10, III– 

5, IV–12). 

In summary, based on currently 

available data, the number of viable 

populations appears stable in Utah, but 

little information exists to evaluate the 

current distribution or trend in 

abundance in the Eastern population 

outside of the boundaries of the SRM 

population. 

Evaluation of Listable Entities 

Under section 3(16) of the Act, we 

may consider for listing any species, 

including subspecies, of fish, wildlife, 

or plants, or any DPS of vertebrate fish 

or wildlife that interbreeds when mature 

(16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Such entities are 

considered eligible for listing under the 

Act (and, therefore, are referred to as 

listable entities) if we determine that 

they meet the definition of an 

endangered or threatened species. The 

petitioners have requested that either 

the SRM population of the boreal toad 

or the Eastern population of the boreal 

toad be considered a DPS and listed as 

endangered or threatened under the Act. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21926 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment 

In determining whether an entity 

constitutes a DPS, and is therefore 

listable under the Act, we follow the 

Policy Regarding the Recognition of 

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments 

Under the Endangered Species Act (DPS 

Policy) (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). 

Under our DPS Policy, we analyze three 

elements prior to listing a possible DPS: 

(1) The discreteness of the population 

segment in relation to the remainder of 

the taxon; (2) the significance of the 

population segment to the taxon to 

which it belongs; and (3) the population 

segment’s conservation status in relation 

to the Act’s standards for listing (e.g., is 

the population segment, when treated as 

if it were a species, endangered or 

threatened?) (61 FR 4722). This finding 

considers whether the petitioned SRM 

population or Eastern population of the 

boreal toad may be a DPS. 

Discreteness 

Under our DPS Policy, a population 

segment of a vertebrate species 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); or 

(2) it is delimited by international 

governmental boundaries within which 

significant differences in control of 

exploitation, management of habitat, 

conservation status, or regulatory 

mechanisms exist (61 FR 4722). 

Significance 

Under our DPS Policy, in addition to 

our consideration that a population 

segment is discrete, we consider its 

biological and ecological significance to 

the taxon to which it belongs. This 

consideration may include, but is not 

limited to, the following: 

(1) Evidence of the persistence of the 

discrete population segment in an 

ecological setting that is unusual or 

unique for the taxon; 

(2) Evidence that loss of the discrete 

population segment would result in a 

significant gap in the range of a taxon; 

(3) Evidence that the discrete 

population segment represents the only 

surviving natural occurrence of a taxon 

that may be more abundant elsewhere as 

an introduced population outside its 

historical range; or 

(4) Evidence that the discrete 

population segment differs markedly 

from other populations of the species in 

its genetic characteristics (61 FR 4722). 

Discreteness Information Provided in 

the Petition 

The petition cites two genetic studies 

(Goebel et al. 2009, entire; Switzer et al. 

2009, entire) that the petitioners believe 

support either that (1) the Eastern 

population, which would include the 

SRM population, is markedly separate 

from other boreal toad populations 

because of genetic differences and 

geographic separation, or (2) the SRM 

population is markedly separate from 

the rest of the Eastern population, as 

well as all other boreal toad 

populations, due to geographic 

separation. The petitioners recognize 

there may be overlap in genetics and 

geography between the Eastern and 

SRM populations, as well as with other 

populations within the range of the 

species, but they believe that the level 

of overlap is within the bounds allowed 

by the DPS policy in that the DPS policy 

does not ‘‘require absolute reproductive 

isolation as a prerequisite to recognizing 

a distinct population segment’’ (61 FR 

4722). 

Significance Information Provided in 

the Petition 

The petition states that both the 

Eastern population and SRM population 

occur in an unusual or unique 

ecological setting. The petition also 

states that a significant gap in the range 

could occur if boreal toads are 

extirpated from either the Eastern 

population (a 20 percent (or 161,422 

square miles) loss of the species’ range 

in the conterminous United States) or 

SRM population (a 5 percent (or 38,894 

square miles) loss of the species’ range 

in the conterminous United States). 

Furthermore, the petition states that the 

Eastern population is significant based 

on Goebel et al. (2009, entire) and 

Switzer et al. (2009, entire). The petition 

further states that evidence shows that 

the SRM population may be significant 

based on the potential for the SRM 

population to be its own evolutionary 

unit as evidenced by geographic 

separation and greater diversity than 

currently recognized species (Goebel et 

al. 2009, pp. 213, 221). 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files on Discreteness of the SRM 

Population 

Based on evidence of feasible 

dispersal distances, the SRM population 

is likely geographically (physically) 

separated from other populations of the 

boreal toad, including the western 

portion of the Eastern population 

(Keinath and McGee 2005, p. 16, fig. 7 

and pp. 26–27) (see the map in this 

notice). The greatest recorded distance 

of movement for a boreal toad in the 

southern Rocky Mountains is 8 

kilometers (km) (5 miles (mi)) (Lambert 

2003, p. 88). The map in this notice 

illustrates the gross range of the western 

part of the Eastern population and the 

SRM population. We used complete 

hydrologic units to develop the eastern 

boundary of the western part of the 

Eastern population. The petition maps 

did not use complete hydrologic units, 

particularly in northeastern Utah, but 

rather cut them off at State boundaries. 

The Red Desert separates these two 

portions of the Eastern population in 

Wyoming by about 126 km (78 mi), and 

arid habitat in western Colorado and 

eastern Utah create separation of at least 

84 km (52 mi). However, boreal toads 

are not known to actually occupy the 

outer extent (lower elevations) of the 

gross hydrologic units in the map in this 

notice. Maps in the petition can be 

referred to in order to see hydrologic 

units known to be occupied by boreal 

toads (Greenwald et al. 2011, pp. 56– 

72). Looking at these hydrologic unit of 

occurrences, and based on relatively 

current ranges described in Keinath and 

McGee (2005, p. 16, fig. 7), 

approximately 210 km (130 mi) of 

separation occurs in Wyoming. At least 

200 km (125 mi) of separation occurs in 

eastern Utah and western Colorado 

(Greenwald et al. 2011, pp. 9, 56–72). 

Therefore, the large size and arid, 

inhospitable habitat of the Red Desert 

and arid lands to the south in Colorado 

and Utah likely create a geographic 

barrier to migrating toads. 

Mitochondrial DNA analysis indicates 

that the SRM population is part of a 

more widespread evolutionary lineage 

that includes boreal toad populations 

from Utah, northeastern Nevada, 

southeastern Idaho, and southwestern 

Wyoming (Goebel et al. 2009; Switzer et 

al. 2009). However, since mtDNA 

evolves slowly, taxonomic separation 

based solely on mtDNA may not provide 

clear taxonomic distinctions. For 

example, a single haplotype from boreal 

toads in the Uinta Mountains of Utah 

also occurs in boreal toads in the SRM 

population (Goebel et al. 2009, p. 221). 

Discovery of this haplotype common to 

both areas led to the combination of the 

SRM population and the Uinta 

Mountain site as a minor clade—that 

clade is named the Eastern Rocky 

Mountain Minor Clade (Goebel et al. 

2009, p. 217, figure 4). However, due to 

the long distance separating the sites, 

the occurrence of this haplotype in both 

areas may be a result of incomplete 

lineage sorting commonly found in 

recently isolated groups (Goebel et al. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 21927 

2009, p. 221). In other words, boreal 

toads from the Uinta Mountain site and 

the SRM population may have interbred 

at one time thousands to millions of 

years ago, but are not likely to have 

interbred since then, and the similar 

haplotype detection is simply a feature 

of the slow evolutionary changes that 

can occur in portions of mtDNA. These 

statements lend support to the idea that 

the geographic separation of the SRM 

population has eliminated genetic 

interbreeding and the SRM population 

is discrete. However, further DNA 

(particularly nuclear DNA (nDNA)) 

studies are needed to provide 

clarification on taxonomy, before 

genetic evidence could be used to 

support genetic discreteness of the SRM 

population. 

Nonetheless, based on its current 

geographic separation from other boreal 

toad populations, we believe there is 

substantial information to indicate that 

the SRM population may meet the DPS 

Policy definition of discreteness. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files on Discreteness for the Eastern 

Population (which includes the SRM 

population) 

As referenced above, two different 

studies analyzing mtDNA from boreal 

toads and other closely related species 

and subspecies conclude that toads 

within the SRM population and 

southwestern Wyoming, southeastern 

Idaho, northeastern Nevada, and Utah 

form a population of genetically similar 

toads termed the Eastern Major Clade 

(Goebel et al. 2009, p. 210, fig. 1) or 

Clade 3–1 (Switzer et al. 2009, p. 8, and 

fig. 3), which we refer to in this 

document as the Eastern population of 

the boreal toad (see the map in this 

notice). Both studies acknowledge that 

the Eastern population overlaps with 

areas identified as the Northwestern 

Major Clade (Goebel et al. 2009, p. 210, 

fig. 1) or Clade 3–2 (Switzer et al. 2009, 

fig. 3) (see the map in this notice). 

Therefore, absolute reproductive 

isolation may not currently be occurring 

between the Eastern population and 

other populations of boreal toads. 

However, studies suggest that the 

Eastern Major Clade and the 

Northwestern Major Clade are 

sufficiently different that they may 

represent different species (Goebel 2003 

p. 7). There is a need to examine 

additional nDNA further north in 

Wyoming, in the Yellowstone area and 

surrounding regions, to determine if 

nDNA divergence parallels mtDNA 

divergence in boreal toads (Goebel 2003, 

p. 8). 

Through mtDNA analysis, Goebel 

(2003, pp. 8–9) found greater differences 

between boreal toads in the Eastern 

Major Clade versus the Northwest Major 

Clade than mtDNA differences found 

between the Canadian toad (Bufo 

hemiophrys) and American toad (B. 

americanus), which are considered to be 

two separate species. Goebel et al. 

(2009, p. 15) provides further support 

for genetic differences, identifying the 

Eastern and Northwest Major Clades of 

boreal toads as having different 

haplotype groups. This mtDNA 

separation suggests the Eastern 

population of boreal toads may be a 

distinct species (or subspecies) from 

toads in the Northwest Major Clade or 

other taxonomic entities of boreal toads 

to the north and west. Haplotypes found 

through mtDNA analysis and 

microsatellite DNA analysis are 

differentiated enough between Clade 3– 

1 (corresponding to the Eastern 

population) and Clade 3–2 to the north 

that Switzer et al. (2009, p. 8, 23, 25) 

hypothesized Clade 3–1 could be its 

own taxonomic entity. 

The petition states that the Snake 

River Plain in Idaho geographically 

separates the boreal toad populations. 

Boreal toads might not cross the Snake 

River Plain itself; however, based on 

genetic samples, it does not appear that 

the Plain is a genetic barrier (Switzer et 

al. 2009, fig 3). Genetic samples from 

Clade 3–2 (Switzer et al. 2009, fig. 3) 

and the Northwest Major Clade (Goebel 

et al. 2009, p. 210, fig. 1) occur north 

and south of the Plain, which suggests 

boreal toad gene flow around the Snake 

River Plain. The petition erroneously 

states that the Hell’s Canyon portion of 

the Snake River separates boreal toads 

along the Idaho-Wyoming border. 

Although the upper end of the Snake 

River does occur on the Idaho-Wyoming 

border, Hell’s Canyon is on the IdahoOregon border. 

The petition also states that gene flow 

may occur to the west of the 

northeastern Nevada site where samples 

were obtained by Goebel et al. (2009, 

pp. 210, 212). However, the petition 

cites Noles (2010, entire), who reviewed 

and studied genetic and historical 

geologic processes (phylogeography) to 

explain distribution of boreal toad 

clades in Nevada. The study identifies 

some genetic sample sites and clade 

names for boreal toads in Nevada and 

states that it is reasonable to suspect 

that boreal toads in the Bonneville Basin 

are discernible from boreal toads in the 

Relict Dace Basin and the Lahontan 

Basin immediately to the west (Noles 

2010, pp. 24, 50, 51). These statements 

lend support to the idea that the western 

edge of the Bonneville Basin is the 

northwesternmost extension of the 

Eastern population, as asserted by the 

petition. However, limited boreal toad 

genetic sampling in the Bonneville 

Basin, Relict Dace Basin, Lahontan 

Basin, and an unnamed basin on the 

northern border of Nevada make the 

genetic overlap issue unclear in western 

Utah, northern Nevada, southwestern 

Idaho, and eastern Oregon (Noles 2010, 

pp. 12, 38, 39, 50, 51). 

Based on genetic data, there appears 

to be a continuum of boreal toad 

distribution from southeastern Idaho 

into western Wyoming and all the way 

to Alaska, as well as a continuum from 

northwestern Utah, northern Nevada, 

southwestern Idaho, and eastern Oregon 

all the way to Alaska (Goebel et al. 2009, 

p. 210, 217; Switzer et al. 2009, figure 

3). However, the DPS policy allows for 

some overlap of interbreeding and states 

that animals do not ‘‘require absolute 

reproductive isolation as a prerequisite 

to recognizing a distinct population 

segment’’ and that ‘‘recognized species 

* * * are known to sustain a low 

frequency of interbreeding with related 

species’’ (61 FR 4722). Furthermore, as 

the DPS Policy explains, discreteness 

‘‘does not require absolute separation of 

a DPS from other members of its 

species, because this can rarely be 

demonstrated in nature for any 

population of organisms. This standard 

[adopted by the DPS Policy] is believed 

to allow entities recognized under the 

Act to be identified without requiring an 

unreasonably rigid test of distinctness’’ 

(61 FR 4722). Consequently, based 

primarily on mtDNA genetic evidence 

and phylogeographic evidence, we find 

that the petition and our files contain 

substantial information that the Eastern 

population of the boreal toad may be 

discrete, despite some genetic and 

geographic overlap with other boreal 

toad populations. We will further 

examine this information during the 

status review for the 12-month finding. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files on Significance for the SRM 

Population 

Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting 

The petition asserts that boreal toads 

in the SRM population could be 

significant based on unusual or unique 

ecological settings as described in a map 

of ecoregions (areas with common 

vegetation, soils, geology, precipitation 

levels, hydrology, etc.) (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

2011, entire). The petitioners assert that 

ecoregions in the SRM population are 

distinct from ecoregions in the Eastern 

population, as well as distinct from 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21928 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

ecoregions in other areas occupied by 

the boreal toad. For the purposes of 

determining significance in a DPS 

analysis, we look at whether the 

ecological settings occupied in the area 

under consideration are unique or 

unusual to the taxon in question, not 

whether the setting is unique from other 

settings. The petitioner did not provide 

substantial information to indicate that 

the geographic area occupied by the 

SRM population is unique or unusual 

for the boreal toad taxon, as required by 

the DPS policy. Additionally, we found 

no information in our files that these 

settings were unique to the SRM 

population of the boreal toad. 

The petition referenced a study that 

indicates that boreal toads may occur at 

lower elevations in Utah than in the 

SRM population (Hogrefe et al. 2005, p. 

7). However, there is still overlap in 

elevational range of occupied habitats 

between boreal toads in the SRM 

population and in Utah; therefore, 

elevation does not appear to 

differentiate a unique ecological setting 

for boreal toads in the SRM population. 

Also, the petition notes that the 

ecoregions have varying (but 

overlapping) levels of precipitation and 

vary in dominant vegetation types, but 

again, specific habitats that boreal toads 

actually occupy (for example, mesic 

subalpine habitats) appear similar 

across all ecoregions. Consequently, 

there is not substantial evidence in the 

petition or in our files to support 

unusual or unique ecological settings as 

a significant factor in differentiating the 

SRM population from the western part 

of the Eastern population or from other 

areas throughout the range of the boreal 

toad. 

Significant Gap in Range 

The petition states the SRM 

population constitutes about 5 percent 

(or 38,894 square miles) of the range in 

the conterminous United States and that 

its loss could pose a significant gap in 

the range of the boreal toad. This loss, 

which would occur at the southeastern 

edge of the range, would create a gap in 

the range of the boreal toad in the 

conterminous United States. However, 

we do not believe this gap would be 

significant, due to the combination of 

the area being on the edge of the range 

and covering a relatively small area. We 

do not believe there is substantial 

information that the loss of SRM would 

be significant to the taxon. 

Marked Differences in Genetic 

Characteristics 

The petition suggests that boreal toads 

in the SRM population are significant 

under the DPS Policy because they 

comprise more diversity than currently 

recognized species, such as in the 

Canadian toad and American toad 

example used above by Goebel et al. 

(2009, p. 215). However, in order to be 

considered significant under the DPS 

criteria, it is not important how diverse 

the population is, but rather whether 

that diversity (e.g., that of haplotypes) 

differs markedly from other populations 

of boreal toads. Also, although Goebel et 

al.’s (2009, p. 221) statement about 

incomplete lineage sorting may prove 

accurate, we do not find there is 

currently enough genetic data to support 

the statement. Goebel et al. (2009, p. 15) 

conclude that the SRM population 

shares haplotypes with boreal toads in 

the western part of the Eastern Major 

Clade. Switzer et al. (2009, p. 26) also 

conclude that boreal toads within the 

SRM population share haplotypes with 

boreal toads in the western portion of 

Clade 3–1. In fact, both studies group 

boreal toads in the SRM population 

genetically with other toads in the 

Eastern population, concluding that 

they are part of a more widespread 

evolutionary lineage. Consequently, we 

find that current genetic analyses do not 

provide substantial information that the 

SRM population may be significant, 

because the SRM population does not 

have markedly different genes compared 

to the rest of the Eastern population. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files on Significance for the Eastern 

Population 

Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting 

The petition asserts that boreal toads 

in the Eastern population could be 

significant based on unusual or unique 

ecological settings as described in a map 

of ecoregions (EPA 2011, entire). They 

assert that ecoregions in the Eastern 

population are distinct from other 

ecoregions outside of the Eastern 

population. For the purposes of 

determining significance in a DPS 

analysis, we look at whether the settings 

occupied in the area under 

consideration are unique or unusual to 

the taxon in question, not whether the 

setting is unique from other settings. We 

do not agree with the petition’s 

assertion that ecoregions in the Eastern 

population are unique. Some areas 

within the range of the taxon may in fact 

be unique because of elevation, 

precipitation levels, and vegetative 

characteristics. However, we find that 

many of the ecoregions, and areas 

actually occupied by the boreal toad 

within the range of the taxon, are 

similar enough that the Eastern 

population cannot be characterized as 

unusual or unique (i.e., they occupy 

relatively high elevation, moist, 

subalpine, or boreal forest habitat). 

Consequently, there is not substantial 

evidence in the petition or in our files 

to support unusual or unique ecological 

settings as a significant factor in 

differentiating the Eastern population 

from other areas throughout the range of 

the boreal toad taxon. 

Significant Gap in Range 

The petition states the Eastern 

population (which includes the SRM 

population) constitutes approximately 

20 percent of the subspecies’ range in 

the conterminous United States and that 

this should be considered a significant 

gap in the range should boreal toads in 

the Eastern population become 

extirpated. Based on a review of the 

information in the petition and available 

in our files, there appears to be 

sufficient information to indicate that 

there may be a significant gap in the 

range of the species if the Eastern 

population were lost. We will further 

investigate this in our 12-month status 

review. 

Marked Differences in Genetic 

Characteristics 

For the Eastern population, two 

studies suggest through mtDNA analysis 

that the combination of the clades that 

make up the Eastern population of the 

boreal toad could be considered a 

separate species or subspecies. These 

hypotheses are based on different 

haplotypes between the clades that 

make up the Eastern population (Eastern 

Major and Clade 3–1) and the clades to 

its north (Northwest Major and Clade 3– 

2) (Goebel et al. 2009, pp. 215, 223; 

Switzer et al. 2009, pp. 18–26). A 

phylogeographic study in Nevada also 

suggests that boreal toads in the 

Bonneville Basin could be distinct from 

toads further to the west in Nevada, 

thereby supporting the idea that the 

Eastern population is a genetically 

distinct population (Noles 2010, pp. 24, 

50, 51). Based on information provided 

in the petition and in our files on 

differing haplotypes between the 

Eastern population and clades to the 

north, we find that the Eastern 

population of boreal toad may be 

significant. 

DPS Determination for the SRM 

Population 

For the reasons described above, we 

determine that there is not substantial 

information in the petition and in our 

files to suggest that the SRM population 

of boreal toads may be a valid listable 

entity (DPS). Although this population 

appears geographically discrete, we did 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 21929 

not find substantial information to 

suggest that it may be significant 

according to the standard in our DPS 

Policy. Therefore, we will not evaluate 

the status of this population further in 

this finding. 

DPS Determination for the Eastern 

Population 

Based on current knowledge from 

genetic studies and distribution 

information, there appears to be some 

genetic and geographic overlap of the 

Eastern population with populations of 

boreal toads to the north of the Eastern 

population. However, some genetic and 

geographic overlap is allowed by the 

DPS Policy, and we have determined 

that the extent of this overlap may be 

within the bounds of the DPS Policy. 

Therefore, considering information in 

the petition and readily available in our 

files, we find there is substantial 

information that the Eastern population 

of boreal toads may be a valid DPS 

based on sufficient genetic and 

geographic discreteness from the other 

boreal toad populations, and based on 

evidence of significance, including the 

significant gap in the range of the boreal 

toad that would be created if the Eastern 

population should become extirpated. 

In addition, marked (significant) genetic 

haplotype differences between the 

Eastern population and other 

populations of boreal toads to the north 

also support our determination that 

there is substantial information that the 

Eastern population may be a valid 

listable entity (DPS). We will further 

analyze the validity of this potential 

DPS with respect to our DPS policy 

during the 12-month finding. 

Evaluation of Information for This 

Finding 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR part 424 set forth the procedures 

for adding a species to, or removing a 

species from, the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. A species may be 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species due to one or more 

of the 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 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 may warrant 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 mere identification of factors that 

could impact a species negatively may 

not be sufficient to compel a finding 

that listing may be warranted. The 

information shall contain evidence 

sufficient to suggest that these factors 

may be operative threats that act on the 

species to the point that the species may 

meet the definition of threatened or 

endangered under the Act. 

In making this 90-day finding, we 

evaluated whether information 

regarding threats to the Eastern 

population of the boreal toad, as 

presented in the petition and other 

information available in our files, is 

substantial, thereby indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. Our 

evaluation of this information is 

presented below. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petition states that water 

management, roads, livestock grazing, 

recreation, timber harvest, residential 

and commercial development, 

pollutants, and energy and minerals 

management are all activities that 

destroy, modify, or curtail the boreal 

toad’s habitat or range. The petitioners 

believe that any of these activities could 

contribute to the decline of the boreal 

toad. 

Water Management—The petition 

cites several studies to show that water 

management can lead to direct habitat 

loss, habitat fragmentation, and 

detrimental alteration of natural 

hydrological regimes, through a number 

of activities, including draining or 

filling of wetlands, water diversion for 

municipal or agricultural purposes, dam 

and reservoir construction, dewatering 

of habitats, bank stabilization, and 

stream channelization (Loeffler 2001, p. 

12 ; McGee and Keinath 2004, p. 37; 

Hogrefe et al. 2005, p. 19; Stoddard et 

al. 2005, p. 6). The petition also states 

that extended hydroperiods of wetlands 

can increase densities of invertebrate 

predators and establishment of 

predatory fishes (Scott 1996, pp. 45–46; 

Skelly 1996, pp. 599–604). 

Roads—The petition states that roads 

cause habitat fragmentation, prevent 

migration, cause mortality, and alter 

water flow that sustains aquatic habitats 

(Lehtinen et al. 1999, p. 2; Loeffler 2001, 

p. 12; Hogrefe et al. 2005 p. 17). The 

petition also states that amphibians in 

general are particularly vulnerable to 

road mortality. The petition states that 

other detrimental factors may include 

pollutants, erosion and sedimentation, 

vibrations, and noise. The petition cites 

several additional studies to support 

these claims, but these references were 

not provided to us or readily available 

in our files. One article and one 

personal communication referenced in 

the petition state that several boreal toad 

mortalities have been observed, but 

other references either do not provide 

specific information or appear to be 

general and would not provide 

information specific to the boreal toad. 

Livestock Grazing—The petition 

states that livestock trample boreal toads 

and their habitat. Trampling of habitat 

could cause further mortality to boreal 

toads from loss of vegetative cover 

resulting in desiccation (Bartelt 2000, 

pp. 98; Hogrefe et al. 2005, p. 15). The 

petition also provides information to 

suggest that livestock grazing may cause 

declines in water quality from excess 

nutrients, reduction in vegetation that 

helps filter water, and reduced survival 

of eggs and tadpoles from increased 

siltation, water temperatures, and fecal 

contamination (Loeffler 1998, p. 54; 

McGee and Keinath 2004, pp. 33–34; 

Hogrefe et al. 2005, p. 15). The 

petitioners argue that insect abundance 

(toad prey) also may be reduced by 

livestock grazing (Fleischner 1994, pp. 

631–632). The petitioners state that 

prairie-dog or other rodent control 

programs for livestock management 

reduce availability of burrows for 

overwintering toads (Sharps and Uresk 

1990, pp. 339–345). The petition also 

suggests that compaction of soils may 

potentially limit the availability of 

burrows that help prevent desiccation 

and freezing of toads, that 

overutilization of tall herbaceous cover 

may make adult toads more susceptible 

to predation, and that grazing 

contributes to a decline in beaver 

populations that may, in turn, result in 

less boreal toad habitat. The petitioners 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21930 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

did not provide references to support 

most of the above claims, and we do not 

have data readily available in our files 

to support such claims. 

Recreation—Recreation is cited in the 

petition as impacting amphibians 

through loss of eggs, tadpoles, 

metamorphs, and adults due to 

trampling, vehicle impacts, habitat 

degradation, an increase in predators 

attracted to human refuse, and transfer 

of pathogens between boreal toad 

populations (Hogrefe et al. 2005, p. 17). 

The petition states that human handling 

and pet-related mortality of boreal toads 

also may occur. The petition provides 

examples of where some of these 

activities have impacted boreal toads, 

and cites references that were not 

available to us in our files. 

Timber Harvest—The petition states 

timber harvest may cause (1) mortality 

through crushing by equipment, (2) 

interruption of dispersal from breeding 

sites, or of late-summer dispersal of 

adults into uplands, (3) soil compaction 

that limits the availability of burrows 

used for overwintering hibernacula, (4) 

a reduction of available refugia through 

burning of slash piles and downed 

woody materials, (5) sedimentation that 

could disturb habitat, and (6) the spread 

of nuisance species. The petition states 

that any timber harvest activity that 

affects wetlands could have negative 

impacts to the boreal toad (Loeffler 

1998, pp. 56–57; Bartelt 2000, pp. 20– 

27, 74–77; McGee and Keinath 2004, pp. 

32–33). However, only one of the 

references available to us on this topic 

was specific to the species, showing that 

effects to boreal toads from interruption 

of dispersal by timber harvest have been 

documented (Bartelt 2000, pp. 20–27, 

74–77). 

Residential and Commercial 

Development—The petition states that 

residential and commercial 

development have potentially caused 

extirpation of boreal toads in several 

areas in Utah and Colorado (Thompson 

et al. 2004, p. 257). 

Pollutants—The petition states that 

pollutants including herbicides, 

insecticides, and piscicides are harmful 

to amphibians (Loeffler 2001, p. 13; 

Hayes et al. 2002, pp. 5476–5479). The 

petition also states that high salinity 

concentrations may affect toad 

equilibrium and that a high proportion 

of streams in the range of the Eastern 

population of boreal toad have high 

salinity (Dole et al. 1985, pp. 645–648; 

Stoddard et al. 2005, p. 40). 

Energy and Minerals Management— 

The petition states that energy and 

minerals management causes habitat 

loss and fragmentation from new roads, 

well pads, pumps and other facilities, 

and utility lines, and an increase in 

human presence from vehicle traffic and 

construction activity (U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) 2005, pp. 

3–29). 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

Water Management—Alteration of 

natural hydrology and hydrologic 

processes, such as removal of water 

sources, shortening or lengthening water 

availability, and flooding large areas of 

habitat or dispersal corridors could 

cause impacts to the boreal toad 

(Loeffler 2001, p. 12; Hogrefe et al. 2005, 

p. 19). It is possible that extended 

hydroperiods of water bodies could 

increase densities of invertebrate 

predators and allow establishment of 

predatory fishes. It also is possible that 

water manipulation could decrease rates 

of boreal toad reproduction and 

recruitment (Scott 1996, pp. 45–46; 

Skelly 1996, pp. 599–604; Semlitsch 

2002, pp. 621–623; McGee and Keinath 

2004, p. 37). The creation of Lefthand 

Reservoir in Boulder County, Colorado, 

flooded a large wetland, forcing boreal 

toads to its margins where habitat may 

not have been as suitable (Campbell 

1970a, p. 7; Hammerson 1999, p. 92). 

Reservoirs may not have suitable 

shallow water for breeding, and open 

water replaces foraging habitat around 

previously existing wetlands 

(Hammerson 1999, p. 92). However, the 

information in the petition and in our 

files did not provide any substantial 

information or analyses to suggest that 

these effects are occurring in a 

widespread basis in the Eastern 

population of boreal toads. 

The petition states that a substantial 

proportion of streams located within the 

range of the Eastern population of boreal 

toads have been impacted by 

disturbance, and cites a study 

illustrating an average 30–40 percent 

disturbance of stream corridor riparian 

areas, about 10 percent disturbance of 

riparian vegetation, and 10–20 percent 

disturbance of streambed stability by 

stressors in the Southern Rockies and 

Northern Rockies ecoregions (Stoddard 

2005, p. 40, fig. 15). The stream corridor 

riparian area category does indicate a 

moderate amount of disturbance to 

potential boreal toad habitat loss and 

fragmentation. However, the number 

and extent of streams in this study that 

were occupied by boreal toads is 

unknown, so the extent of impact is 

indeterminable. 

The petitioners state that wetland 

losses have occurred throughout Utah 

and are expected to continue due to 

human population growth (Lee 2001, p. 

4). There are numerous wetlands and 

water sources within the range of the 

boreal toad that have not been impacted, 

but there has been alteration of riparian 

and wetland habitat and hydroperiods 

due to water development and use. We 

believe this issue is the most likely 

activity under Factor A to cause impacts 

to the boreal toad. However, the petition 

and the information in our files does not 

detail the extent of wetland or riparian 

habitat alteration as it corresponds to 

effects on boreal toad habitat. The 

petition does not provide an analysis of 

water management impacts to boreal 

toads. Consequently, we find that 

localized impacts from water 

management activities may occur, but 

the petition and information in our files 

does not present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

water management activities are a threat 

for the Eastern population of the boreal 

toad. 

Roads—Roads could cause direct 

mortality by vehicle strike as well as 

direct loss of habitat, fragmentation, 

sedimentation, and alteration of 

hydrology, and could potentially limit 

dispersal and gene flow (Lehtinen et al. 

1999, pp. 1–12; Loeffler 2001, p. 12; 

Hogrefe et al. 2005, p. 17). However, 

while the petitioners mapped major 

roads in the range of the boreal toad, 

they provided limited specific evidence 

of road impacts to boreal toad 

populations (Hogrefe 2005, p. 17; 

Greenwald et al. 2011, pp. 26, 72). The 

references referred to by the petition as 

supporting impacts from roads were 

general in nature and did not speak 

directly to the boreal toad or its habitat. 

Although there are some heavily 

traveled roads in or near boreal toad 

habitat, the majority of roads are lesstraveled dirt roads that we do not 

believe cause a high level of mortality 

or other impacts to boreal toads. We 

find that localized impacts from roads 

may occur but the petition and 

information in our files does not present 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that roads may 

threaten the Eastern population of the 

boreal toad. 

Livestock Grazing—Livestock grazing 

can occasionally cause direct mortality 

to boreal toads (Bartelt and Peterson 

1996, p. 14; Bartelt 2000, p. 98; Hogrefe 

et al. 2005, p. 15). Additionally, grazing 

can cause boreal toad habitat 

destruction and degradation through 

eating and trampling of vegetation and 

possible water quality reduction 

through bank erosion and water 

contamination (Fleischner 1994, pp. 

631–632; Loeffler 1998, p. 54; Bartelt 

2000, pp. 98, 20–27, 74–77; McGee and 

Keinath 2004, pp. 33–34; Hogrefe et al. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 21931 

2005, p. 15). Clear-cutting (removal of 

all trees in an area) has been shown to 

adversely affect boreal toads by creating 

open spaces that are too dry (and 

presumably too cold at night) for toads 

(Bartelt 2000, pp. 20–27, 74–77). If 

livestock are removing vegetation in 

large areas, adverse conditions similar 

to those resulting from clear-cuts could 

occur. However, the references in the 

petition and additional references in our 

files (Bartelt and Peterson 1996, entire) 

only mention occasional direct effects to 

the boreal toad and only the possibility 

of widespread habitat threats. We find 

that localized impacts from grazing may 

occur, but the petition and information 

in our files do not present substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that grazing may be a threat 

to the Eastern population of boreal toad. 

Recreation—Recreation from 

camping, hiking, biking, fishing, and 

off-highway vehicle use could impact 

boreal toad habitat and bring increased 

predation and the chance of pathogen 

introduction (Loeffler 1998, p. 51). 

Potential effects from these activities 

include transfer of disease, including 

Bd, into uninfected habitats, along with 

trampling, loss of vegetation, reduced 

water quality, and loss of habitat 

(Hogrefe et al. 2005, pp. 15, 17). Human 

activities around boreal toad breeding 

sites could increase the presence of 

ravens and jays, which could increase 

predation on boreal toads. However, we 

are not aware of studies that specifically 

researched effects of recreation on 

boreal toads. We find that localized 

impacts from recreation may occur, but 

the petition and information in our files 

do not present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

recreation may be a threat to the Eastern 

population of boreal toad. 

Timber Harvest—Timber harvest 

activities, especially clear-cuts, can have 

detrimental effects to the boreal toad by 

interrupting dispersal corridors, causing 

sedimentation of streams, causing 

impacts to wetland and riparian 

vegetation used by toads, and affecting 

habitat by prescribed burning of slash 

piles or downed woody material (Bartelt 

and Peterson 1994, pp. 18–19; Loeffler 

1998, pp. 56–57; Bartelt 2000, pp. 20– 

27, 74–77; McGee and Keinath 2004, pp. 

32–33). Timber harvest equipment can 

cause direct mortality and compaction 

of soils that reduce burrow availability 

for shelter or overwintering (Loeffler 

1998, pp. 56–57; McGee and Keinath 

2004, pp. 32–33). Although local 

impacts to habitat may occur from slash 

pile or downed woody material burning 

in timber harvest areas, prescribed 

burning or wildfires can promote 

longevity of wetland areas that boreal 

toads need by preventing build-up of 

vegetation and subsequent succession to 

other habitat types (Russell et al. 1999, 

pp. 374–384). We find that localized 

impacts from timber harvest activities 

may occur, but the petition and 

information in our files does not present 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that timber 

harvest activities occur frequently 

enough that they may be a threat to the 

Eastern population of boreal toad. 

Residential and Commercial 

Development—Some boreal toad habitat 

loss could be attributed to development 

on the Wasatch Front between Salt Lake 

City and Provo, Utah; rapid population 

growth in this area has likely 

contributed to boreal toad habitat 

impacts and possible extirpations (Lee 

2001, p. 4; Thompson 2004, p. 257). Ski 

areas and associated residential 

development in Colorado also were 

identified in the petition as causing 

habitat loss or degradation. The petition 

did not cite any references on the effects 

of ski areas, but an article on home 

ranges of boreal toads documents the 

potential impacts of ski area 

development by mentioning ski area 

proximity and related county setbacks 

in Summit County, Colorado (Muths 

2003, p. 163). Ski area development and 

associated housing have likely impacted 

localized areas, but boreal toads 

currently face little threat from 

residential and commercial 

development due to the higher elevation 

habitat they occupy. We find that 

localized impacts from residential and 

commercial development may occur, 

but the petition and information in our 

files do not present substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that residential or commercial 

development may be a threat to the 

Eastern population of boreal toad. 

Pollutants—There are observations 

and studies describing potential impacts 

to the boreal toad from mine runoff and 

acidification (Porter and Hakanson 

1976, pp. 327–331; Corn et al. 1989, 

entire; Corn and Vertucci 1992, entire; 

Loeffler 1999, pp. 31–32; Jackson 2006, 

pp. 58–59). However, impacts are likely 

localized. Although it was hypothesized 

that a short-term acidic pulse from 

snowmelt could produce effects to 

amphibians, acidification was not found 

to be a factor in regional amphibian 

declines in the Rocky Mountains (Corn 

and Vertucci 1992, p. 367). Another 

study demonstrated that pH would have 

to be below 4.9 to produce negative 

effects to boreal toad embryo survival, 

but pH in the elevations common for 

boreal toad occurrence is typically 

between 7 and 6 (Corn et al. 1989, pp. 

19, 20, 28). Therefore, information in 

the petition and in our files suggests 

that localized impacts from pollutants 

may occur, but there is not substantial 

information to demonstrate that the 

impacts are pervasive enough that they 

may be a threat to the Eastern 

population of the boreal toad. 

Studies have illustrated the effects of 

pesticides and herbicides on 

amphibians, and deposition by drift can 

occur (Berrill et al. 1994, p. 663; Hayes 

et al. 2002, pp. 5476–5479; Fellers et al. 

2004, p. 2176; Relyea 2005, p. 626). 

However, to our knowledge there is 

limited application of pesticides or 

herbicides in or near boreal toad habitat. 

Forest management activities such as 

fire retardant drops are infrequent, and 

piscicide application also is infrequent. 

In addition, we do not agree with the 

petitioners that a high proportion of 

streams in the range of the Eastern 

population of the boreal toad have high 

salinity levels (Stoddard 2005, p. 40, fig. 

15). In fact, we believe they 

misinterpreted information in their 

reference source, because ecoregion 

locations (described in the reference) 

where boreal toads primarily occur 

(Southern Rockies, Northern Rockies, 

and Northern Xeric Basins) have very 

low salinity (Stoddard 2005, p. 40, fig. 

15). Salinity from road salts could 

impact localized breeding sites, but we 

expect the occurrence of these impacts 

is rare across the range and would likely 

occur along heavily traveled roads only. 

Overall, we find that localized impacts 

from pollutants may occur, but the 

petition and information in our files do 

not present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

pollutants may be a threat to the Eastern 

population of boreal toad. 

Energy and Minerals Management— 

Energy and mineral development can 

cause habitat loss and fragmentation 

from roads, utility lines, and other 

facilities, and can increase human 

presence in mining areas. As the 

petition points out, hardrock mines in 

Colorado may impact boreal toads, but 

boreal toads continued to inhabit the 

Urad/Henderson Mine in large numbers 

until Bd arrived there in 1999 (Loeffler 

1999, pp. 31–32; Jackson 2006, pp. 27, 

58–59). In fact, there is speculation that 

Bd-infected boreal toads at the Urad/ 

Henderson Mine may have had better 

survival from the infection due to 

inhabiting water with mine effluent 

than boreal toads not inhabiting waters 

in the effluent area (Jackson 2006, pp. 

58–59). Mining may increase human 

presence in boreal toad habitat and 

some mortality may occur from vehicles 

or people, but with the general decline 

in hardrock mining activity over the last 

several decades, we believe the risk of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21932 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

mortality from mining-related activities 

is low. 

We also are not aware that oil and gas 

development is a widespread activity in 

boreal toad habitat. In Colorado, where 

extensive oil and gas development has 

occurred, an extremely small amount of 

oil and gas development occurs in 

boreal toad habitat and the majority of 

boreal toad habitat is located in areas 

that have low to no potential for oil and 

gas development (Gunnison Sage-grouse 

Rangewide Steering Committee 2005, p. 

130; Colorado Greater Sage-grouse 

Steering Committee 2008, p. 112). We 

find that localized impacts from energy 

and minerals management may occur, 

but the petition and information in our 

files do not present substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that energy and minerals management 

may be a threat to the Eastern 

population of the boreal toad. 

Summary for Factor A 

Based on the information provided in 

the petition, as well as other 

information readily available in our 

files, we find that the petition does not 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the Eastern population of the boreal 

toad may warrant listing due to the 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of the 

species’ habitat or range. Although each 

of the issues evaluated under Factor A 

may impact the Eastern population of 

the boreal toad locally, the information 

in the petition and in our files does not 

indicate that these rise to the level of a 

threat to the population. There is no 

information presented in the petition or 

contained in our files that the threats 

described under Factor A cumulatively 

threaten the Eastern population of the 

boreal toad. However, we will evaluate 

this factor and cumulative effects of the 

threats described under this factor more 

thoroughly during the 12-month status 

review if we determine that a valid DPS 

of boreal toad exists. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

The petition states there is little 

information on the extent of boreal toad 

collection or harvesting (McGee and 

Keinath 2004, p. 37). Some boreal toads, 

eggs, or tadpoles have been collected by 

universities, State wildlife agencies, 

zoos, and other institutions for 

propagation, translocation, genetic 

research or other scientific study, or 

educational purposes. However, 

information in our files shows that 

entities involved in these activities in 

the SRM population area have 

developed protocols to avoid or 

minimize mortality or injury to boreal 

toads (Scherff–Norris 1997, entire; 

Loeffler 2001, pp. 36–53). Additionally, 

the Utah Conservation Plan provides 

general procedures to minimize impact 

of collection activities and outlines 

plans for development of protocols 

(Hogrefe et al. 2005, pp. 28–38). Due to 

collection and handling procedures 

implemented by these entities, and the 

lack of known collection pressure from 

the public, we do not consider 

overutilization of the boreal toad to be 

occurring. Based on our evaluation, 

neither the petition nor information in 

our files presents substantial scientific 

or commercial information to indicate 

that overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes may present a threat to the 

Eastern population of the boreal toad 

such that the petitioned action may be 

warranted. However, we will evaluate 

this factor more thoroughly during the 

12-month status review if we determine 

that a valid DPS of boreal toad exists. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Information Provided in the Petition 

Disease—The petition states that the 

chytrid fungus (Bd) is the primary 

pathogen of concern for the Eastern 

population of the boreal toad (Fellers et 

al. 2001, pp. 945, 952; McGee and 

Keinath 2004, pp. 23–24; Hogrefe et al. 

2005, p. 13). The petition states that Bd 

attacks the skin of boreal toads and can 

cause chytridiomycosis (the disease that 

can result from Bd infection), resulting 

in 90–100 percent mortality (McGee and 

Keinath 2004, pp. 43–44). The exact 

mechanism of mortality caused by Bd 

infection is not understood, but possible 

mechanisms include disruption of 

water, oxygen, and ion exchange and 

secretion of toxins from the Bd 

associated with chytridiomycosis 

(Berger et al. 1998, p. 9036). 

The petition also claims that red-leg 

disease (Aeromonas hydrophila), a 

fungus called Saprolegnia ferax, and a 

trematode (Ribeiroia ondatrae) have all 

been documented to cause mortality or 

malformations in amphibians and also 

could impact the Eastern population of 

boreal toads (Johnson et al. 2001, pp. 

370–379; Kiesecker et al. 2001, entire; 

Hogrefe et al. 2005, p. 14). The petition 

states that nonnative species, such as 

bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) and certain 

species of fish, may impact the boreal 

toad by transmitting pathogens, 

including Bd and Saprolegnia ferax 

(Kiesecker et al. 2001, p. 1069; 

Schloegel et al. 2010, p. 53). 

Predation—The petition states that, 

despite boreal toad adults’ having toxic 

skin secretions, boreal toads have many 

native predators that are suspected of 

depressing toad populations (Arnold 

and Wassersug 1978, entire; Flier et al. 

1980, entire; Beiswenger 1981, entire; 

Brodie and Formanowicz 1987, entire; 

Olson 1989, entire). The petition states 

that nonnative predators, such as trout 

or bullfrogs, also may reduce 

populations of boreal toads (Bahls 1992, 

pp. 183, 191; McGee and Keinath 2004, 

pp. 38–39). 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

Disease—Bd was first identified in the 

late 1990s from a captive blue poison 

dart frog (Dendrobatis azureus) 

(Longcore et al. 1999, entire). Since 

then, Bd has been reported in numerous 

species of amphibians worldwide and is 

most likely a recent introduction to 

North America (Berger et al. 1999, p. 29; 

Lips et al. 2003, entire). However, Bd 

has been present since at least the early 

1970s in America. A specimen from 

Colorado preserved in 1974 was tested 

for Bd and was found to have the fungus 

present (Hogrefe et al. 2005, p. 14). As 

stated above, Bd attacks the skin of 

boreal toads and may cause 

chytridiomycosis, which can result in 

serious disruption of cutaneous 

respiration and osmoregulation (Berger 

et al. 1998, p. 9036). 

Boreal toads on the Paunsaugunt 

Plateau in southern Utah were reported 

to be infected with Bd in 2005, and 

chytridiomycosis is the suspected cause 

of boreal toad mortalities in this 

population (Hogrefe et al. 2005, pp. 14, 

26). The Paunsaugunt Plateau 

(represented by up to seven sites 

comprising one or two breeding 

populations) was the only area out of six 

areas in the UDWR’s Southern Region 

that was positive for Bd infection as of 

2009 (UDWR 2010, p. III–3). The 

Paunsaugunt Plateau had only one adult 

toad observed in 2009 at one out of 

seven sites monitored on the Plateau, 

although a couple of other sites on the 

Paunsaugunt Plateau had tadpoles 

observed (UDWR 2010, pp. III–3, 5). The 

low number of toads suggests that Bd 

has affected toads on the Paunsaugunt 

Plateau. 

In 2008, 77 Bd swabs (DNA samples 

taken for analysis of Bd presence or 

absence) were taken from boreal toads at 

Strawberry Reservoir in the Central 

Region of the Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources, with 38 of those samples (49 

percent) testing positive for Bd (UDWR 

2010, p. II–4). In 2009, 105 toads were 

detected at 3 sites at Strawberry 

Reservoir; however, the impacts of Bd 

on boreal toad recent population trends 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 21933 

are uncertain (UDWR 2010, pp. II–3, II– 

10). In the Northeast Region of the 

UDWR, only 1 of 27 Bd swabs taken in 

2008 tested positive for Bd (UDWR 

2010, p. IV–4). Although some swabs 

are positive for Bd infection, Bd test 

results among regions in Utah are 

variable, and it is unknown whether or 

not Bd is causing declines in boreal toad 

populations there. However, it is clear 

that the infection is present across Utah. 

Surveyors and researchers in the SRM 

population collected 417 samples from 

46 sites across Colorado in 2003, and 

subsequent analysis detected 33 toads at 

8 sites with Bd (Jungwirth, 2004, p. 53). 

It also was discovered from the study 

that, at sites with Bd, adult and juvenile 

toads had a 77 percent prevalence rate 

of infection (Jungwirth 2004, p. 54). 

Metamorphs often do not test positive at 

known Bd positive sites, and it is 

theorized that metamorphs may not 

have enough exposure time to the 

terrestrial environment to become 

infected with Bd (Jungwirth 2004, p. 

54). Furthermore, at toad breeding sites 

tested through the 2007 field season, 22 

breeding sites tested positive for Bd, 35 

tested negative, and 22 additional sites 

were not tested (Jackson 2008, p. 6). 

Even though Rocky Mountain 

National Park (RMNP) is one of the most 

protected environments within 

Colorado, boreal toad populations have 

declined in the park (Corn et al. 1997, 

pp. 40, 42). Four sites were monitored 

in RMNP from 1990 to 2001, and 

significant declines of boreal toads were 

noted at two of the sites (Kettle Tarn 

and Lost Lake), although all sites 

declined (Muths et al. 2003, p. 5). Six 

adult toads that were suitable for 

histologic analysis all had Bd detected 

on them, and another four of six that 

had preliminary molecular analysis 

conducted on them were also 

determined to have Bd infections 

(Muths et al. 2003, p. 8). Based on 

analysis for other diseases, it was 

determined that Bd was the certain 

cause of decline (Muths et al. 2003, pp. 

8–9). Evidence of the decline is 

supported by monitoring data showing 

that Lost Lake had 100–300 toads 

present from 1991 to 1998, but fell to 30 

or fewer since then (Jackson 2008, p. 

57). Kettle Tarn had a hundred or more 

toads from 1991 through 1995 but 

exhibited a similar precipitous decline 

afterwards (Jackson, 2008, p. 58). 

Bd testing has not been conducted in 

the remaining population in 

southeastern Wyoming (Jackson 2008, p. 

91). However, as with the rest of the 

SRM population, Bd is the suspected 

cause of declines in southeastern 

Wyoming (Jackson 2008, p. 4). As stated 

above, boreal toads were extirpated in 

New Mexico for many years, but 

reintroduced there in 2008 and 2009. 

However, in 2009 seven boreal toads 

from the 2008 release were recaptured, 

but six of the seven tested positive for 

Bd (NMDGF 2010, p. 3). This indicates 

that chytridiomycosis probably 

extirpated them in the past, and chance 

of survival of reintroduced toads is low. 

We currently have no information on Bd 

occurrence in southeastern Idaho, 

northeastern Nevada, or southwestern 

Wyoming.Overall, Bd appears to be 

widespread, and is known to occur in 

the SRM and Utah. 

Given its widespread distribution in 

the SRM area, Utah, and around the 

world, it is likely present in the rest of 

the Eastern population and is almost 

assuredly the primary reason for 

declines observed in boreal toads in the 

Eastern population. 

The fungal disease Saprolegnia ferax 

was spread to boreal toads from rainbow 

trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

experimentally infected with S. ferax 

(Kiesecker et al. 2001, p. 1064). 

Although transmission of the disease 

from fish to boreal toads can occur, we 

have no information indicating that S. 

ferax is prevalent in the wild or has 

caused boreal toad declines in the wild. 

We also have no information in our 

files to suggest that the trematode 

Ribeiroia ondatrae poses a threat to the 

boreal toad. The petitioners provided 

one article cited in the petition that 

found high frequencies (40–85 percent) 

of severe limb malformations in 

surviving western toads (Anaxyrus 

boreas) and decreased survivorship (42 

percent) in toads with the heaviest 

treatment of trematodes in an induced 

laboratory experiment (Johnson et al. p. 

370). However, effects of the trematode 

to wild boreal toads is not known, and 

the petition admits that further study is 

needed before any conclusions can be 

drawn on effects of the trematode to the 

boreal toad. Consequently, the petition 

did not present substantial information 

to suggest that the trematode may be a 

threat. 

In conclusion, studies and 

information presented above illustrate 

that Bd may be the major factor in the 

decline of the boreal toad and that it 

poses a significant threat to the Eastern 

population of the boreal toad (Loeffler 

2001, p. 13; Hogrefe et al. 2005, pp. 13– 

14). We find that the petition and 

information in our files present 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that disease, 

specifically Bd resulting in 

chytridiomycosis, may be a threat to the 

Eastern population of the boreal toad. 

Predation—The petition and 

information in our files show that adult 

boreal toads have several avian, 

mammalian, and reptilian predators 

(Olson 1989, entire; Hammerson 1999, 

p. 97; Livo 1999, p. 1). Avian, reptilian, 

insect, and even other amphibian 

predators of tadpoles and newly 

metamorphosed boreal toads also have 

been recorded (Beiswenger 1981, entire; 

Hammerson 1999, p. 98). Both garter 

snakes (Thamnophis elegans) and 

spotted sandpipers (Actitis macularia) 

are often encountered at boreal toad 

breeding sites in Colorado (Lambert 

2003, pp. 22, 24, 77). At Brown’s Creek 

in Colorado, garter snakes are suspected 

to be responsible for poor survivorship 

of boreal toad tadpoles (Lambert 2003, 

pp. 24, 77). It is likely that poor 

survivorship from predation 

occasionally results, but other than 

Lambert (2003, p. 22, 24, 77), we have 

no evidence that this occurs often 

enough or to an extent that it suppresses 

survival at breeding sites or breeding 

populations to a point that it may 

threaten the Eastern population of the 

boreal toad. 

Nonnative predators, such as bullfrogs 

or stocked trout, were asserted by the 

petitioners to cause impacts to the 

boreal toad. We do not have any 

information that suggests that bullfrogs 

prey on boreal toads, since bullfrogs 

have never been documented in boreal 

toad habitat. Trout have been stocked in 

many lakes in the western United 

States, many of which were fishless 

prior to stocking (Bahls 1992, p. 183). 

The presence of stocked trout has been 

found to exclude frogs from lakes in the 

Sierra Nevada Mountains (Bradford 

1989, pp. 776–777). However, laboratory 

experiments have indicated that 

American toad (Bufo americanus) 

tadpoles may be less palatable than 

chorus frog tadpoles (Pseudacris 

triseriata) to certain species of fish 

(Voris and Bacon 1966, p. 597) and we 

suspect that boreal toad tadpoles have 

similar toxins as the American toad. 

Additional evidence is that cutthroat 

trout (Salmo clarkii) mouthed then 

rejected boreal toad eggs that were fed 

to them (Licht 1969, p. 296). Although 

trout may injure boreal toad eggs or 

tadpoles by mouthing them, it appears 

that predation on boreal toads may be 

limited, due to the trout’s avoidance of 

toxins in the eggs and tadpoles. 

Localized predation from native or 

nonnative predators may sporadically 

occur and could occasionally cause 

declines or extirpation of breeding sites 

or breeding populations. However, we 

find that the petition and information in 

our files does not present substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that predation may rise to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21934 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

level of a threat to the Eastern 

population of the boreal toad. 

Summary for Factor C 

Based on our evaluation, the petition 

and information in our files present 

substantial information that listing the 

Eastern population of the boreal toad 

due to disease may be warranted. 

Localized predation may cause effects to 

breeding sites or breeding populations, 

but the petition and information in our 

files do not present substantial 

information that listing the Eastern 

population due to predation may be 

warranted. However, we will evaluate 

this factor more thoroughly during the 

12-month status review if we determine 

that a valid DPS of boreal toad exists. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petition states that the boreal toad 

has been State-listed as endangered in 

Colorado and New Mexico (NMDGF 

1988, p. 1; CDOW 1993, p. 2). The 

petition also states that the toads are 

designated as a State Sensitive Species 

in Utah. In Wyoming, the boreal toad is 

designated as a Native Species Status 1, 

which means the species and habitat are 

declining (McGee and Keinath 2004, p. 

46). The petition states that the 

designations in Utah and Wyoming 

garner no legal or regulatory weight. The 

petition also states that boreal toads are 

designated as nongame species in Idaho, 

protecting them from collection. There 

is no designation for the boreal toad in 

Nevada. 

The petition states that a Colorado 

recovery plan was completed in 1994, 

and a recovery plan for New Mexico 

was completed in 2006 (Nesler and 

Goettle 1994, entire; Pierce 2006, 

entire). The petition states that in Utah 

a conservation plan for the toad also has 

been completed (Hogrefe et al. 2005, 

entire). The petition adds that Idaho and 

Nevada do not have conservation plans 

for the boreal toad. 

The petition states that the majority of 

boreal toad habitat in the Southern 

Rocky Mountains is on U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS) land. The petition also 

points out that the USFS in both Region 

2 (Colorado and southeast Wyoming) 

and Region 3 (New Mexico) classifies 

the toad as a sensitive species. However, 

USFS Region 4 (western Wyoming, 

southern Idaho, Nevada, and Utah) does 

not classify the toad as a sensitive 

species. The petition mentions that only 

two forests, the White River National 

Forest and Medicine Bow National 

Forest (in Colorado and Colorado/ 

Wyoming, respectively), have forest 

plans that contain standards and 

guidelines for managing the boreal toad. 

However, the petition notes that the two 

forests only cover a small portion of the 

range of the toad and the forest plans do 

not adequately address all the threats to 

the toad. The petition also states that the 

Uintah National Forest, which covers a 

small area of the range of the Eastern 

population of the boreal toad, has a 

voluntary guideline to protect boreal 

toad habitat from disturbance 

(trampling) during the breeding season. 

The BLM classifies the boreal toad as 

a sensitive species in Wyoming, 

Colorado, Utah, and Idaho. The petition 

points out that a State-led Boreal Toad 

Recovery Team comprised of State and 

Federal agencies, and an associated 

Technical Advisory Group comprised of 

university, State, Federal, and local 

government staff was formed and 

produced a conservation plan for the 

boreal toad in the Southern Rocky 

Mountains in 1998 (Loeffler 1998, 

entire) and revised the plan in 2001 

(Loeffler 2001, entire). 

The petition states that none of the 

State, USFS, or BLM classifications or 

recovery or conservation plans are 

adequate to protect the boreal toad, 

because they do not protect habitat, they 

carry no legal or regulatory weight, and 

they have not been shown to have 

improved the status of the toad. For 

example, the petition states that the 

Utah Conservation Plan does not 

address all threats to the boreal toad, 

such as Bd, and Bd has been detected 

in toads in Utah. The petitioners also 

considered conservation agreements, 

and found the specified actions to be 

implemented by involved parties within 

the SRM conservation plan were vague 

and provided little protection to the 

boreal toad. The petition states that even 

if all actions in the SRM conservation 

plan were accomplished, it still would 

not adequately address the impacts of 

Bd on boreal toads. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

State listings in Colorado and New 

Mexico mean that possession of the 

boreal toads is prohibited. In Idaho, the 

nongame regulations prohibit 

possession of more than four boreal 

toads (Idaho Administration Procedures 

Act 2010, p. 4). The boreal toad was 

designated as a State Sensitive Species 

in Utah in 1997 (Hogrefe et al. 2005, p. 

2). However, neither the Utah nor 

Wyoming sensitive species designations 

protect the toad from possession. 

Obviously, the lack of status in Nevada 

does not prevent possession of the toad 

there. However, we have no information 

on whether collection and possession of 

the boreal toad in any of the States is 

impacting the toad. 

The Colorado Department of Parks 

and Wildlife (formerly Division of 

Wildlife), Wyoming Game and Fish, 

NMDGF, and UDWR have led or been 

instrumental in development of the 

State and SRM conservation plans, 

along with the USFS, U.S. Geological 

Survey, National Park Service, and 

BLM. Since the boreal toad was State 

listed in Colorado, considerable effort 

and funding have gone towards 

research, management, captive breeding, 

and translocation or repatriation of 

boreal toads in Colorado, Wyoming, and 

New Mexico (the SRM population). 

University staff, the U.S. Geological 

Service, zoos, and others also have been 

instrumental in research into declines of 

the boreal toad and propagation of the 

toad. 

Despite development of the 

conservation plans (which are voluntary 

and not regulatory in nature), and the 

designations by different State and 

Federal agencies, the research and 

management actions that have occurred, 

and the standards and guidelines put 

into place by the USFS, there has been 

little success in conserving the boreal 

toad because of the difficulty of 

arresting Bd-caused declines. However, 

the overwhelming factor in the boreal 

toad’s decline is chytridiomycosis 

caused by Bd, which will likely affect 

the toads regardless of what regulatory 

protections are in place. 

Summary for Factor D 

Even though the Federal agencies 

have not addressed or implemented 

boreal toad management through all of 

their forest plans or resource 

management plans, they do have 

guidance through their sensitive species 

designations to manage for the toad. 

There have been management actions 

for the toad carried out on Federal 

lands, but the Service does not currently 

have information on the extent of 

implementation and effectiveness of 

these actions. The States within the 

Eastern population lack regulatory 

authority to protect the toad’s habitat. 

However, as stated above in Factor A, 

we did not find substantial information 

to show that habitat destruction, 

modification, or curtailment currently 

threaten the toad. Consequently, there is 

not substantial information to indicate 

that regulations protecting habitat are 

inadequate. Similarly, issues under 

Factors B, C, and E do not currently 

appear to need further regulatory 

mechanisms or would not be resolved 

by further regulatory mechanisms. Some 

of the States have regulations that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 21935 

prohibit or limit possession of boreal 

toads; however, there is no information 

to suggest that collection and possession 

of the boreal toad in any of the States 

is impacting the toad. Consequently, 

there is not substantial information to 

indicate that State regulations 

prohibiting collection and possession, 

or lack thereof, are inadequate. 

Nonetheless, as both we and the 

petitioners recognize, Bd may be the 

overriding threat to the boreal toad, and 

we believe regulatory mechanisms are 

not capable or have limited capability to 

reduce the existing threat from Bd. 

Based on our evaluation, neither the 

petition nor information in our files 

presents substantial information that 

listing the Eastern population of boreal 

toad due to inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms may be 

warranted. However, we will evaluate 

this factor more thoroughly during the 

12–month status review if we determine 

that a valid DPS of boreal toad exists. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Information Provided in the Petition 

Isolation—The petition states that 

many populations of boreal toad are 

small and isolated (Hogrefe et al. 2005, 

p. 15). Isolation and small population 

size can preclude genetic interchange 

and recolonization of habitat in the face 

of impacts such as Bd or long-term land 

management changes (Carey et al. 2005, 

pp. 235, 236). Lack of gene flow also 

may cause loss of genetic variability 

(Wright 1931, pp. 98–102), causing 

inbreeding depression. The petition 

states that random events, 

environmental factors, or human 

impacts may cause extirpation of small, 

isolated populations. 

Climate Change—The petition states 

that since boreal toads are ectotherms 

(require heat from the sun or outside 

sources to warm selves), their body 

temperature varies with their 

surroundings. The petition states (?) 

boreal toad reproductive behavior and 

boreal toad abundance may be affected 

by temperature changes resulting from 

climate change (Blaustein and Wake 

1995, pp. 2–4; Blaustein et al. 2001, p. 

1808). The petition also states that 

warmer temperatures may allow for the 

spread of disease, especially in higher 

elevations where currently disease may 

not be as prevalent. The petition states 

drought and early or late season freezing 

temperatures caused by climate change 

may dry up breeding pools and cause 

mortality before or after hibernation 

(McGee and Keinath 2004, p. 41). The 

petition states that warming will limit 

activity of toads in different habitats 

(Bartelt et al. 2010, p. 2675). The 

petition also states that effects of climate 

change may have already been observed 

through increasingly earlier breeding 

due to warmer temperatures or reduced 

precipitation (Blaustein et al. 2001, p. 

1806; Corn 2003, p. 624). 

Ultraviolet Radiation—The petition 

states that degradation of the ozone may 

be causing increases in ultraviolet-B 

(UV–B) radiation (Stolarski et al. 1992, 

p. 342; Blumthaler et al. 1997, p. 130). 

The petition states the boreal toad may 

be susceptible to UV–B radiation due to 

not having protective hair or feathers, 

and not having protective shells on their 

eggs, which are laid in shallow water 

(Blaustein et al. 1994, p. 1791; Corn 

1998, p. 19). Additionally, the petition 

states that photolyase, an enzyme that 

repairs UV–B damage, is lower in boreal 

toads than in some frogs and may cause 

lower hatching success in boreal toads 

(Blaustein et al. 1994, p. 1794). 

However, the petition also 

acknowledges that some studies show 

UV–B radiation is not a factor in 

hatching success of red-legged frogs 

(Rana aurora) or boreal toads (Blaustein 

et al. 1996, p. 1401; Corn 1998, pp. 22– 

23; Loeffler 2001, p. 12). 

Invasive Species—The petition 

discusses invasive species under Factor 

E, but since the discussion focuses on 

disease transmission and predation by 

invasive species, we address this under 

Factor C, Disease or Predation, above. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

Isolation—Isolation or small 

population size could cause extirpation 

of boreal toad breeding colonies through 

habitat loss or fragmentation or other 

human or environmental factors (such 

as Bd infection), random events, or 

genetic problems. Microsatellite nDNA 

analysis suggests that populations of 

boreal toads within the Eastern 

population are isolated from one 

another, with little gene flow, and that 

this could potentially cause genetic 

problems (Switzer et al. 2009, pp. 23, 

25). Additional information suggests 

that boreal toad populations in Utah are 

separated from each other due to longterm climate change (over the last 

10,000 years) and human development 

at lower elevations resulting in genetic 

problems or loss of smaller populations 

through random events (Hogrefe et al. 

2005, pp. 14–15). 

Diseases, such as chytridiomycosis, 

which is caused by Bd, also could cause 

extirpation of these small populations. 

The SRM conservation plan gives a 

general idea of a large ‘‘population’’ in 

the viability criteria as 20 or more adult 

toads in a breeding ‘‘locality’’ (in this 

context ‘‘locality’’ is the same as a 

breeding population). Monitoring in 

Colorado and southeastern Wyoming in 

2009 revealed that only 5 out of 47 

breeding populations (11 percent), or 8 

breeding sites out of 73 (about 9 

percent), had more than 20 adults 

(CDOW 2010, entire). These statistics 

illustrate that very few populations in 

the SRM portion of the Eastern 

population are large. Consequently, we 

determine that the petition and 

information in our files present 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that isolation 

and small population size may be a 

threat to the Eastern population of the 

boreal toad. 

Climate Change—Ray et al. (2008, p. 

1) predict that Colorado will warm by 

about 1 °C (2.5 °F) by 2025 and by about 

2 °C (4.0 °F) by 2050. Most of the 

observed snowpack loss in Colorado has 

occurred below 2,500 m (8,200 ft), with 

snowpack loss above this elevation 

predicted at between 10 and 20 percent 

(Ray et al. 2008, p. 2). With the range 

of the boreal toad largely above 2,500 m 

(8,200 ft) in the southern Rocky 

Mountains, it is likely that they will be 

shielded from extensive droughts. 

However, some drought effects were 

noted in boreal toads in the southern 

Rocky Mountains in 2002 during a 

drought cycle (Livo and Loeffler 2003, 

p. 11). Several breeding sites either 

remained dry throughout the breeding 

season or dried up prior to 

metamorphosis, reducing toad 

abundance. However, based on 

subsequent years with more 

precipitation, the 2002 drought may 

have been within normal variation and 

not related to climate change. Drought 

could exacerbate the decline of 

localized boreal toad populations, but is 

not considered a major factor in the 

widespread decline of the species. 

There is a possibility that some 

diseases, such as chytridiomycosis, 

could expand their range into higher 

elevation boreal toad habitats if warmer 

temperatures occur due to climate 

change. However, references on this 

subject listed in the petition are not 

currently available to us and we have no 

information in our files to support this 

hypothesis. Warming temperatures 

could affect evaporative water loss from 

boreal toads, which could affect toad 

movement, breeding, and genetic 

interchange (Bartelt et al. 2010, p. 2675). 

Conversely, warmer temperatures could 

potentially help boreal toads by 

lengthening the growing season and 

increasing the rate of growth, leading to 

earlier metamorphosis and greater 

survival (Carey et al. 2005, p. 236). We 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21936 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

find that the petition and information in 

our files does not present substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that climate change may be a 

threat to the Eastern population of the 

boreal toad. 

Ultraviolet Radiation—The effect of 

increased UV–B radiation resulting from 

ozone depletion has been implicated as 

a contributing factor in amphibian 

declines, particularly on species 

inhabiting mountainous regions. 

However, studies are conflicting as to 

whether UV–B radiation has any effect 

on boreal toads and other frog species. 

A correlation was demonstrated 

between increased levels of UV–B and 

amphibian mortality in boreal toads and 

the Cascades frog (Rana cascadae), but 

there was no effect of ambient UV–B 

radiation on red-legged frog (R. aurora) 

hatching success (Blaustein et al. 1994, 

pp. 1791, 1793–1794). No evidence 

linking UV–B levels to the decline of the 

boreal toad was found in another study 

(Corn 1998, pp. 18, 21–25). Another 

study suggested that UV–B and pH 

could have synergistic effects on 

embryonic success (Long et al. 1995, 

entire). However, as stated in the 

‘‘Pollutants’’ section under Factor A, pH 

does not appear to be an issue for boreal 

toads, and, consequently, the synergistic 

effects of UV–B and pH on boreal toads 

are not expected to occur in the wild. 

Therefore, we determine that the 

petition and information in our files do 

not present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

UV–B radiation may be a threat to the 

Eastern population of the boreal toad. 

Summary for Factor E 

Based on our evaluation, the petition 

and information in our files present 

substantial information that listing the 

Eastern population of the boreal toad 

due to isolation and small population 

size may be warranted. Based on our 

evaluation, neither the petition nor 

information in our files presents 

substantial information that listing the 

Eastern population of the boreal toad 

due to climate change or UV–B 

radiation may be warranted. However, 

we will evaluate the potential threat of 

climate change and UV–B radiation 

more thoroughly during the 12-month 

status review if we determine that a 

valid DPS of boreal toad exists. 

Finding 

On the basis of our determination 

under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we 

determine that the petition presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that listing the 

Eastern population of the boreal toad as 

a DPS may be warranted. This finding 

is based on information provided under 

Factors C and E. 

Because we have found that the 

petition presents substantial 

information indicating that listing the 

Eastern population of the boreal toad as 

a DPS may be warranted, we are 

initiating a status review to determine 

whether listing the Eastern population 

of the boreal toad under the Act is 

warranted. During the status review, we 

will fully address the cumulative effects 

of threats discussed under each factor. 

Additionally, if during the status review 

period the Eastern population of the 

boreal toad is classified as its own 

species, the Service will determine if 

listing the newly classified species is 

warranted. 

The ‘‘substantial information’’ 

standard for a 90-day finding differs 

from 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 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 

result in a warranted finding. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the Western Colorado Field Office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Author 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Colorado Field 

Office in Grand Junction and Lakewood, 

Colorado. 

Authority: The authority for this action is 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

Dated: March 27, 2012. 

Rowan W. Gould, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8806 Filed 4–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2010–0043; 

4500030114] 

RIN 1018–AV49 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Listing 23 Species on 

Oahu as Endangered and Designating 

Critical Habitat for 124 Species 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

reopening of the comment period on our 

August 2, 2011, proposal to list as 

endangered and to designate critical 

habitat for 23 species on the island of 

Oahu in the Hawaiian Islands under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act); designate critical habitat 

for 2 plant species that are already listed 

as endangered; and to revise critical 

habitat for 99 plant species that are 

already listed as endangered or 

threatened. We also announce the 

availability of a draft economic analysis 

(DEA) of the proposed designation and 

an amended required determinations 

section of the proposal. We are 

reopening the comment period to allow 

all interested parties an opportunity to 

comment simultaneously on the 

proposed rule, the associated DEA, and 

the amended required determinations 

section. Comments previously 

submitted on this rulemaking do not 

need to be resubmitted, as they will be 

fully considered in preparation of the 

final rule. We are also considering 

revising the boundary for Oahu— 

Lowland Dry—Unit 8, from that 

described in the proposed rule, based on 

new information regarding the 

biological conditions within certain 

portions of the unit. 

DATES: The comment period end date is 

May 14, 2012. We request that 

comments be submitted by 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on the closing date. 

ADDRESSES: 

Document Availability 

You may obtain a copy of the DEA via 

http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–R1–ES–2010–0043 or by 

contacting the office listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Comment Submission 

You may submit comments by one of 

the following methods: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS