Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 198 / Thursday, October 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules 60607

designation of critical habitat. We note

that emergency listing and designation

of critical habitat are not petitionable

actions under the Act. Based on the

information presented in the petition,

the habitat loss and other threats to the

species have been long-standing and

ongoing for many years. There are no

imminent, devastating actions that

could result in the extinction of the

species. Therefore, we find that an

emergency situation does not exist. The

12-month finding will address the issue

of critical habitat.

Public Information Requested

The Service hereby announces its

formal review of the species’ status

pursuant to this 90-day petition finding.

We request additional data, comments,

and suggestions from the public, other

concerned governmental agencies, the

scientific community, industry, or any

other interested parties regarding the

status of the California spotted owl. Of

particular interest is information

pertaining to the factors the Service uses

to determine if a species is threatened

or endangered: (1) the present or

threatened destruction, modification, or

curtailment of its habitat or range; (2)

overutilization for commercial,

recreational, scientific, or educational

purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4)

the inadequacy of existing regulatory

mechanisms; and (5) other natural or

manmade factors affecting its continued

existence.

If you wish to comment, you may

submit your comments and materials

concerning this finding to the Field

Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and

Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Our practice is to make comments,

including names and home addresses of

respondents, available for public review

during regular business hours.

Respondents may request that we

withhold their home address, which we

will honor to the extent allowable by

law. There also may be circumstances in

which we would withhold a

respondent’s identity, as allowable by

law. If you wish us to withhold your

name and/or address, you must state

this request prominently at the

beginning of your comment. However,

we will not consider anonymous

comments. To the extent consistent with

applicable law, we will make all

submissions from organizations or

businesses, and from individuals

identifying themselves as

representatives or officials of

organizations or businesses, available

for public inspection in their entirety.

Comments and materials received will

be available for public inspection, by

appointment, during normal business

hours at the above address.

References Cited

You may request a complete list of all

references we cited, as well as others,

from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife

Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author: The primary author of this

document is Catherine Hibbard,

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office

(see ADDRESSES section).

Authority: The authority for this action is

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

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

Dated: October 5, 2000.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 00–26181 Filed 10–11–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants: 90-day Finding on a

Petition To List the Yosemite Toad as

Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition

finding.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) announces a 90-day

finding on a petition to list the Yosemite

toad (Bufo canorus) as endangered

under the Endangered Species Act (Act)

of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et

seq.). We find that the petition presents

substantial scientific or commercial

information to indicate that listing the

species may be warranted. Therefore,

we are initiating a status review to

determine if the petition action is

warranted. To ensure that the review is

comprehensive, we are asking for

information and data regarding this

species.

DATES: The finding announced in this

document was made on October 5, 2000.

To be considered in the 12-month

finding for this petition, comments and

information should be submitted to the

Service by December 11, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Data, information,

comments, or questions concerning this

petition should be submitted to the

Field Supervisor; Sacramento Fish and

Wildlife Office; Sacramento Fish and

Wildlife Office; 2800 Cottage Way,

Room W–2065; Sacramento, California

95825. The petition finding, supporting

data and comments are available for

public inspection, by appointment,

during normal business hours at the

above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jason Davis or Maria Boroja at the

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office

(see ADDRESSES section above), or at

(916–414–6600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered

Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that the

Service make a finding on whether a

petition to list, delist, or reclassify a

species presents substantial information

indicating that the petitioned action

may be warranted. To the maximum

extent practicable, this finding is to be

made within 90 days of the receipt of

the petition, and the finding is to be

published promptly in the Federal

Register. If the finding is that

substantial information was presented,

the Service will commence a review of

the status of the involved species. This

finding is based on information

contained in the petition, supporting

information submitted with the petition,

and other information available to the

Service at the time the finding was

made.

The processing of this petition

conforms with the Service’s final listing

priority guidance published in the

Federal Register on October 22, 1999

(64 FR 57114). The guidance clarifies

the order in which we will process

rulemakings. Highest priority is

processing emergency listing rules for

any species determined to face a

significant and imminent risk to wellbeing (Priority 1). Second priority

(Priority 2) is processing final

determinations on proposed additions

to the lists of endangered and

threatened wildlife and plants. Third

priority (Priority 3) is processing new

proposals to add species to the lists. The

processing of administrative petition

findings (petitions filed under section 4

of the Act) is the fourth priority (Priority

4). The processing of critical habitat

determinations (prudency and

determinability decisions) and proposed

or final designations of critical habitat

will be funded separately from other

section 4 listing actions and will no

longer be subject to prioritization under

the listing priority guidance. The

processing of this petition finding is a

Priority 4 action.

We have made a 90-day finding on a

petition to the list Yosemite toad (Bufo

canorus) as an endangered species. On

Monday, April 3, 2000, we received a

60608 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 198 / Thursday, October 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules

petition, dated February 28, 2000, to list

the Yosemite toad as endangered. The

petition was submitted by the Center for

Biological Diversity and Pacific Rivers

Council. The letter clearly identified

itself as a petition and contained the

names, signatures, and addresses of the

petitioners. Included in the petition was

supporting information relating to the

species’ taxonomy and ecology,

adequacy of existing regulatory

mechanisms for the species, and the

historic and present distribution,

current status, and potential cause of

decline. This notice constitutes the 90-

day finding for the February 28, 2000,

petition.

The Yosemite toad is a high elevation

species that occurs in the central Sierra

Nevada Mountains of California

(Stebbins 1985). The range of the

Yosemite toad extends from Ebbetts

Pass, Alphine County, to south of Kaiser

Pass and Evolution Lake, Fresno County

(Stebbins 1966, Karlstrom 1962, 1973).

According to the petition, the Yosemite

toad commonly occurs at elevation

between 2,438 and 3.047 meters (8,000

and 10,000 feet), with an overall

elevation range of 1,950 to 3,500 meters

(6,400 to 11,300 feet).

The Yosemite toad is a member of the

Boreas-canorus group, the most

primitive of three evolutionary lines of

North American Bufo (Camp 1917,

Karlstrom 1962). According to Camp

(1916), the Yosemite toad has long been

recognized as a distinct species. The

Yosemite toad is a close relative of three

toad species, the western toad (Bufo

boreas), black toad (Bufo exsul), and

Amargosa toad (Bufo nelsoni) (Blair

1972, Stebbins 1985). The petitioners

state that Yosemite/western toad

hybridization occurs in the northern

portion of the Yosemite toad’s range in

the Blue Lake region of the CarsonIceberg Wilderness, just southeast of

Carson Pass in Alphine County

(Karlstrom 1973, Stebbins 1966).

The petition and accompanying

documentation state that the species

qualifies for listing pursuant to the Act

due to potential habitat destruction and

modification, the presence of disease in

combination with natural predation, the

inadequacy of existing regulatory

mechanisms, and other natural or

human-caused factors affecting its

continued existence. The petitioners

contend that natural and humaninduced changes to Yosemite toad

habitats, including (1) livestock grazing,

(2) contaminant introductions, (3) nonnative fish introductions, (4) disease (5)

ultraviolet radiation, (6) climate change,

(7) acid deposition, (8) drought, and (9)

other factors, separately and in

combination, are responsible for the

range-wide decline of the species.

There have been few if any studies to

date on the direct effect of contaminant

introductions on Yosemite toad

populations. However, several studies

show that significant levels of

contaminants have been deposited in

high Sierran aquatic ecosystems from

pesticide drift, acid precipitation, and

smog drift (Seiber et al. 1998, Aston and

Seiber 1997, Cahill et al. 1996, Miller

1996, Byron 1991, Nikolaidis 1991,

Laird et al. 1986). The petitioners

believe that contaminant introductions

can harm toad populations through

lethal and sublethal effects including

delayed metamorphosis, reduced

breeding and feeding activity (Berrill et

al. 1993, 1994, 1995,1998, Boyer and

Grue 1995, Beaties and Tyler-Jones

1992, Corn and Vertucci 1992, Hall and

Henry 1992). In addition, contaminant

introduction may weaken the immune

systems of toads rendering them more

susceptible to disease such as chytrid

fungus and red-legged disease

(Aeromonas hydrophila) (Carey et al.

1993, 1995, 1999, Jennings 1996, Drost

and Fellers 1996, Sherman and Morton

1993).

There is ample evidence to suggest

that Yosemite toads cannot coexist with

introduced fish. In addition, there are

strong indications that nonnative fish

introductions have contributed to the

decline of the toad. Not only do

nonnative fish prey upon adult, juvenile

and larval toads, they also alter the food

chain of high Sierran aquatic

ecosystems (Knapp 1996, Jennings 1996,

Bradford 1989, 1993). The petitioners

state that the most significant effect of

nonnative fish on Yosemite toads is that

they preclude the use of the deeper and

more permanent water bodies that

provide refuge for toads during periods

of prolonged drought. The loss of higher

quality, permanent breeding habitats for

Yosemite toads disrupts their ability to

recolonize peripheral areas after long

periods of drought, and renders them

more susceptible to localized

extinctions (Knapp 1996, Drost and

Fellers 1994, 1996, Bradford et al. 1993).

The petitioners state that disease

likely plays a significant role in the

widespread decline of Yosemite toad

populations. Two diseases that may

affect Yosemite toads are red-legged

disease, which is caused by a freshwater

bacteria, and chytrid fungus. Sherman

and Morton (1984, 1993) noted the

mortality of adult Yosemite toads due to

red-legged disease at Tioga Pass during

the 1970’s. Chytrid fungus, an aquatic

pathogen discovered after 1993, has

caused mortality in many amphibian

species in the United States and

worldwide. An investigation of museum

specimens of Yosemite toads collected

by Sherman and Morton at Tioga Pass

during a die-off in 1977–1978 found

those toads to be infected with chytrid

fungus (Carey et al. 1999). The

petitioners state that there is significant

information yet to be discovered

regarding aquatic pathogens and their

relationship to the ecology of Yosemite

toads. Should evidence indicate that

Yosemite toads have evolved with

aquatic pathogens, then other stressors

including contaminant introductions

and UV-radiation may be reducing the

ability of toads to fight off infection

from these pathogens (Sherman and

Norton 1993, Drost and Fellers 1996,

Carey et al. 1993, 1995, 1999, Jennings

1996, Taylor et al. 1999).

The petitioners state that there are

other natural and anthropogenic factors

that may be negatively affecting the

Yosemite toad, including (1) airborne

contamination, (2) ultraviolet radiation,

and (3) climate change. However, there

are significant gaps in the extent of the

information regarding affects of airborne

contaminants on Yosemite toads. The

affect of UV-radiation and global

warming on Yosemite toad populations

is also lacking at this time. These factors

may provide additional stresses on toad

populations that are already being

assaulted by nonnative fish, livestock

grazing, drought, and disease.

Combinations of stresses may explain

the significant declines of Yosemite

toads recorded over the past few

decades.

Several studies and observations

made within the first half of the

twentieth century report that Yosemite

toads were abundant throughout their

range, especially within Yosemite

National Park (Grinnell and Storer 1924,

Karlstrom 1962, Mullally 1953, Mullally

and Cunningham 1956, Yosemite

National Park Office 1999). More recent

studies indicated that Yosemite toads

have suffered significant declines in

both abundance and distribution

throughout their range. Jennings and

Hayes (1994) reported that, even though

Yosemite toads occur in areas that are

free from physical disturbance, the

species has declined or disappeared

from 50 percent of known historic sites.

Within Yosemite National Park, the

heart of the Yosemite toad’s range, there

are several documented declines in the

distribution and abundance of Yosemite

toad populations. Drost and Fellers

(1994, 1996) resurveyed areas within the

park that were originally surveyed in

the first quarter of last century by the

U.C. Berkeley survey team lead by

Grinnell and Storer. By the 1990s,

Yosemite toads only occupied 50

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 198 / Thursday, October 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules 60609

percent of these sites. The petitioners

note that in a subsequent amphibian

survey within Yosemite National Park,

Fellers (1997) found 5 locations

occupied by Yosemite toads out of 260

survey sites. The petitioners do not

report whether these 260 survey

locations were historically occupied by

Yosemite toads. Additionally, several

other sites that once supported

abundant Yosemite toad populations

including Tioga Pass, Sylvester

Meadows, and several nearby sites have

shown complete disappearances of

toads in recent years (Karlstrom 1962,

Sherman and Morton 1993). Sherman

and Morton (1993) further documented

significant declines in toad populations

at their Tioga Pass Meadow study area.

They counted an average of 257 toads

annually during the period of 1974–

1978 at Tioga Pass Meadow. By 1982,

toad populations had declined to 28

individuals and in 1990, only one

female, two males, and 4 to 6 egg

masses. In 1991, these researchers noted

only two egg masses and a single calling

male. Other researchers have

corroborated this decline (Drost and

Fellers 1994). Additional population

declines of Yosemite toads were

observed at Saddlebag Lake, Frog Lake,

Hoover Lake, and Mildred Lake

(Sherman and Morton 1993).

The trend of populations declines also

holds true for sites outside of Yosemite

National Park. Bradford and Gordon

(1992) conducted a survey of 235

randomly selected sites in potential

Yosemite toad habitat above 2,625

meters (8,000 feet) and found only 17

sites occupied. In addition, the

petitioners cite a survey conducted by

David Martin (1990) that found of 75

historic localities surveyed throughout

the high Sierra, only 40 were occupied.

During his survey, Martin (1990) found

no toads at historic locations at

elevations below 2,461 meters (7,500

feet). Furthermore, Martin (1990)

reported that of the 40 sites with toads

present, he found an average of 5.75

individuals. The petition cites a

personal communication with David

Martin (San Jose State University, pers.

comm. 2000), indicating that

historically, Yosemite toad numbers

were estimated to be over 100

individuals per site at each of these 75

locations. Additional toad declines have

been reported by Martin (1992) at

Emigrant Meadow and Lunch Meadow

in the Emigrant Wilderness, Stanislaus

National Forest, and around Sonora

Pass, where toad populations that had

once been abundant are now small or

undetectable. This trend appears to hold

for toad populations on the El Dorado

and Sequoia National Forests (Stebbins

1966).

We have reviewed the petition and

other information available in our files.

Based upon this review, we believe that

substantial evidence exists that listing of

this species as endangered may be

warranted. When we make a positive

finding, we also are required to

promptly commence a review of the

status of the species. Based upon

available and any newly obtained

information, we will issue a 12-month

finding as required by section 4(b)(3)(B)

of the Act. Petitioners also requested

that critical habitat be designated for the

Yosemite toad; the 12-month finding

will address this issue.

Public Information Requested

The Service hereby announces its

formal review of the species’ status

pursuant to this 90-day petition finding.

We request any additional data,

comments, and suggestions from the

public, other concerned government

agencies, the scientific community,

industry, or any other interested parties

concerning the status of the Yosemite

toad. Of particular interest is

information regarding: (1) The existence

and status of additional populations, (2)

the implementation of any actions that

are benefitting the species, and (3) the

impact of livestock grazing, contaminant

introductions, non-native fish

introductions, disease, ultraviolet

radiation, climate change, drought, and

other factors that may be responsible for

the range-wide decline of the species.

If you wish to comment, you may

submit your comments and materials

concerning this finding to the Field

Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and

Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Our practice is to make comments,

including names and home addresses of

respondents, available for public review

during regular business hours.

Respondents may request that we

withhold their home address, which we

will honor to the extent allowable by

law. There also may be circumstances in

which we would withhold a

respondent’s identity, as allowable by

law. If you wish us to withhold your

name and/or address, you must state

this request prominently at the

beginning of your comment. However,

we will not consider anonymous

comments. To the extent consistent with

applicable law, we will make all

submissions from organizations or

businesses, and from individuals

identifying themselves as

representatives or officials of

organizations or businesses, available

for public inspection in their entirety.

Comments and materials received will

be available for public inspection, by

appointment, during normal business

hours at the above address.

References Cited

You may request a complete list of all

references we cited, as well as others,

from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife

Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author: The primary author of this

document is Jason Davis, Sacramento

Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES

section).

Authority

The authority for this action is the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

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

Dated: October 5, 2000.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 00–26180 Filed 10–11–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P