Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for the Arroyo Toad (Anaxyrus californicus), 52612-52664 [E9-24076]
Download as PDF
52612
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2009–0069;
92210–1117–0000–B4]
RIN 1018–AV89
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for
the Arroyo Toad (Anaxyrus
californicus)
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
revise designated critical habitat for the
arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus),
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (Act). The previous
final rule designated 11,695 acres (ac)
(4,733 hectares (ha)) of critical habitat
and was published in the Federal
Register (FR) on April 13, 2005. We now
propose to designate approximately
109,110 ac (44,155 ha) of lands located
in Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles,
San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and
San Diego Counties, California, which,
if finalized as proposed, would result in
an increase of approximately 97,415 ac
(39,422 ha) of critical habitat.
DATES: We will consider comments we
receive on or before December 14, 2009.
We must receive requests for public
hearings, in writing, at the address
shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section by November 27, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments to
Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2009–0069.
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R8–
ES–2009–0069, Division of Policy and
Directives Management, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see the
Public Comments section below for
more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
general information on the proposed
designation and information about the
proposed revised designation in Santa
Barbara and Ventura Counties, northern
Los Angeles County, and the desert
portion of San Bernardino County,
contact Diane Noda, Field Supervisor,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
or Michael McCrary, Listing and
Recovery Coordinator, Ventura Fish and
Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B,
Ventura, CA 93003; telephone (805)
644–1766; facsimile (805) 644–3958.
For information about the proposed
revised designation in the remaining
portions of Los Angeles and San
Bernardino Counties, as well as
Riverside, Orange, and San Diego
Counties, contact Jim Bartel, Field
Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife
Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101,
Carlsbad, CA 92011; telephone (760)
431–9440; facsimile (760) 431–9624.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at (800) 877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We intend any final action resulting
from this proposed revised rule to be
based on the best scientific and
commercial data available and be as
accurate and as effective as possible.
Therefore, we request comments or
information from the public, other
government agencies, Tribes, the
scientific community, industry, or other
interested parties concerning this
proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
1. The reasons why we should or
should not revise the designation of
habitat as ‘‘critical habitat’’ under
section 4 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), including whether there
are threats to the species from human
activity, the degree of which can be
expected to increase due to the
designation, and whether that increase
in threat outweighs the benefit of
designation such that the designation of
critical habitat is not prudent;
2. Specific information on:
• The amount and distribution of
arroyo toad habitat included in this
proposed revised rule,
• What areas within the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features essential to
the conservation of the species and why,
and
• What areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time
of listing are essential for the
conservation of the species and why;
3. Land-use designations and current
or planned activities in the subject areas
and their possible effects on proposed
revised critical habitat;
4. Any probable economic, national
security, or other relevant impacts of
designating any area that may be
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
included in the final designation. We
are particularly interested in any
impacts on small entities, and the
benefits of including or excluding areas
that exhibit these impacts;
5. Comments or information that may
assist us in identifying or clarifying the
primary constituent elements and the
resulting physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
the arroyo toad;
6. How the proposed revised critical
habitat boundaries could be refined to
more closely circumscribe the
landscapes identified as essential;
7. Information regarding Trabuco
Creek in Orange County and any special
management considerations or
protection that any essential physical or
biological features in this area may
require;
8. Information regarding the San
Diego River in San Diego County from
just below El Capitan Reservoir
downstream to the confluence with San
Vicente Creek, and any special
management considerations or
protection that any essential physical or
biological features in this area may
require;
9. Whether the potential exclusion
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act of nonFederal lands covered by the Western
Riverside County Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan from final
revised critical habitat is or is not
appropriate and why;
10. Whether the potential exclusion
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act of nonFederal lands covered by the San Diego
Multiple Species Conservation
Program–City and County of San Diego’s
Subarea Plans from final revised critical
habitat is or is not appropriate and why;
11. Whether the potential exclusion
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act of nonFederal lands covered by the Coachella
Valley Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan from final revised
critical habitat is or is not appropriate
and why;
12. Whether the potential exclusion
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act of nonFederal lands covered by the Orange
County Central–Coastal Subregional
Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural
Community Conservation Plan from
final revised critical habitat is or is not
appropriate and why;
13. Whether the potential exclusion
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act of nonFederal lands covered by the Southern
Orange County Natural Community
Conservation Plan/Master Streambed
Alteration Agreement/Habitat
Conservation Plan from final revised
critical habitat is or is not appropriate
and why;
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
14. Whether the conservation needs of
the arroyo toad can be achieved or not
by limiting the designation of final
revised critical habitat to non-Tribal
lands and why;
15. Whether the potential exclusion
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act of Tribal
˜
lands of the Rincon Band of Luiseno
Mission Indians from final revised
critical habitat is or is not appropriate
and why;
16. Whether the potential exclusion
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act of Tribal
˜
lands of the Pala Band of Luiseno
Mission Indians from final revised
critical habitat is or is not appropriate
and why;
17. Whether the potential exclusion
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act of Tribal
lands of the Sycuan Band of the
Kumeyaay Nation from final revised
critical habitat is or is not appropriate
and why;
18. Whether the potential exclusion
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act of Tribal
lands of the Capitan Grande Band of
Diegueno Mission Indians from final
revised critical habitat is or is not
appropriate and why;
19. Whether the potential exclusion
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act of Tribal
lands of the Mesa Grande Band of
Diegueno Mission Indians from final
revised critical habitat is or is not
appropriate and why;
20. Whether our exemption under
section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act of the lands
on Department of Defense land at
Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, in
San Diego County; Fallbrook Naval
Weapons Station in San Diego County;
and Fort Hunter Liggett Military
Reservation in San Luis Obispo County
is or is not appropriate, and why;
21. Information on any quantifiable
economic costs or benefits of the
proposed revised designation of critical
habitat;
22. Whether the benefit of exclusion
of any other particular area not
specifically identified above outweighs
the benefit of inclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act;
23. Information on the currently
predicted effects of climate change on
the arroyo toad and its habitat;
24. Any foreseeable impacts on energy
supplies, distribution, and use resulting
from the proposed revised designation
and, in particular, any impacts on
electricity production, and the benefits
of including or excluding any particular
areas that exhibit these impacts; and
25. Whether we could improve or
modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for
greater public participation and
understanding, or to better
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
accommodate public concerns and
comments.
Our final determination concerning
revised critical habitat for the arroyo
toad will take into consideration all
written comments received during the
comment period, including comments
requested from peer reviewers,
comments received during a public
hearing should one be requested, and
any additional information we receive
during the 60-day comment period. Our
final determination will also consider
all written comments and any
additional information we receive
during the comment period for the draft
economic analysis. All comments will
be included in the public record for this
rulemaking. On the basis of peer
reviewer and public comments, we may,
during the development of our final
determination, find that areas within
those proposed do not meet the
definition of critical habitat, that some
modifications to the described
boundaries are appropriate, or that areas
are or are not appropriate for exclusion
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposed rule
by one of the methods listed in the
ADDRESSES section.
We will post your entire comment—
including your personal identifying
information—on https://
www.regulations.gov. If you provide
personal identifying information, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from
public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We will post all hardcopy comments on
https://www.regulations.gov. Please
include sufficient information with your
comment to allow us to verify any
scientific or commercial data you
submit.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this proposed rule,
will be available for public inspection
on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
You may obtain copies of the
proposed revised rule by mail from the
Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or
by visiting the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those
topics directly relevant to the revised
designation of critical habitat in this
proposed rule. Additional information
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52613
on the arroyo toad may also be found in
the final listing rule published in the
Federal Register on December 16, 1994
(59 FR 64859), the ‘‘Recovery Plan for
the Arroyo Southwestern Toad’’
(recovery plan; Service 1999), and the
designation of critical habitat for the
arroyo toad published in the Federal
Register on April 13, 2005 (70 FR
19562). These documents are available
on the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office
and Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
Web sites at https://www.fws.gov/ventura
and https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad.
However, please note that this proposed
rule incorporates new information on
the distribution of arroyo toads that
became available since the 2005 final
critical habitat designation for this
species.
Taxonomy and Nomenclature
On December 16, 1994, we published
a final rule listing the arroyo
southwestern toad (Bufo microscaphus
californicus) as endangered (59 FR
64859). This animal, originally
described as Bufo cognatus californicus
(Camp 1915, p. 331), has consistently
been treated as a distinct taxon.
However, its rank as a subspecies or
species and taxonomic affiliations with
other species has changed several times
since it was described. Myers (1930,
p. 75) elevated it to species rank as Bufo
californicus citing morphological,
vocalization, and ecological data to
distinguish it from B. cognatus.
Subsequent to Myers’ paper, other
authors again relegated the animal to
subspecies rank aligned with various
other species of Bufo. The name in use
at the time of listing, Bufo microscaphus
californicus, was published by Stebbins
(1951, p. 275).
Since the toad was listed, an analysis
of allozyme data (Gergus 1998, p. 322)
supports recognition of Bufo
californicus as separate from B.
microscaphus. In addition, a
phylogenetic analysis of comparative
anatomical and molecular genetic data
for amphibians (Frost et al. 2006, p. 363)
segregated the Nearctic taxa of Bufo as
the genus Anaxyrus and published the
combination Anaxyrus californicus, the
arroyo toad. This treatment is accepted
by the Committee on Standard English
and Scientific Names of the American
Society of Ichthyologists and
Herpetologists, The Herpetologists’
League, and the Society for the Study of
Amphibians and Reptiles (Frost et al.
2008, p. 3).
In light of these changes and their
acceptance by the above scientific
authorities, we are proposing to amend
the List of Threatened and Endangered
Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11 to identify the
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
52614
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
listed entity as ‘‘arroyo toad (Anaxyrus
californicus).’’ This change does not
alter the description or distribution of
the animals.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Species Description
The arroyo toad is a small, darkspotted toad of the family Bufonidae. Its
coloration ranges from light olive green
or gray to light brown with a distinctive
light-colored, V-shaped stripe across the
head and the eyelids. The belly is white
or buff and often lacks dark blotches or
spots (Stebbins 2003, p. 212). The
species is endemic to the coastal plain
and mountains of central and southern
California, and northwestern Baja
California, Mexico, from near sea level
to about 8,000 feet (ft) (2,440 meters (m))
in elevation. For a detailed description
of the species, see the recovery plan and
references cited within the plan (Service
1999, pp. 1–119), and information in
previous Federal Register notices,
proposed rules, and final rules (59 FR
64859, December 16, 1994; 66 FR 9414,
February 7, 2001; 69 FR 23254, April 28,
2004; 70 FR 19562, April 13, 2005). In
addition to the recovery plan, important
sources for information on the biology
of the arroyo toad include: Sweet (1992,
pp. 1–198; 1993, pp. 1–73); Campbell et
al. (1996, pp. 1–46); Griffin et al. (1998,
pp. 1–66); Griffin and Case (2001, pp.
633–644); Holland and Sisk (2001); and
Ramirez (2002a, pp. 1–62; 2002b; 2002c;
2003, pp. 1–101).
Life History
Breeding typically occurs from
February to July on streams with
persistent water (Griffin et al. 1999,
p. 1). Males may breed with several
females in a season; however, female
arroyo toads release their entire clutch
of eggs as a single breeding effort and
probably do not produce a second
clutch during the mating season. Eggs
are deposited and tadpoles develop in
shallow pools with minimal current and
little or no emergent vegetation. The
substrate in these pools is generally
sand or fine gravel overlain with silt.
The eggs hatch in 4 to 5 days and the
tadpoles are immobile for an additional
5 to 6 days. Tadpoles then begin to
disperse from the pool margin into the
surrounding shallow water, where they
spend an average of 10 weeks. Peak
metamorphosis occurs during June and
July in the northern part of the arroyo
toad’s range, and from late April
through June farther south, although it
could occur later, particularly at higher
elevations (Holland 2000, in litt. p. 8).
After metamorphosis, the juvenile
arroyo toads remain on the bordering
gravel bars until the pool dries out
(usually from 8 to 12 weeks depending
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:10 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
on the site and rainfall). Most
individuals become sexually mature by
the following spring (Sweet 1992, p. 52).
Arroyo toad tadpoles feed on loose
organic material such as interstitial
algae, bacteria, and diatoms. They do
not forage on macroscopic vegetation
(Sweet 1992, p. 82; Jennings and Hayes
1994, p. 56). Juvenile arroyo toads feed
on ants almost exclusively (Service
1999, p. 36). By the time they reach 0.7
to 0.9 inch (in) (1.78 centimeters (cm))
in length, they consume beetles along
with ants (Sweet 1992, p. 99; Service
1999, p. 36). Adult arroyo toads
probably consume a wide variety of
insects and arthropods including (but
not limited to) ants, beetles, spiders,
larvae, and caterpillars.
Geographic Range
The historical and current range of the
arroyo toad extends from the Salinas
River Basin southward through the
Santa Ynez, Santa Clara, and Los
Angeles River basins (Sweet 1992,
p. 18), to Orange, Riverside, and San
Diego Counties (Jennings and Hayes
1994, p. 54) and southward to the
Arroyo San Simeon system, Baja
California, Mexico (Service 1999, p. 12;
Ramirez 2007, p. 5). Populations also
occur on the desert slopes of both the
San Gabriel Mountains (in Little Rock
Creek in Los Angeles County) and the
San Bernardino Mountains (in the
Mojave River and in its tributaries, Little
Horsethief and Deep Creeks, in San
Bernardino County) (Sweet 1992, p. 18;
Jennings and Hayes 1994, p. 54).
At the time of listing (59 FR 64859;
December 16, 1994), arroyo toads were
believed to be extirpated from the
Salinas River Basin. In 1996, arroyo
toads were found during surveys on the
Fort Hunter Liggett Military Reservation
approximately 40 miles (mi) (64
kilometers (km)) downstream of the
historical Santa Margarita arroyo toad
locality (U.S. Army Reserve 2004, pp. 5–
10). In 1997, arroyo toads were detected
along a 17-mi (27-km) stretch of the San
Antonio River. The Army surveyed
approximately 6 mi (9.6 km) of the San
Antonio River on the Military
Reservation in 2002 and estimated there
were as many as 7,000 arroyo toad
larvae (tadpoles) in the area (U.S. Army
Reserve Command 2004, p. 12). We
believe this population was present but
undetected on Fort Hunter Liggett at the
time of listing for the following reasons:
(1) Annual surveys (U.S. Army Reserve
2004, p. 38) indicate there is suitable
breeding and upland habitats for this
large, robust population; and (2) given
that the nearest extant population of
arroyo toads is 150 mi (240 km)
southeast of Fort Hunter Liggett in Santa
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Barbara County, it is unlikely that
arroyo toads could have dispersed and
newly colonized the Fort Hunter Liggett
area by 1996, just 2 years subsequent to
the species being listed in 1994.
Therefore, we consider the population
on Fort Hunter Liggett to have existed
in 1994 and to represent the
northernmost limit of the species’ range
at listing and currently. The
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it was listed is the
same as the species’ current range in the
coastal streams extending from
Monterey County southward to San
Diego County, and extending eastward
into the riparian (along the shore of a
river, stream, or lake) environments of
San Bernardino and Riverside Counties.
Arroyo toads have been extirpated
from approximately 75 percent of the
habitat they originally occupied (Sweet
1992, p. 189; Jennings and Hayes 1994,
p. 57; Campbell et al. 1996, p. 2). At
present, arroyo toads are limited to
isolated populations primarily in the
headwaters of coastal streams. The
species is likely restricted naturally as a
result of specific habitat requirements
for breeding and development (Service
1999, p. 39). These natural restrictions,
coupled with the small sizes of many
arroyo toad populations, make them
particularly vulnerable to the negative
effects of human-induced changes to
their habitat (Jennings and Hayes 1994,
p. 57).
Habitat
Stream order, elevation, and
floodplain width appear to be important
factors in determining habitat suitability
(Sweet 1992, pp. 24–26; Griffin et al.
1999, pp. 1–3). Stream order ranks the
size and potential power of streams. The
smallest channels in a watershed with
no tributaries are referred to as firstorder streams. When two first-order
streams unite, they form a second-order
stream; when two second-order streams
unite, they form a third-order stream,
and so on. Fifth- and sixth-order streams
are usually larger rivers, while first- and
second-order streams are often small,
steep, or intermittent. In the northern
portion of the range, arroyo toads are
found on third- to sixth-order streams
(Sweet 1992, p. 24), while in the central
and southern portion of the range,
arroyo toads are found in first- to sixthorder streams (Service 1999, p. 32).
Optimal breeding habitat consists of
low-gradient sections of slow-moving
streams with shallow pools, nearby
sandbars, and adjacent stream terraces.
Arroyo toads breed and deposit egg
masses in the shallow, sandy pools of
these streams, which are usually
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
bordered by sand-gravel flood-terraces.
Breeding sites favored by adult arroyo
toads have clear water in shallow (less
than 12 in (30 cm) deep) pools (Sweet
1992, p. 28). Optimal breeding sites also
have flow rates less than 1.97 in (5 cm)
per second and bottoms composed of
sand or well-sorted, fine gravel,
although a significant component of
large gravel or cobble may also be
present (Sweet 1992, p. 37).
Stream terrace habitat consisting of
alluvial bars and terraces that may have
established cottonwoods (Populus spp.),
oaks (Quercus spp.), or willows (Salix
spp.) and almost no grass and
herbaceous cover at ground level are
extremely important for arroyo toads
prior to, during, and after the breeding
season (Griffin et al. 1999, p. 45; Sweet
1992, pp. 28–49). Areas that are used by
juveniles consist primarily of sand or
fine gravel bars with varying amounts of
large gravel or cobble and adjacent
stable sandy terraces and oak flats.
Juvenile arroyo toads favor areas that are
damp and have some vegetation cover
(less than 10 percent), which offer
refugia and thermal characteristics that
are needed for juvenile survival and
rapid growth (Campbell et al. 1996,
p. 12). Bare sand and gravel bars may
support large numbers of juvenile toads,
but survivorship can be reduced due to
high levels of predation (Sweet 1992,
p. 113).
Adult arroyo toads are often found on
sandy alluvial terraces adjacent to the
stream that may be sparsely-to-heavily
vegetated with brush and trees, such as
mulefat (Baccharis spp.), California
sycamore (Platanus racemosa),
cottonwoods, coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia), and willow (Campbell et al.
1996, pp. 12–13). The understory of
stream terraces may consist of scattered
short grasses, herbs, and leaf litter, with
patches of bare or disturbed soil, or have
no vegetation at all. When foraging,
juvenile and adult arroyo toads are often
found around the drip lines of oak trees
(Sweet 1992, pp. 45–46; Campbell et al.
1996, p. 10). When active at night,
arroyo toads can often be observed near
ant trails feeding on passing ants and
other prey.
Upland habitats used by arroyo toads
during both the breeding and nonbreeding seasons include alluvial scrub,
coastal sage scrub, chaparral (shrubby
plants adapted to dry summers and
moist winters), grassland, and oak
woodland. Within terrace and upland
habitats, arroyo toads aestivate (a state
of dormancy similar to hibernation) in
burrows during the non-breeding
season, which usually starts in the late
summer and extends from August to
January (Ramirez 2003, p. 46). In habitat
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
utilization studies conducted by
Ramirez (2007, pp. 11–14) from 1999 to
2006 in the West Fork Mojave River and
Grass Valley Creek areas, arroyo toads
were generally found burrowed within
sandy or loamy substrates with no
associated canopy cover, or within
mulefat scrub or arroyo willow (Salix
lasiolepis) patches. The majority of
individuals tracked in these studies
burrowed immediately adjacent to the
active channel or on sandy terraces
within riparian habitat located within
flood-prone areas; however, toads were
also found to use upland habitats up to
1,063 ft (324 m) from the active channel
(Ramirez 2007, p. 13). In his 2005 study,
Ramirez (2007, p. 93) observed several
arroyo toad individuals burrowed in
stable terrace habitats dominated by
Great Basin sage scrub and Utah
junipers (Juniperus osteosperma). At
Little Rock Creek on the desert slopes of
the San Gabriel Mountains, arroyo toads
burrowed in areas closest to the creek
that retained higher soil saturation and
were cooler (Ramirez 2002a, p. 50).
Griffin et al. (1999, p. 45) noted that
sands are the preferred burrowing
substrate for both male and female
arroyo toads, confirming the importance
of natural hydrologic regimes that
maintain sand and fine sediment
deposition across the floodplain.
Dispersal
Arroyo toad movement patterns also
vary between watersheds or river
reaches in response to different
hydrological regimes (Griffin et al. 1999,
p. 11). In broad floodplain river systems,
arroyo toads searching for suitable egglaying sites may have to move across
parallel stream channels. Cristianitos
Creek, Talega Creek, and the lower San
Mateo River are examples of this type of
river system because of their wide,
sandy floodplains where the river flows
into several channels during floods.
Despite river depths of 24 in (60 cm)
and swift currents, Griffin et al. (1999,
p. 21) observed numerous toads crossing
Talega Creek and the lower San Mateo
River, confirming these river systems
are not a barrier to arroyo toad dispersal.
In their study of arroyo toad movement
patterns, Griffin et al. (1999, pp. 18–21)
tracked 10 female and 3 male arroyo
toads in the lower San Mateo River and
observed female arroyo toads regularly
using riparian and upland habitats far
from the river’s edge and returning to
these areas after traveling far upstream
for egg-laying. In one case, a female
arroyo toad traveled 919 ft (280 m)
across the San Mateo Campground into
upland native habitat; in another
instance, a female was found 558 ft (170
m) from the San Mateo River under
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52615
cover of mulefat scrub (Griffin et al.
1999, p. 20). They also recorded arroyo
toads moving in both up- and
downstream directions, such as the
female arroyo toad that traveled
upstream more than 492 ft (150 m) in a
single night to a breeding pool. The
study found that both male and female
arroyo toads moved more into upland
habitats after completing individual
breeding activity (Griffin et al. 1999,
p. 46).
In contrast, arroyo toads searching for
breeding pools in watersheds with
relatively narrower, steeper-sided
drainages (such as the Piru and Sespe
Creek Watersheds in Ventura County)
tend to move in both up- and
downstream directions along these
channels with their structure of
alternating riffles and pools (Griffin et
al. 1999, p. 11). In his Mono Creek
study, Sweet (1993, pp. 24–65),
concluded that female arroyo toads
became relatively sedentary as they
matured whereas males tended to travel
up- and downstream fairly often during
the breeding season (Sweet 1993, p. 65).
This study also suggested that most
juvenile arroyo toads disperse away
from their natal pools about a year after
metamorphosis (Sweet 1993, p. 65). In
fact, numerous juvenile and adult
arroyo toads were observed moving upand downstream as much as 0.5 mi (0.8
km) and over 0.6 mi (1 km) in some
cases (Sweet 1993, p. 1). Arroyo toads
in these watersheds also travel laterally
away from the stream channel into
terrace and upland native habitats. On
lower Piru Creek, Sweet (1992, pp. 42–
45) observed two adult males under
oaks that were 200 ft (61 m) away.
Reasons for Decline and Threats
A variety of factors contribute to the
decline of arroyo toads but nearly half
of historical extirpations prior to listing
are attributed to dam building and
operation (Sweet 1992, pp. 4–5; Ramirez
2003, p. 7). Suitable habitat is often
flooded out by reservoir water, and
downstream breeding and non-breeding
habitat may be severely altered by
reduced flows at some times and
sudden excessive flows at others.
Sudden excessive releases of water may
destroy sand bars used during the
breeding season, and reconfigure or
destroy suitable breeding pools, thus
disrupting clutch and larval
development (Ramirez 2003, p. 7).
Additionally, dams can interrupt the
scouring and deposition processes
needed to maintain arroyo toad pool
and terrace habitats. Areas below dams
can become unsuitable as fine sands are
lost and not replaced (Service 1999, pp.
42–43).
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
52616
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
In addition to flood control projects,
other threats include agriculture; sand
and gravel mining; urban development;
off-highway vehicle use; urbanization;
recreational activities such as camping,
fishing, hiking, picnicking; and natural
factors, including drought and fire (59
FR 64859; Service 1999, p. 39; Ramirez
2003, p. 7). Conversion of stream terrace
habitat for farming, road construction,
and residential and commercial uses has
eliminated substantial arroyo toad
habitat in some areas. Suction dredge
mining of sand and gravel causes
substantial alteration of habitat by
degrading water quality, altering stream
morphology, increasing siltation
downstream, and creating deep pools
that hold water year-round for
introduced predators of arroyo toad eggs
and larvae (Campbell et al. 1996, p. 16).
Natural disturbances, such as drought
and fire, also threaten the arroyo toad
(Campbell et al. 1996, p. 17). Prolonged
drought can result in the loss of suitable
breeding pools, foraging habitat, and
prey availability (Sweet 1992, p. 190).
Fire can affect arroyo toads by causing
direct mortality and destruction of
stream or terrace vegetation.
The introduction of nonnative species
that compete for resources or that prey
on arroyo toads also poses a serious
threat to arroyo toad existence. The
introduction of aquatic species not
native to southern California
watercourses has been facilitated by
construction of the California Aqueduct
and other sources of inter-basin water
transport (Service 1999, p. 48).
Currently, the California Aqueduct is
linked directly to the Santa Ynez River,
Santa Clara River, San Jacinto River, and
Mojave River Basins. Predatory species,
many of which have used the aqueduct
to colonize these river basins, include
green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus),
largemouth bass (Micropterous
salmoides), black bullhead (Ictalurus
nebulosus), prickly sculpin (Cottus
asper), stocked rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss), oriental gobies
(Tridentiger spp.), red shiners (Notropis
lutrensis), bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana),
African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis),
and crayfish (Procambarus clarkii)
(Sweet 1992, pp. 118–122; Service 1999,
p. 48). All of these species prey on
arroyo toad tadpoles.
Of the above introduced-predators,
bullfrogs are probably the most serious
threat to arroyo toads (Stephenson and
Calcarone 1999, p. 82). Bullfrogs are
well adapted to deep water conditions
in ponded areas above dams, and dam
releases can introduce them to
downstream habitats (CDFG 2005,
p. 178). A broad diet and an extended
breeding season give bullfrogs a
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
competitive advantage over native
amphibians. Whereas arroyo toad
breeding habitat requirements are highly
specialized, in that they require
shallow, slow-moving streams and
riparian habitats that are disturbed on a
regular basis, bullfrogs can tolerate
elevated water temperatures and make
use of standing pools resulting from
urban runoff to complete their 2-year
life cycle (CDFG 2005, p. 178).
Introduced plants have also had a
negative effect on arroyo toads and their
habitat. Nonnative plant species,
particularly tamarisk (Tamarix spp.)
and giant reed (Arundo donax) alter the
natural hydrology of stream drainages
by eliminating sandbars, breeding pools,
and upland habitats. Tamarisk is an
aggressive, woody invasive plant
species that can tolerate a variety of
environmental conditions and has
become established over as much as a
million acres of floodplains, riparian
areas, wetlands, and lake margins in the
western United States (Carpenter 2004,
pp. 1–30). Tamarisk can replace or
displace native woody species such as
cottonwood and willow which occupy
similar habitats, especially when timing
and amount of peak water discharge,
salinity, temperature, and substrate
texture have been altered by human
activities (Carpenter 2004, pp. 1–30).
Tamarisk also consumes large quantities
of water, possibly more than woody
native plant species occupying the same
habitat (Carpenter 2004, p. 3). Highly
resistant to removal by flooding,
tamarisk has the potential to form dense
corridors along most large streams.
Where this has been allowed to occur,
tamarisk has replaced native vegetation,
invaded sand bars, and led to
channelization by constricting flood
flows. Arundo donax is a tall, grass-like
plant that grows up to 20 ft (6.1 m) in
height with jointed stems that resemble
corn stalks. Arundo donax also invades
stream banks and lakeshores, where it
can completely displace native
vegetation, reduce wildlife habitat,
increase fire risks, and alter flow
regimes which can cause flooding
(Ventura County 2006, pp. 21–23).
In summary, predation from
introduced aquatic species and the loss
of habitat, coupled with habitat
modifications due to the establishment
of nonnative plants and the
manipulation of water levels in many
central and southern California streams
and rivers, have caused arroyo toads to
disappear from a large portion of their
previously occupied habitat in
California.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Previous Federal Action
For more information on previous
Federal actions concerning the arroyo
toad, refer to our final designation of
critical habitat published in the Federal
Register on April 13, 2005 (70 FR
19562). On July 20, 2007 (Service 2007,
pp. 1–2), we announced that we would
review the April 13, 2005, final rule
after questions were raised about the
integrity of scientific information used
and whether the decision made was
consistent with the appropriate legal
standards. Based on our review of the
previous final critical habitat
designation, we determined it was
necessary to revise critical habitat and
this rule proposes those revisions. On
December 19, 2007, the Center for
Biological Diversity filed a complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California challenging our
designation of critical habitat for the
arroyo toad (Center for Biological
Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Case No. 07–2380–JM–AJB). On
June 5, 2008, the court entered a consent
decree requiring a proposed revised
critical habitat rule to be submitted to
the Federal Register by October 1, 2009,
and a final revised critical habitat
designation to be submitted to the
Federal Register by October 1, 2010.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3
of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by a species,
at the time it is listed in accordance
with the Act, on which are found those
physical or biological features;
(a) Essential to the conservation of the
species; and
(b) That may require special
management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species
at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species.
Conservation, as defined under
section 3 of the Act, means the use of
all methods and procedures that are
necessary to bring any endangered
species or threatened species to the
point at which the measures provided
under the Act are no longer necessary.
Such methods and procedures include,
but are not limited to, all activities
associated with scientific resources
management such as research, census,
law enforcement, habitat acquisition
and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping and transplantation, and in the
extraordinary case where population
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot otherwise be relieved, may
include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection
under section 7 of the Act through the
prohibition against Federal agencies
carrying out, funding, or authorizing
activities that are likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act
requires consultation on Federal actions
that may affect critical habitat. The
designation of critical habitat does not
affect land ownership or establish a
refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such
designation does not allow the
government or public to access private
lands. Such designation does not
require implementation of restoration,
recovery, or enhancement measures by
private landowners. Where a landowner
seeks or requests Federal agency
funding or authorization of an activity
that may affect a listed species or
critical habitat, the consultation
requirements of section 7(a)(2) would
apply, but even in the event of a
destruction or adverse modification
finding, the Federal action agency’s and
the applicant’s obligation is not to
restore or recover the species, but to
implement reasonable and prudent
alternatives to avoid destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat.
To be considered for inclusion in a
critical habitat designation, habitat
within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it was listed
must contain the physical or biological
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species. Areas
supporting the essential physical or
biological features are identified, to the
extent known using the best scientific
data available, as the habitat areas that
provide essential life cycle needs of the
species; that is, areas on which are
found the primary constituent elements
laid out in the appropriate quantity and
spatial arrangement essential to the
conservation of the species. Habitat
within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time of listing that
contains features essential to the
conservation of the species meets the
definition of critical habitat only if these
features may require special
management considerations or
protection. Under the Act and the
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, we can
designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it is listed
only when we determine that the best
available scientific data demonstrate
that the designation of those areas is
essential for the conservation of the
species.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
Section 4 of the Act requires that we
designate critical habitat on the basis of
the best scientific and commercial data
available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the
Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59
FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act
(section 515 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R.
5658)), and our associated Information
Quality Guidelines, provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data
available. They require our biologists, to
the extent consistent with the Act and
with the use of the best scientific data
available, to use primary and original
sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas
to propose as revised critical habitat,
our primary source of information is
generally the information developed
during the listing process for the species
and any previous designations of critical
habitat. Additional information sources
may include the recovery plan and 5year reviews for the species, articles in
peer-reviewed journals, conservation
plans developed by States and counties,
scientific status surveys and studies,
biological assessments, or other
unpublished materials and expert
opinion or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may
move from one area to another over
time. In particular, we recognize that
climate change may cause changes in
the arrangement of occupied habitat
patches. Current climate change
predictions for terrestrial areas in the
Northern Hemisphere indicate warmer
air temperatures, more intense
precipitation events, and increased
summer continental drying (Field et al.
1999, pp. 1–3; Hayhoe et al. 2004,
p. 12422; Cayan et al. 2005, p. 6;
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change 2007, p. 11; Cayan et al. 2009,
p. xi). However, predictions of climatic
conditions for smaller sub-regions such
as California remain uncertain. It is
unknown at this time if climate change
in California will result in a warmer
trend with localized drying, higher
precipitation events, or other effects.
Thus, the information currently
available on the effects of global climate
change and increasing temperatures
does not make sufficiently precise
estimates of the location and magnitude
of the effects. Nor are we currently
aware of any climate change
information specific to the habitat of the
arroyo toad that would indicate what
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52617
areas may become important to the
species in the future. Therefore, we are
unable to determine what additional
areas, if any, may be appropriate to
include in the proposed revised critical
habitat for this species; however, we
specifically request information from
the public on the currently predicted
effects of climate change on the arroyo
toad and its habitat. Additionally, we
recognize that critical habitat designated
at a particular point in time may not
include all of the habitat areas that we
may later determine are necessary for
the recovery of the species. For these
reasons, a critical habitat designation
does not signal that habitat outside the
designated critical habitat area is
unimportant or may not be required for
recovery of the species.
Areas that support populations of the
arroyo toad, but are outside the critical
habitat designation, may continue to be
subject to conservation actions we and
other Federal agencies implement under
section 7(a)(1) of the Act. They are also
subject to the regulatory protections
afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy
standard, as determined on the basis of
the best available information at the
time of the agency action. Federally
funded or permitted projects affecting
listed species outside their designated
critical habitat areas may still result in
jeopardy findings in some cases.
Similarly, critical habitat designations
made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation
will not control the direction and
substance of future recovery plans,
habitat conservation plans (HCPs),
section 7 consultations, or other species
conservation planning efforts if new
information available to these planning
efforts calls for a different outcome.
Methods
As required by section 4(b) of the Act,
we used the best scientific and
commercial data available in
determining which areas within the
geographic area occupied by the species
at the time of listing contain the features
essential to the conservation of the
arroyo toad, and which areas outside the
geographical area occupied at the time
of listing are essential for the
conservation of the species. We
reviewed information used to prepare
the 2004 proposed critical habitat rule
(69 FR 23254); the approach to provide
conservation for the arroyo toad
provided in its recovery plan (Service
1999, pp. 1–119); the 5-year review for
the arroyo toad (Service 2009, pp. 1–51);
the California Department of Fish and
Game’s (CDFG) California Natural
Diversity Database (CNDDB) records;
published peer-reviewed articles;
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
52618
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
unpublished papers and reports;
academic theses; survey results;
Geographic Information System (GIS)
data (such as species occurrences, soil
data, land use, topography, and
ownership maps); and correspondence
to the Service from recognized experts.
We solicited new information collected
since publication of the recovery plan
and 2005 final critical habitat
designation, including information from
State, Federal, and Tribal governments,
and from academia and private
organizations that have collected
scientific data on the arroyo toad. We
also based our determination of areas
meeting the definition of critical habitat
for the arroyo toad in part on the
approach in the recovery plan that
focuses on protection and management
of breeding and non-breeding habitat on
a watershed basis for the conservation of
the species (Service 1999, pp. 1–119).
Physical and Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i)
of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR
424.12(b), in determining which areas
within the geographical area occupied at
the time of listing to propose as revised
critical habitat, we consider the physical
and biological features that are essential
to the conservation of the species that
may require special management
considerations or protection. Those
features are the primary constituent
elements (PCEs) laid out in the
appropriate quantity and spatial
arrangement for conservation of the
species. The PCEs include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Space for individual and
population growth, and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or
other nutritional or physiological
requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction,
and rearing (or development) of
offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from
disturbance or are representative of the
historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific PCEs required
for conservation of the arroyo toad from
its biological needs. The areas proposed
for designation as revised critical habitat
provide aquatic habitat for breeding
activities and upland habitat for shelter,
foraging, predator avoidance, and
dispersal across the arroyo toad’s
current range. The PCEs and the
resulting physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species are determined based on
studies of arroyo toad ecology as
described in the ‘‘Background’’ section
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
of this proposed rule and in the final
listing rule published in the Federal
Register on December 16, 1994 (59 FR
64859).
Space for Individual and Population
Growth, and for Normal Behavior
The arroyo toad is found along
medium-to-large streams in coastal and
desert drainages in central and southern
California, and Baja California, Mexico.
It occupies aquatic, riparian, and upland
habitats in a number of the remaining
suitable drainages within its range.
Suitable habitat for the arroyo toad is
created and maintained by the
fluctuating hydrological, geological, and
ecological processes that naturally occur
in riparian ecosystems and adjacent
uplands (Campbell et al. 1996, pp. 13–
15; Service 1999, p. 39). Periodic
flooding that modifies stream channels,
redistributes channel sediments, and
alters pool location and form, coupled
with upper terrace stabilization by
vegetation, is required to keep a stream
segment suitable for all life stages of the
arroyo toad (Campbell et al. 1996, p. 13;
Service 1999, p. 39). This natural
flooding regime helps maintain areas of
open, sparsely vegetated, sandy stream
channels and terraces.
The substrate in habitats preferred by
arroyo toads consists primarily of sand,
fine gravel, or pliable soil, with varying
amounts of large gravel, cobble, and
boulders. Areas that are damp and have
less than 10 percent vegetation cover
provide the best conditions for juvenile
survival and rapid growth (Campbell et
al. 1996, p. 12; Service 1999, pp. 32–34).
Arroyo toads breed in the quiet margins
of open streams and avoid sites with
deep or swift water, tree canopy cover,
or steeply incised banks. Larvae occupy
shallow areas of open streambeds on
substrates ranging from silt to cobble,
with preferences for sand or gravel.
Newly metamorphosed arroyo toads and
juveniles remain on sparsely vegetated
sand and gravel bars bordering the natal
pool for 3 to 5 weeks (Sweet 1992,
p. 52).
Arroyo toads must be able to move
between the stream and upland foraging
sites, as well as up and down the stream
corridor. Juveniles and adult arroyo
toads require and spend much of their
lives in riparian and upland habitats
adjacent to breeding locations
(Campbell et al. 1996, p. 12). Riparian
habitats used for foraging and burrowing
include sand bars, alluvial terraces, and
streamside benches that lack vegetation,
or are sparsely to moderately vegetated.
Upland habitats used by arroyo toads
during both the breeding and nonbreeding seasons include alluvial scrub,
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
coastal sage scrub, chaparral, grassland,
and oak woodland.
Food, Water, and Physiological
Requirements
Arroyo toad tadpoles eat microscopic
algae, bacteria, and protozoans
consumed from the spaces among
pebbles, gravel, and sand, or abraded
from stones (Sweet 1992, p. 82).
Juveniles and adults eat insects,
although ants are preferred. When
foraging, arroyo toads are often found
around the drip lines of oak trees. These
areas often lack vegetation, yet have
levels of prey that will support arroyo
toads. When active at night, toads often
are observed near ant trails feeding on
ants, beetles, and other prey.
Cover or Shelter
During the day and other periods of
inactivity, arroyo toads seek shelter by
burrowing into sand. Thus, areas of
sandy or friable (readily crumbled) soils
are necessary, but these soils can be
interspersed with gravel or cobble
deposits. Additionally, arroyo toads
may seek temporary shelter under rocks
or debris and have been found in
mammal burrows on occasion. Upland
sites with compact soils can also be
used for foraging and dispersal (Holland
2000, in litt.).
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, and
Rearing of Offspring
The arroyo toad has specialized
breeding habitat requirements. They
favor shallow pools (less than 12 in (30
cm) deep) and open sand and gravel
channels along low-gradient (typically
less than 6 percent) reaches of medium
to large streams (Service 1999, pp. 31–
32). These streams can have either
intermittent or perennial streamflow
and typically experience periodic
flooding that scours vegetation and
replenishes fine sediments. In at least
some portions of its range, the species
also breeds in smaller streams and
canyons where low-gradient breeding
sites are more sporadically distributed.
Breeding pools must persist long
enough for the completion of larval
development, which is generally March
through June, depending on location
and weather. Because the suitability of
breeding pools may vary from year to
year due to the dynamics of southern
California riparian systems and flood
regimes, adult arroyo toads may move
up or down stream in search of suitable
breeding pools, or not breed that year
(Campbell et al. 1996, p. 14).
Arroyo toads breed in rivers with
intermittent, seasonal flow, with a
breeding period that may range from
late February through July. Breeding at
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
a given site may extend over several
months (Griffin and Case 2001, p. 634).
Breeding arroyo toads lay their eggs in
water over substrates of sand, gravel, or
cobble in open sites such as overflow
pools, old flood channels, and shallow
pools along streams. Such habitats
rarely have closed canopies over the
lower banks of the stream channel due
to periodic flood events. Heavily shaded
pools are generally unsuitable for larval
and juvenile arroyo toads because of
lower water and soil temperatures and
poor algal mat development. Pools less
than 12 in (30 cm) deep with clear
water, flow rates less than 0.2 ft per
second (5 cm per second), and bottoms
composed of sand or well-sorted fine
gravel are favored by adults for breeding
and egg deposition (Sweet 1992, pp. 29–
37). Although egg strings are laid in very
slow-moving water, larvae (tadpoles)
can be found in water velocities of up
to 1.0 to 1.3 ft per second (30 to 40 cm
per second) (Sweet 1992, p. 29).
Breeding may occur on several dates at
a single site, and eggs may be deposited
over a period of 7 to 8 weeks (Campbell
et al. 1996, p. 6). Breeding pools must
persist a minimum of 2 months for the
completion of larval development
because changes in stream level or
altering of the stream bed or breeding
pool may cause high mortality to eggs
and small larvae, sweeping them
downstream, stranding and exposing
them to desiccation, or burying and
asphyxiating them with silt (Campbell
et al. 1996, p. 6). Larvae usually hatch
in 4 to 6 days at water temperatures of
54 to 59 degrees Fahrenheit (12 to 16
degrees Celsius). Tadpoles disperse
from the pool margin into the
surrounding shallow water, where they
spend an average of 10 weeks. After
metamorphosis, the juvenile arroyo
toads remain on the bordering gravel
bars until the pool dries out (usually
from 8 to 12 weeks depending on the
site and rainfall).
Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) for
the Arroyo Toad
Pursuant to the Act and its
implementing regulations, when
considering the designation of critical
habitat, we must focus on the known
principal primary constituent elements
within the geographical area occupied
by the arroyo toad at the time of listing
that are essential to the conservation of
the species. The essential physical and
biological features are those PCEs laid
out in an appropriate quantity and
spatial arrangement determined to be
essential to the conservation of the
species. All areas proposed in this rule
as revised critical habitat for the arroyo
toad are currently occupied, are within
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, and
contain sufficient PCEs to support at
least one life-history function.
Based on the above needs and our
current knowledge of the life history,
biology, and ecology of the species, and
the habitat requirements for sustaining
the essential life-history functions of the
species, we have determined that the
PCEs specific to the arroyo toad are:
(1) Rivers or streams with hydrologic
regimes that supply water to provide
space, food, and cover needed to sustain
eggs, tadpoles, metamorphosing
juveniles, and adult breeding toads.
Breeding pools must persist a minimum
of 2 months for the completion of larval
development. However, due to the
dynamic nature of southern California
riparian systems and flood regimes, the
location of suitable breeding pools may
vary from year to year. Specifically, the
conditions necessary to allow for
successful reproduction of arroyo toads
are:
• Breeding pools with areas less than
12 in (30 cm) deep;
• Areas of flowing water with current
velocities less than 1.3 ft per second (40
cm per second); and
• Surface water that lasts for a
minimum of 2 months during the
breeding season (a sufficient wet period
in the spring months to allow arroyo
toad larvae to hatch, mature, and
metamorphose).
(2) Riparian and adjacent upland
habitats, particularly low-gradient
(typically less than 6 percent) stream
segments and alluvial streamside
terraces with sandy or fine gravel
substrates that support the formation of
shallow pools and sparsely vegetated
sand and gravel bars for breeding and
rearing of tadpoles and juveniles; and
adjacent valley bottomlands that
include areas of loose soil where toads
can burrow underground, to provide
foraging and living areas for juvenile
and adult arroyo toads.
(3) A natural flooding regime, or one
sufficiently corresponding to natural,
characterized by intermittent or near
perennial flow that contributes to the
persistence of shallow pools into at least
mid-summer, and that maintains areas
of open, sparsely vegetated, sandy
stream channels and terraces by
periodically scouring riparian
vegetation; and also that modifies
stream channels and terraces and
redistributes sand and sediment, such
that breeding pools and terrace habitats
with scattered vegetation are
maintained.
(4) Stream channels and adjacent
upland habitats that allow for
movement to breeding pools, foraging
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52619
areas, overwintering sites, upstream and
downstream dispersal, and connectivity
to areas that contain suitable habitat.
In summary, the need for space for
individual and population growth and
normal behavior is met by PCE (1); the
need for food, water and physiological
requirements is met by PCE (1); cover
and shelter requirements are met by PCE
(2); areas for breeding reproduction, and
rearing of offspring are met by PCEs (1),
(2), and (3); and habitats representative
of the historical, geographical, and
ecological distributions of a species are
met by PCE (4).
With this proposed revised
designation of critical habitat, we intend
to conserve the physical and biological
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species, through the
identification of the appropriate
quantity and spatial arrangement of the
PCEs sufficient to support the lifehistory functions of the species. Because
not all life-history functions require all
the PCEs, not all areas designated as
critical habitat will contain all the PCEs.
Each of the areas proposed for
designation in this rule has been
determined to contain sufficient PCEs to
provide for one or more of the lifehistory functions of the arroyo toad.
Special Management Considerations or
Protection
In accordance with the definition of
critical habitat in section 3(5)(A) of the
Act, when designating critical habitat
within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time of listing, we
assess whether the physical and
biological features essential to the
conservation of the arroyo toad may
require special management
considerations or protection. All areas
being proposed as critical habitat may
require some level of management to
address current and future threats to the
arroyo toad, to maintain or enhance the
physical and biological features
essential to its conservation, and to
ensure the recovery and survival of the
species.
A detailed discussion of threats
impacting the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
the arroyo toad which may require
special management considerations or
protection, can be found in the final
listing rule (59 FR 64859; December 16,
1994), the 2001 critical habitat
designation (66 FR 9414; February 7,
2001), the 2005 critical habitat
designation (70 FR 19561; April 13,
2005), and the recovery plan (Service
1999, pp. 1–119). In summary, these
threats include habitat destruction and
alteration due to short- and long-term
changes in river hydrology, including
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
52620
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
construction of dams and water
diversions; alteration of riparian
wetland habitats by agriculture and
urbanization; construction of roads; sitespecific damage by off-highway vehicle
use and other recreational activities;
overgrazing; and mining activities.
Arroyo toads and their habitats are also
threatened by introduced nonnative
predators (such as bullfrogs and
predatory fish), drought, periodic fires,
unseasonal water releases from dams,
livestock grazing, and light and noise
pollution from adjacent developments
and campgrounds. Activities that may
require special management
considerations or protection of the
features essential to the conservation of
the arroyo toad include, but are not
limited to: dam construction and
operation, river diversion, conversion of
riparian wetland habitat by agriculture
and urbanization, road construction, offhighway vehicle use, campground
development, grazing, and mining. In
each proposed critical habitat unit,
special management may be needed to
ensure that aquatic and terrestrial
habitat are able to provide abundant
breeding and non-breeding habitat, prey
habitat, shelter, and connectivity within
the landscape.
In summary, we find that each of the
areas we are proposing as revised
critical habitat contains features
essential to the conservation of the
arroyo toad, and that these features may
require special management
considerations or protection. Special
management considerations or
protection may be required to eliminate,
or reduce to negligible level, the threats
affecting each unit and to preserve and
maintain the essential features that the
proposed critical habitat units provide
to the arroyo toad. A more
comprehensive discussion of threats
facing individual sites is in the
individual unit descriptions.
The designation of critical habitat
does not imply that lands outside of
critical habitat do not play an important
role in the conservation of the arroyo
toad. Activities with a Federal nexus
that may affect those unprotected areas
outside of critical habitat, such as
development, agricultural activities, and
road construction, are still subject to
review under section 7 of the Act if they
may affect the arroyo toad. The take
prohibitions of section 9 of the Act also
continue to apply both inside and
outside of designated critical habitat.
Take is broadly defined in the Act as to
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect a
listed species, or to attempt to engage in
any such conduct.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat
Using the best scientific and
commercial data available as required
by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we
identified those areas to propose for
revised designation as critical habitat
that, within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of
listing (see ‘‘Geographic Range’’
section), possess those physical and
biological features essential to the
conservation of the arroyo toad and
which may require special management
considerations or protection. We also
considered the area outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing for any
areas that are essential for the
conservation of the arroyo toad. The
material we used included the 1994
final listing rule (59 FR 64859), the 2004
proposed critical habitat rule (69 FR
23254), 2008 CNDDB records, the arroyo
toad recovery plan, data in reports
submitted during section 7
consultations and by biologists holding
section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits,
research published in peer-reviewed
articles and presented in academic
theses and agency reports, the 5-year
review for the arroyo toad (Service 2009,
pp. 1–51), and regional GIS coverages.
We analyzed this information to
develop criteria for identifying areas
that contain the PCEs in the appropriate
quantity and spatial arrangement
essential to the conservation of the
arroyo toad that may require special
management considerations or
protection, or that are essential for the
conservation of the arroyo toad.
To begin our analysis, we first
examined the CNDDB current and
historical records to get an indication of
the habitat where arroyo toads are
present or absent. The CNDDB is a
continually refined and updated
inventory of location information
gathered during species surveys and
observations. We then examined the
arroyo toad recovery plan (Service 1999,
pp. 1–119), which has a recovery
strategy focused on providing sufficient
breeding and upland habitat to maintain
self-sustaining populations of arroyo
toads (defined as populations that
require little or no direct human
assistance such as captive breeding or
rearing, or translocation between sites)
throughout the historical range of the
species, and on minimizing or
eliminating impacts and threats to
arroyo toad populations (Service 1999,
p. 67). The recovery plan states that instream and riparian habitats that
support breeding, as well as upland
habitats that provide foraging and
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
overwintering habitat, need to be
managed to maintain and enhance
populations throughout the range of the
arroyo toad (Service 1999, p. 68). The
recovery plan divides the range of the
arroyo toad into three large recovery
units—northern, southern, and desert—
and we considered the recovery of each
of these as well as the species as a whole
in our analysis. Using the recovery plan
as our guide, we analyzed areas within
the geographical area occupied by the
arroyo toad at the time of listing to
determine which areas contained the
PCEs laid out in the appropriate
quantity and spatial arrangement
essential to the conservation of the
species (the physical and biological
features).
In determining the specific areas
containing the essential physical and
biological features, based on the
recovery plan, 5-year review, previous
critical habitat proposals for the arroyo
toad, scientific literature, and results of
studies that have been conducted since
the species was listed, we made sure
that we are proposing critical habitat
that will provide for the conservation of
the species. Criteria we evaluated to
assist our process include units: (1) That
are dispersed throughout the current
geographical, elevational, and ecological
distribution of the species; (2) that
would maintain the appropriate
population structure across the species’
range; (3) that retain or provide the
connectivity between breeding sites that
allows for the continued existence of
essential metapopulations (a population
of subpopulations in somewhat
geographically isolated patches,
interconnected through patterns of gene
flow, extinction, and recolonization
(Soule 1987, p. 7), despite fluctuations
in the status of subpopulations); and (4)
that contain upland habitat around each
breeding location to allow for survival
and recruitment to maintain a breeding
population over the long term.
We also evaluated the area outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing to identify
any areas that are essential for the
conservation of the arroyo toad. We
looked at areas that may have been
historically occupied by arroyo toads
based on CNDDB records but were no
longer occupied at the time of listing.
We also considered areas that may have
the physical and biological features
essential for the conservation of the
species but have never been occupied.
However, based on the best available
scientific information, including the
recovery plan which does not identify
any such areas as being important to the
recovery of the species, we determined
that there are no areas outside the
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing that are
essential for the conservation of the
arroyo toad.
To identify and map areas that we
determined meet the definition of
critical habitat, we used data on known
arroyo toad locations and data on
movement distances by arroyo toads.
The main source for arroyo toad
locations was the CNDDB (2008); we
also obtained locations that have not yet
been entered into the CNDDB directly
from the biologists that collected them.
Areas meeting the definition of
critical habitat for the arroyo toad
include occupied areas on stream
reaches containing suitable breeding
and upland habitat. To determine the
extent of suitable arroyo toad habitat as
discussed in the ‘‘Habitat’’ section
above, we used spatial data on stream
gradients with grades less than 6
percent, aerial photography, surveys of
habitat suitability, and site visits.
Additionally, we included higher
gradient areas between breeding habitat
because these areas are used by toads
during the non-breeding period and
allow toads to disperse between
breeding areas. To delineate upland
habitat areas, we used a GIS-based
modeling procedure to identify alluvial
terraces, valley bottomlands, and
upland habitats adjacent to stream
reaches occupied by the arroyo toad.
Lacking spatially explicit data on
geomorphology, we used elevation
above the stream channel as an
indicator of the extent of alluvial and
upland foraging habitat. We determined
that areas up to 82 ft (25 m) in elevation
above the stream channel were most
likely to contain the riparian and
upland habitat elements essential to
arroyo toads. Most arroyo toad activity
and movement occurred within these
areas; therefore, steeper slopes away
from the stream were eliminated.
However, we truncated the upland
habitat delineation in flat areas at 4,921
ft (1,500 m) from the stream channel (a
distance based on known movement of
arroyo toads, see below) if the 82-ft (25m) elevation limit had not yet been
reached at that point. The 82-ft (25-m)
elevation limit was reached at distances
less than 4,921 ft (1,500 m) from the
mapped stream channel along the
majority of the stream reaches, so the
distance limit was often not a factor.
These model parameters are based on
the best scientific data available and are
the same as those used in the 2004
proposed critical habitat designation (69
FR 23254).
To evaluate our critical habitat model,
we assessed its effectiveness at
capturing documented toad locations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
from studies that focused specifically on
surveying toads in upland habitats and
studies involving radio telemetry.
Holland and Sisk (2000, pp. 1–28)
established extensive pitfall trap arrays
at discrete distances from two stream
courses and operated these arrays at
various periods throughout the year.
They had 466 captures of arroyo toads,
35 (7.5 percent) of which were
identified as being in upland areas. The
low percentage of toads captured in
upland areas may be because the vast
majority of captures (98.7 percent) were
during the months from January to
September, when breeding and
metamorphosis occurs and when toads
would likely be in close proximity to
the stream. Nevertheless, toads were
captured at distances that ranged from
49 to 3,855 ft (15 to 1,175 m) from the
upland-riparian ecotone (boundary)
(Holland and Sisk 2000, pp. 1–28). For
the two areas sampled in that study
(Cristianitos Creek and the upper Santa
Margarita River, San Diego County), we
found that our critical habitat
boundaries encompassed all of the
pitfall trapping stations where arroyo
toads were detected.
We also assessed studies that
involved the tracking of arroyo toads
with radio telemetry equipment. For
example, in a number of studies by
Ramirez (2002a, p. 10; 2002b, p. 50;
2002c, p. 23; 2003, pp. 72–81), arroyo
toads were tracked from the end of
breeding activity until the
commencement of aestivation, generally
May through September. Cumulatively,
these four studies involved tracking 77
adult arroyo toads in three separate
critical habitat units in Orange, San
Bernardino, and Los Angeles Counties.
All but one of the numerous burrow
sites chosen by these arroyo toads fell
within our proposed revised critical
habitat boundaries.
Upon completion of our analyses with
our GIS modeling, we identified six
tribes that own lands within areas
identified as meeting the definition of
˜
critical habitat: Rincon Band of Luiseno
˜
Mission Indians; Pala Band of Luiseno
Mission Indians; Sycuan Band of the
Kumeyaay Nation; the Barona Group of
Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians
and the Viejas (Baron Long) Group of
Capitan Grande Band of Mission
Indians, which jointly manage the
Capitan Grande Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians Reservation (Capitan
Grande Reservation); and Mesa Grande
Band of Diegueno Mission Indians.
These areas are included in this
proposed revised critical habitat,
although we are requesting public
comment on whether the conservation
needs of the arroyo toad can be achieved
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52621
or not by limiting the designation of
final revised critical habitat to nonTribal lands, and are otherwise
considering these Tribal lands for
exclusion from the final critical habitat
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based on
partnerships and habitat management
plans and practices. We will evaluate
any submitted plans in consideration of
Secretarial Order 3206, ‘‘American
Indian Tribal Rights, Federal Tribal
Trust Responsibilities, and the
Endangered Species Act’’ (June 5, 1997);
the President’s memorandum of April
29, 1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government
Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments’’ (59 FR 22951); Executive
Order 13175; and the relevant provision
of the Departmental Manual of the
Department of the Interior (512 DM 2)
in relation to the conservation benefits
to the arroyo toad, the features essential
to the conservation of the species, and
the appropriateness of excluding Tribal
lands under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Please see the ‘‘Tribal Lands—
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act’’ section for additional discussion.
To provide legal boundaries for the
critical habitat areas, critical habitat
boundaries for all drainages were
mapped as contiguous blocks of 98-ft by
98-ft (30-m by 30-m) cells that conform
to a Universal Transverse Mercator
(UTM) grid. Due to the conversion of
GIS data from two different geographic
projections (UTM zone 10 and zone 11)
and conversion of the data to acres and
hectares, some rounding adjustments
may be reflected in the total acreage of
the units designated as critical habitat
that are shown in the acreage tables and
unit descriptions.
After determining the criteria used to
identify critical habitat, we made every
effort to avoid developed areas such as
lands covered by buildings, pavement,
and other structures because such lands
lack PCEs for the arroyo toad. We also
avoided fragmented areas such as those
surrounded by development.
Agricultural lands may have been
included if they were within areas
identified as necessary for dispersal or
connectivity between known
occurrences. However, we avoided
known areas of intensive agriculture
that lacked the PCEs for the arroyo toad.
The scale of the maps we prepared
under the parameters for publication
within the Code of Federal Regulations
may not reflect the exclusion of such
developed lands. Any such lands
inadvertently left inside critical habitat
boundaries shown on the maps of this
proposed revised critical habitat are
excluded by text in this rule and are not
proposed for critical habitat designation.
Therefore, if the critical habitat is
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
52622
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
finalized as proposed, a Federal action
involving these lands would not trigger
section 7 consultation with respect to
critical habitat and the requirement of
no adverse modification, unless the
specific action may affect adjacent
critical habitat.
We propose to designate 22 critical
habitat units within the geographic area
occupied by the species at the time of
listing based on the criteria presented
above. A brief discussion of each area
proposed for designation as critical
habitat is provided in the unit
descriptions below. Additional detailed
documentation concerning the essential
nature of these areas is contained in our
supporting record for this rulemaking.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Summary of Changes From Previously
Designated Critical Habitat
In this proposal to revise critical
habitat for the arroyo toad, we
determined that it would be appropriate
to begin our analysis of critical habitat
using the previous proposed critical
habitat designation (69 FR 23254; April
28, 2004) as a base from which to make
changes. We are not using the previous
final critical habitat designation (70 FR
19562, April 13, 2005) after questions
were raised about the integrity of the
scientific information used and whether
the decision made was consistent with
appropriate legal standards. This new
analysis based on the best scientific
information currently available has
resulted in an overall decrease in the
amount and distribution of habitat
identified as meeting the definition of
critical habitat, as compared to the
previous 2004 proposed designation (69
FR 23254). In this revised rule, we are
proposing to designate 109,110 ac
(44,155 ha) of land in Los Angeles,
Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San
Diego, Santa Barbara, and Ventura
Counties, California, as critical habitat,
which is a decrease of approximately
29,603 ac (11,978 ha) as proposed in
2004 (69 FR 23254). However, it should
be noted that this does not reflect a
decrease in every proposed unit
compared to the previous proposal. In
fact, the area included in some proposed
revised critical habitat units is larger
than it was in the 2004 proposed critical
habitat designation (69 FR 23254)
because in some cases new information
has identified additional arroyo toad
areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat and these areas are now
included.
The main differences between the
2004 proposed critical habitat rule (69
FR 23254) and this 2009 proposed
revised critical habitat rule for the
arroyo toad include the following:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
(1) Our analysis of new and updated
information received since the 2004
proposed critical habitat designation (69
FR 23254) resulted in the identification
of areas meeting the definition of critical
habitat that differs from the areas
identified in 2004.
(2) We modified the mapping
methodology from our previous
proposed critical habitat designation (69
FR 23254). For the 2004 proposed
designation, unit boundaries were
snapped to points on a grid conforming
to the Universal Transverse Mercator
(UTM) projection. The reason for using
a grid, which consisted of 100-meter by
100-meter cells, was to decrease the
number of coordinate pairs and thereby
simplify the description of unit
boundaries. However, for this revised
proposed designation, we use a more
detailed description of unit boundaries.
Although the change in area resulting
from this modification is relatively
minor (about 5 percent), this change
affects all units.
(3) We did not exclude any areas in
this proposed rule pursuant to section
4(b)(2) of the Act. In accordance with 50
CFR 424.19, in making our final
determination regarding the revised
designation, we will consider the
impacts of designating lands (such as
tribal and HCP lands) as critical habitat
and may exclude such lands in the final
rule pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the
Act.
The following paragraphs provide
explanations of how the proposed
revised critical habitat units differ from
those in the 2004 proposed critical
habitat designation (69 FR 23254),
except for those units where the only
change was from the modification in
mapping methodology described above
(units 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 14, and 21). The unit
names used in the subsection headings
refer to the unit names as proposed in
2004.
Unit 1: San Antonio River
In the current proposal, we are now
exempting areas within the Department
of Defense’s Fort Hunter Liggett Military
Reservation from designation as revised
critical habitat under section 4(a)(3)(B)
of the Act. This unit is within the
geographical area occupied at the time
of listing (see ‘‘Geographical Range’’
section) and contains the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species which may
require special management
considerations or protection. In the
previous 2004 proposed designation (69
FR 23254), Fort Hunter Liggett had not
yet completed its Integrated Natural
Resources Management Plan (INRMP)
and, therefore, was not exempted under
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act. However,
Fort Hunter Liggett was excluded under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act for reasons of
national security and because existing
management plans provided a benefit to
the arroyo toad. Fort Hunter Liggett’s
first INRMP was approved in 2005, and
an updated version was approved in
2007, which includes management
actions that benefit the arroyo toad. Unit
1 as proposed in 2004 (69 FR 23254)
encompassed approximately 6,546 ac
(2,649 ha). For this proposed revised
critical habitat designation, the
modified mapping methodology we
used resulted in a 1.4 percent decrease
in acres in Unit 1, for a total of 6,453
ac (2,612 ha). With our current
exemption of all areas within Fort
Hunter Liggett (see ‘‘Application of
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act’’ section), the
entire unit has been exempted from
designation as revised critical habitat.
Unit 7: Upper Los Angeles River Basin
We have removed Subunit 7a
(approximately 2,262 ac (915 ha))
within Unit 7 from our proposed
revision of critical habitat. Subunit 7a is
within the geographical area occupied at
the time of listing; however, this subunit
was erroneously included in the
previous proposed rule (69 FR 23254).
Although we were not aware of this
issue when we published the previous
proposed rule, high-flow water releases
from the Big Tujunga Dam upstream of
this subunit have likely altered the
hydrology such that arroyo toad
breeding habitat is not maintained (that
is, lack of PCEs 1 and 3) (Hitchcock et
al. 2004, p. 8; Backlin 2009, pers.
comm.). The loss of the PCEs from this
area has resulted in the extirpation of
arroyo toads (Backlin et al. 2002, pp. 6,
12; Hitchcock et al. 2004, pp. 8–9, 29).
Furthermore, the presence of the Big
Tujunga Dam blocks dispersal from
occupied areas upstream. Therefore, we
have determined that the area does not
contain the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
the arroyo toad and therefore does not
meet the definition of critical habitat for
the arroyo toad.
Unit 8: Lower Santa Ana River Basin
Areas meeting the definition of
critical habitat that were excluded in the
2004 proposed critical habitat
designation (69 FR 23254) within the
Orange County Central–Coastal NCCP/
HCP are now being proposed in this
rule, and we are considering them for
exclusion in the final rule (see ‘‘Habitat
Conservation Plans—Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’ section).
These areas include: (1) Black Star
Creek from the NCCP/HCP boundary
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
downstream to the confluence with
Santiago Creek, (2) Baker Canyon from
the NCCP/HCP boundary downstream to
the confluence with Santiago Creek, and
(3) Santiago Creek from the confluence
with Silverado Creek downstream to
Irvine Lake. Information received since
our previous 2004 proposed critical
habitat designation (69 FR 23254)
indicates that areas within Santiago
Creek upstream of the confluence with
Silverado Creek contain occupied
suitable habitat on which are found the
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species. Therefore, we also added areas
to Unit 8 encompassing approximately
6.6 mi (11 km) of Santiago Creek from
just below the town of Modjeska
downstream to Irvine Lake.
Additionally, new information indicates
that Silverado Creek contains occupied
suitable habitat on which are found the
features essential to the conservation of
the species (Haase 2005, p. 2; Haase
2008, pp. 2–3; Thomas 2009, pers.
comm.). Therefore, we added areas to
Unit 8 encompassing approximately 7.3
mi (12 km) of Silverado Creek from the
eastern edge of section 11 (T05S, R07W)
in the Cleveland National Forest
downstream to the confluence with
Santiago Creek. With the exception of
areas that were excluded within the
Orange County Central–Coastal NCCP/
HCP, this unit encompassed
approximately 172 ac (69 ha) in the
2004 proposed critical habitat
designation (69 FR 23254). With the
proposed addition of areas within the
Orange County Central–Coastal NCCP/
HCP and other areas described above, it
now encompasses approximately 2,182
ac (883 ha).
Unit 9: San Jacinto River Basin
Areas meeting the definition of
critical habitat that were excluded in the
2004 proposed critical habitat
designation (69 FR 23254) within the
Western Riverside County MSHCP are
now being proposed in this rule, and we
are considering them for exclusion in
the final rule (see ‘‘Habitat Conservation
Plans—Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)
of the Act’’ section). These areas
include: (1) The San Jacinto River from
the Sand Canyon confluence
downstream to the Soboba Indian
Reservation border, and (2) Bautista
Creek from areas outside of the San
Bernardino National Forest downstream
to near the middle of Section 27 (T5S,
R1E) where the stream enters a debris
basin. Unit 9 encompassed
approximately 683 ac (277 ha) along
Bautista Creek in the 2004 proposed
critical habitat designation (69 FR
23254); with the addition of the areas
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
described above, areas along the San
Jacinto River and Bautista Creek are
now proposed as separate subunits.
Subunit 9a along the San Jacinto River
encompasses approximately 1,226 ac
(496 ha)) and Subunit 9b along Bautista
Creek encompasses approximately 1,180
ac (478 ha).
Unit 10: San Juan Creek Basin
Information received since our
previous 2004 proposed critical habitat
designation (69 FR 23254) indicates that
areas upstream of Subunit 10a in Bell
Canyon, up to the southern half of
section 8 (T06S, R06W) in the Cleveland
National Forest, contain occupied
suitable habitat on which are found the
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species (Haase 2009a, in litt.). In the
previous 2004 proposed critical habitat
designation (69 FR 23254), Subunit 10a
encompassed approximately 5,143 ac
(2,076 ha) of Bell Canyon from just
below Crow Canyon downstream to the
confluence with San Juan Creek, in
addition to areas along San Juan Creek.
We added these upstream areas to
Subunit 10a, which now totals 4,728 ac
(1,913 ha). Although we added
upstream areas to Subunit 10a, the total
area of this subunit decreases from the
2004 proposed critical habitat
designation (69 FR 23254) because of
our change in mapping methodology.
Unit 11: San Mateo Creek and San
Onofre Creek Basins
In the 2004 proposed critical habitat
designation (69 FR 23254), areas in
Subunits 11a and 11c within Marine
Corps Base (MCB) Camp Pendleton were
exempted from critical habitat under
section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act, except
areas leased to outside parties for other
land uses (such as San Onofre State Park
and private agricultural lands). We are
now exempting all lands within MCB
Camp Pendleton from designation as
revised critical habitat, including the
leased lands (which are subject to the
approved Integrated Natural Resources
Management Plan (INRMP) for MCB
Camp Pendleton), due to the benefits
afforded to the arroyo toad by the
management described in the approved
INRMP for MCB Camp Pendleton (see
‘‘Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the
Act’’ section). Subunit 11a encompassed
approximately 4,112 ac (1,664 ha) in the
2004 proposed critical habitat
designation (69 FR 23254); with the
exemption of all areas within MCB
Camp Pendleton, it now encompasses
approximately 1,034 ac (418 ha).
Subunit 11c encompassed
approximately 399 ac (161 ha) as
proposed in 2004; with the exemption
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52623
of all areas within MCB Camp
Pendleton (including the lands leased to
other parties), the entire subunit is
removed.
Unit 12: Lower Santa Margarita River
Basin
In the 2004 proposed critical habitat
designation (69 FR 23254), we exempted
a portion of Unit 12 within MCB Camp
Pendleton under section 4(a)(3)(B) of the
Act. In this proposed rule, we are
exempting all lands within both MCB
Camp Pendleton and the Fallbrook
Naval Weapons Station from
designation as revised critical habitat
(see ‘‘Application of Section 4(a)(3) of
the Act’’ section). Unit 12 encompassed
approximately 1,840 ac (744 ha) in the
2004 proposed critical habitat
designation (69 FR 23254); with the
exemption of all areas within MCB
Camp Pendleton and the Fallbrook
Naval Weapons Station, it now
encompasses approximately 1,009 ac
(408 ha).
Unit 13: Upper Santa Margarita River
Basin
Areas meeting the definition of
critical habitat that were excluded in the
2004 proposed critical habitat
designation within the Western
Riverside County MSHCP are now being
proposed in this rule, and we are
considering them for exclusion in the
final rule (see ‘‘Habitat Conservation
Plans—Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)
of the Act’’ section). These areas
include: (1) Areas around Subunit 13a
along Arroyo Seco Creek, (2) areas
downstream of Subunit 13b along
Temecula Creek to Vail Lake, and (3)
Wilson Creek from Lancaster Valley
downstream to Vail Lake. Subunit 13a
encompassed approximately 704 ac (285
ha) in the 2004 proposed critical habitat
designation (69 FR 23254); with the
addition of surrounding areas in Arroyo
Seco Creek, it now encompasses
approximately 1,155 ac (467 ha).
Subunit 13b encompassed
approximately 2,924 ac (1,183 ha) as
proposed in 2004; with the addition of
downstream areas of Temecula Creek, it
now encompasses approximately 4,756
ac (1,925 ha). Information received since
our previous critical habitat designation
indicates that areas upstream of
Lancaster Valley along Wilson Creek
(included in this proposed rule as
Subunit 13c) to the confluence with
Cahuilla Creek contain occupied
suitable habitat on which are found the
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species (Haase 2009a, in litt.). This new
subunit encompasses approximately
2,226 ac (901 ha).
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
52624
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Unit 15: Upper San Luis Rey River Basin
Information received since our
previous 2004 proposed critical habitat
designation (69 FR 23254) indicates that
the area downstream of Barker Valley
(formerly Subunit 15b) along the West
Fork of the San Luis Rey River, which
is within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time of listing,
contains suitable habitat on which are
found the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species, and provides for dispersal
between populations in this area and
populations in Lake Henshaw (formerly
Subunit 15a) (Haase 2009, pers. comm.).
In the 2004 proposed critical habitat
designation (69 FR 23254), Subunits 15a
and 15b together encompassed
approximately 11,725 ac (4,745 ha). We
are including the area between Barker
Valley and Lake Henshaw in this
proposed revised designation and have
merged the two subunits into a single
unit (Unit 15), which now totals 12,026
ac (4,867 ha).
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Unit 16: Santa Ysabel Creek Basin
Areas meeting the definition of
critical habitat that were excluded in the
2004 proposed critical habitat
designation (69 FR 23254) within the
San Diego MSCP–City and County of
San Diego Subarea Plans are now being
proposed in this rule, and we are
considering them for exclusion in the
final rule (see ‘‘Habitat Conservation
Plans—Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)
of the Act’’ section). In the previous
2004 proposed critical habitat
designation (69 FR 23254), Subunits
16a, 16b, and 16c were three separate
areas due to our exclusion in the 2004
proposed rule of downstream habitat
along Santa Ysabel Creek. Subunit 16a
encompassed approximately 2,758 ac
(1,116 ha) along Santa Ysabel Creek
from just below Sutherland Reservoir,
Temescal Creek, and Boden Canyon;
Subunit 16b encompassed
approximately 2,727 ac (1,104 ha) along
Guejito Creek; and Subunit 16c
encompassed approximately 3,749 ac
(1,517 ha) along Santa Maria Creek. We
merged these three subunits into a
single subunit (16a) in this proposed
revised critical habitat rule; thus,
Subunit 16a now totals 12,136 ac (4,911
ha).
In this proposed revised critical
habitat designation, we removed areas
within Subunit 16a that encompass
Santa Ysabel Creek from just below
Sutherland Reservoir downstream to the
confluence with Temescal Creek. When
we published our previous 2004
proposed critical habitat designation (69
FR 23254), we believed this area, which
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
is within the geographical area occupied
at the time of listing, met the definition
of critical habitat. However, information
we received since then indicates that
breeding habitat is not available due to
the absence of a natural flooding regime
downstream of Sutherland Dam and the
steepness of the stream corridor (lack of
PCEs 1, 2, and 3). Furthermore, this area
does not provide connectivity to
upstream areas occupied by the species
due to the presence of the dam. Survey
information indicates arroyo toads have
been extirpated from this area as a result
of the loss of PCEs (Service 2006, p. 2).
Therefore, we determined that this area,
which is within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of
listing, does not contain features
essential to the conservation of the
species and therefore does not meet the
definition of critical habitat for the
arroyo toad.
Unit 17: San Diego River Basin/San
Vicente Creek
Information received since our
previous 2004 proposed critical habitat
designation (69 FR 23254) indicates that
areas upstream of Subunit 17a along the
San Diego River to Temescal Creek,
which are within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of
listing, contain occupied suitable
habitat on which are found the physical
and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species (HELIX
2008, pp. 2, 7; Brown and Rochester
2009, pers. comm.). Subunit 17a as
proposed in 2004 encompassed
approximately 1,003 ac (406 ha) along
the San Diego River from Ritchie Creek
downstream to the upper edge of El
Capitan Reservoir. In this proposed rule,
we added these upstream areas to
Subunit 17a, which now totals 1,241 ac
(502 ha).
Areas meeting the definition of
critical habitat that were excluded in the
2004 proposed critical habitat
designation within the San Diego
MSCP–City and County of San Diego
Subarea Plans are now being proposed
in this rule, and we are considering
them for exclusion in the final rule (see
‘‘Habitat Conservation Plans—
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act’’ section). In the previous 2004
proposed critical habitat designation (69
FR 23254), Subunits 17b and 17c were
two separate areas due to our exclusion
in the 2004 proposed rule of
downstream habitat along the San Diego
River. Subunit 17b encompassed
approximately 174 ac (70 ha) and
Subunit 17c approximately 707 ac (286
ha) along the San Diego River as
proposed in 2004. We merged the two
subunits into a single subunit (17b) in
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
this proposed revised critical habitat
rule; thus Subunit 17b now totals 1,865
ac (755 ha).
Unit 18: Sweetwater River Basin
Areas meeting the definition of
critical habitat that were excluded in the
2004 proposed critical habitat
designation (69 FR 23254) within the
San Diego MSCP–City and County of
San Diego Subarea Plans are now being
proposed in this rule, and we are
considering them for exclusion in the
final rule (see ‘‘Habitat Conservation
Plans—Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)
of the Act’’ section). In the previous
2004 proposed critical habitat
designation (69 FR 23254), Subunits
18a, 18b, and 18d were three separate
areas due to our exclusion in the 2004
proposed rule of downstream habitat
along the Sweetwater River. As
proposed in 2004, Subunit 18a
encompassed approximately 4,196 ac
(1,698 ha) along the Sweetwater River
from the top of Upper Green Valley in
Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, Subunit
18b encompassed approximately 583 ac
(236 ha) along Peterson Canyon, and
Subunit 18d encompassed
approximately 474 ac (192 ha) along
Viejas Creek. In this proposed rule, we
merged these three subunits into a
single subunit (18a), which now totals
4,156 ac (1,682 ha). Although we added
areas that were excluded from the 2004
proposed critical habitat designation (69
FR 23254), the total area of the new
Subunit 18a is smaller than the areas
proposed in Subunits 18a, 18b, and 18d
in the 2004 proposed rule because of
our change in mapping methodology.
In this proposed revised critical
habitat designation, we removed areas
within Subunit 18c that encompass the
Sweetwater River from just above
Sycuan Resort downstream to the upper
edge of Sweetwater Reservoir. These
areas were erroneously included in the
previous 2004 proposed rule. We now
know that sand mining operations and
channelization of the river through two
golf courses have likely altered the
hydrology in this area such that
breeding habitat is not maintained (that
is, lack of PCEs 1 and 3) (Brown and
Rochester 2009, pers. comm.).
Furthermore, information received since
our previous 2004 proposed critical
habitat designation (69 FR 23254)
indicates that this area is no longer
occupied by arroyo toads (MaddenSmith et al. 2005, p. 22; Brown and
Rochester 2009, pers. comm.; Martin
2009, pers. comm.) because of the loss
of PCEs. Therefore, we have determined
that this area does not contain features
essential to the conservation of the
species and therefore does not meet the
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
definition of critical habitat for the
arroyo toad. As proposed in 2004,
Subunit 18c encompassed
approximately 3,982 ac (1,611 ha) along
the Sweetwater River from immediately
below Loveland Dam downstream to the
upper edge of Sweetwater Reservoir;
with the proposed removal of the areas
described above, Subunit 18c now totals
627 ac (254 ha).
occupied by the species at the time of
listing, has occupied suitable habitat on
which are found the physical and
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species (LEI 2008,
pp. 5, 8). Therefore, we added areas
encompassing approximately 4.4 mi (7
km) of Campo Creek from Campo Lake
downstream to the U.S.-Mexico border
as part of Subunit 19e.
Unit 19: Cottonwood Creek Basin
In this proposed revised critical
habitat designation, we removed areas
within Subunit 19b that encompass 9.9
mi (16 km) of Cottonwood Creek from
approximately 2.5 mi (4 km) below
Morena Reservoir downstream to Barrett
Reservoir. These areas were erroneously
included in the previous 2004 proposed
rule. Information received since our
previous 2004 proposed critical habitat
designation (69 FR 23254) indicates that
the hydrology in this area was altered
since the construction of the Morena
Dam in the early 1900s such that
breeding habitat is not maintained (lack
of PCEs 1 and 3), and therefore this area
is no longer occupied by arroyo toads
(Jennings 2009, pers. comm.). Moreover,
the presence of Morena and Barrett
reservoirs block arroyo toad dispersal
from occupied areas upstream and
downstream along Cottonwood Creek
(lack of PCE 5). Therefore, we
determined that this area, which is
within the geographical area occupied
by the toad at the time of listing, does
not contain features essential to the
conservation of the species and
therefore does not meet the definition of
critical habitat for the arroyo toad.
Areas meeting the definition of
critical habitat downstream of Subunit
19b to the U.S.-Mexico border that were
excluded in the 2004 proposed rule
within the San Diego MSCP–City and
County of San Diego Subarea Plans are
now being proposed in this rule, and we
are considering them for exclusion in
the final rule (see ‘‘Habitat Conservation
Plans—Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)
of the Act’’ section). Subunit 19b, which
encompassed approximately 5,564 ac
(2,252 ha) in the 2004 proposed critical
habitat designation (69 FR 23254), now
encompasses approximately 5,129 ac
(2,076 ha). Additionally, data received
since our previous 2004 proposed
critical habitat designation (69 FR
23254) indicate that Campo Creek,
which is within the geographical area
Unit 20: Upper Santa Ana River Basin/
Cajon Wash
Information received since our
previous 2004 proposed critical habitat
designation (69 FR 23254) indicates that
areas upstream of Unit 20 to just below
Cajon Junction are within the
geographical area occupied by the
arroyo toad at the time of listing and
contain the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species (Rathbun 2007, in litt.;
Meyer 2009, in litt.). In the previous
2004 proposed critical habitat
designation (69 FR 23254), Unit 20
encompassed approximately 1,262 ac
(511 ha) of Cajon Wash from just south
of Cajon campground. We added these
upstream areas to Unit 20, which now
totals 1,775 ac (718 ha).
Unit 22: Upper Mojave River Basin
We have removed Subunit 22b
(approximately 8,631 ac (3,493 ha))
within Unit 22 from our proposed
revision of critical habitat. Subunit 22b
is within the geographical area occupied
at the time of listing. However, new
information received since our previous
2004 proposed critical habitat
designation (69 FR 23254) indicates that
this area was erroneously proposed as
critical habitat in 2004. Habitat in this
area for the arroyo toad has been altered
by steadily declining groundwater levels
along the Upper Narrows to Lower
Narrows reach of the Mojave River
(Webb et al. 2001, p. 1) to such an extent
that it does not contain features
essential to the conservation of the
species and therefore does not meet the
definition of critical habitat for the
arroyo toad.
Unit 23: Whitewater River Basin
In this proposed revised critical
habitat designation, we removed areas
within Unit 23 that encompass
Whitewater River from the Colorado
River Aqueduct downstream to
Interstate Highway 10. When we
52625
published our previous 2004 proposed
critical habitat designation (69 FR
23254), we believed this area, which is
within the geographical area occupied at
the time of listing, met the definition of
critical habitat. However, information
received since our previous 2004
proposed critical habitat designation (69
FR 23254) indicates that high-flow
water releases and channelization of the
river downstream of the aqueduct has
likely altered the habitat such that it no
longer supports the physical and
biological features essential to the
conservation of the arroyo toad (Roberts
2009, pers. comm.). We have
determined that this area does not meet
the definition of critical habitat for the
arroyo toad and should not have been
proposed in 2004. As proposed in 2004,
Unit 23 encompassed approximately
1,997 ac (808 ha) along the Whitewater
River from near Red Dome downstream
to Interstate 10; with the removal of the
areas described above, Unit 23 now
totals 1,355 ac (548 ha).
Proposed Revisions to Critical Habitat
Designation
We are proposing to designate 22
units (Units 2 through 23) as critical
habitat for the arroyo toad. The total
area identified as Unit 1 is exempted
from critical habitat designation under
section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act, and
therefore is not proposed. All proposed
units are within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of
listing and contain the physical and
biological features essential to the
conservation of the arroyo toad which
may require special management
considerations or protection. Although
not a prerequisite for designation as
critical habitat, all units are currently
occupied. The proposed revised critical
habitat areas described below constitute
our best assessment at this time of areas
that meet the definition of critical
habitat for the arroyo toad. Approximate
area encompassing the proposed revised
critical habitat by county and land
ownership is shown in Table 1, and the
overall area of proposed revised critical
habitat units for the arroyo toad are
shown by unit in Table 2. The
designation of these units, if finalized,
would replace the existing critical
habitat designation for the arroyo toad
in 50 CFR 17.95(d).
TABLE 1—APPROXIMATE PROPOSED REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE ARROYO TOAD, IN ACRES (AC) (HECTARES
(HA)) BY COUNTY (ORDERED FROM NORTH TO SOUTH) AND LAND OWNERSHIP
County
Federal
Santa Barbara ............................................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
State/local
3,914
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Tribal
0
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
Private
0
13OCP3
2,892
Total
6,806
52626
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—APPROXIMATE PROPOSED REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE ARROYO TOAD, IN ACRES (AC) (HECTARES
(HA)) BY COUNTY (ORDERED FROM NORTH TO SOUTH) AND LAND OWNERSHIP—Continued
County
Federal
San Bernardino ..........................................................
Riverside ....................................................................
Orange .......................................................................
San Diego ..................................................................
Total ....................................................................
..........................
0
..........................
0
..........................
132
(53)
210
(85)
1,909
(773)
3,481
(1,409)
..........................
0
..........................
0
..........................
0
..........................
0
..........................
0
..........................
4,046
(1,636)
(1,171)
639
(259)
3,453
(1,398)
3,599
(1,456)
7,504
(3,037)
6,362
(2,575)
51,165
(20,707)
(2,755)
5,031
(2,036)
5,835
(2,362)
7,695
(3,113)
9,503
(3,846)
8,705
(3,524)
65,535
(26,521)
23,718
(9,598)
Los Angeles ...............................................................
Tribal
(1,584)
4,392
(1,778)
2,382
(964)
3,964
(1,604)
1,789
(724)
434
(176)
6,843
(2,769)
Ventura .......................................................................
State/local
Private
Total
5,732
(2,320)
4,046
(1,636)
76,951
(31,141)
109,110
(44,155)
Values in table may not sum due to rounding.
TABLE 2—APPROXIMATE PROPOSED REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE ARROYO TOAD
Unit
Critical habitat units and subunits
County
Acres
Hectares
Northern Recovery Unit
1 .................................
2 .................................
3 .................................
4 .................................
5 .................................
5a ...............................
5b ...............................
6 .................................
6a ...............................
6b ...............................
6c ...............................
7 .................................
San Antonio River—exempt .....................
Sisquoc River ...........................................
Upper Santa Ynez River ..........................
Sespe Creek .............................................
Piru Creek ................................................
...................................................................
...................................................................
Upper Santa Clara River ..........................
...................................................................
...................................................................
...................................................................
Upper Los Angeles River Basin ...............
Monterey ...................................................
Santa Barbara ..........................................
Santa Barbara ..........................................
Ventura .....................................................
Ventura .....................................................
...................................................................
...................................................................
Los Angeles ..............................................
...................................................................
...................................................................
...................................................................
Los Angeles ..............................................
0
3,775
3,032
2,760
2,507
1,358
1,149
3,795
520
1,995
1,279
1,190
0
1,528
1,227
1,117
1,015
550
465
1,537
210
807
518
482
Subtotal ...............
...................................................................
...................................................................
17,059
6,904
2,182
2,406
1,226
1,180
5,667
4,728
939
1,068
1,034
34
1,009
394
615
8,137
1,155
4,756
2,226
12,906
12,026
13,567
12,136
1,431
4,263
1,241
1,865
1,158
4,783
4,156
627
883
974
496
478
2,293
1,913
380
432
418
14
408
159
248
3,293
467
1,925
901
5,223
4,867
5,490
4,911
579
1,725
502
755
469
1,936
1,682
254
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Southern Recovery Unit
8 .................................
9 .................................
9a ...............................
9b ...............................
10 ...............................
10a .............................
10b .............................
11 ...............................
11a .............................
11b .............................
12 ...............................
12a .............................
12b .............................
13 ...............................
13a .............................
13b .............................
13c .............................
14 ...............................
15 ...............................
16 ...............................
16a .............................
16d .............................
17 ...............................
17a .............................
17b .............................
17d .............................
18 ...............................
18a .............................
18c .............................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Lower Santa Ana River Basin ..................
San Jacinto River Basin ...........................
...................................................................
...................................................................
San Juan Creek Basin .............................
...................................................................
...................................................................
San Mateo Basin ......................................
...................................................................
...................................................................
Lower Santa Margarita, Basin ..................
...................................................................
...................................................................
Upper Santa Margarita Basin ...................
...................................................................
...................................................................
...................................................................
Lower and Middle San Luis Rey Basin ....
Upper San Luis Rey Basin .......................
Santa Ysabel Creek .................................
...................................................................
...................................................................
San Diego River Basin .............................
...................................................................
...................................................................
...................................................................
Sweetwater River Basin ...........................
...................................................................
...................................................................
19:10 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Orange ......................................................
Riverside ...................................................
...................................................................
...................................................................
Orange, Riverside ....................................
...................................................................
...................................................................
Orange, San Diego ..................................
...................................................................
...................................................................
San Diego .................................................
...................................................................
...................................................................
Riverside, San Diego ...............................
...................................................................
...................................................................
...................................................................
San Diego .................................................
San Diego .................................................
San Diego .................................................
...................................................................
...................................................................
San Diego .................................................
...................................................................
...................................................................
...................................................................
San Diego .................................................
...................................................................
...................................................................
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
52627
TABLE 2—APPROXIMATE PROPOSED REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE ARROYO TOAD—Continued
Unit
Critical habitat units and subunits
County
Acres
Hectares
19 ...............................
19a .............................
19b .............................
19c .............................
19d .............................
19e .............................
Cottonwood Creek Basin .........................
...................................................................
...................................................................
...................................................................
...................................................................
...................................................................
San Diego .................................................
...................................................................
...................................................................
...................................................................
...................................................................
...................................................................
14,375
5,847
5,129
1,511
938
950
5,817
2,366
2,076
611
380
384
Subtotal ...............
...................................................................
...................................................................
82,389
33,342
Desert Recovery Unit
20 ...............................
San Bernardino ........................................
1,775
718
21 ...............................
22 ...............................
22a .............................
22c .............................
23 ...............................
Upper Santa Ana River Basin/Cajon
Wash.
Little Rock Creek Basin ............................
Upper Mojave River Basin .......................
...................................................................
...................................................................
Whitewater River Basin ............................
Los Angeles ..............................................
San Bernardino ........................................
...................................................................
...................................................................
Riverside ...................................................
612
5,919
5,684
235
1,355
248
2,395
2,300
95
548
Subtotal ...............
...................................................................
9,661 .........................................................
........................
3,909
Total .............
...................................................................
109,110 .....................................................
........................
44,155
Values in table may not sum due to rounding.
Presented below are brief descriptions
of all units. The units are grouped by
recovery unit as described in the
recovery plan (Service 1999) and listed
in order geographically north to south
and west to east within each recovery
unit. A brief description of each unit
and the reasons it meets the definition
of critical habitat are presented below.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Northern Recovery Unit
As described in the recovery plan
(Service 1999, pp. 1–119), maintaining
arroyo toad populations in the areas
described by the following 7 unit
descriptions is necessary to conserve the
species in the northern recovery unit.
Because the toad populations in this
recovery unit have been reduced in size
and their habitat fragmented by road
construction, dams, agriculture, and
urbanization, it is important to protect
all of them and safeguard against the
loss of any one population due to
random natural or human-caused
events. The U.S. Forest Service is the
primary landowner of proposed revised
critical habitat within the northern
recovery unit.
Unit 1: San Antonio River
Although the lands in this unit are
exempt from critical habitat designation
under section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act, we
provide the following information to
explain why these lands meet the
definition of critical habitat. This unit is
located in Monterey County and
encompasses: (1) San Antonio River and
adjacent uplands from about 2 mi (3 km)
upstream of the confluence with
Mission Creek downstream to San
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:10 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
Antonio Reservoir, a distance of about
17 mi (27 km); and (2) small portions of
Mission Creek and other tributaries. The
unit consists of 6,453 ac (2,612 ha) of
Federal (Department of Defense) land
and is entirely contained within Fort
Hunter Liggett Military Reservation
boundaries. Arroyo toads can be found
along the entire length of this segment
of the San Antonio River, which is still
in a relatively natural state, consists of
high-quality arroyo toad habitat, and
supports probably one of the largest
populations within the northern
recovery unit (U.S. Army Reserve
Command 2004, p. 38). The
northernmost known population of
arroyo toads is located here and is
approximately 100 mi (160 km) north of
the nearest documented extant
population. Arroyo toads in this unit
may experience climatic conditions not
faced by toads farther south. Unit 1
contains the physical and biological
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species, including
breeding pools in low-gradient stream
segments with sandy or fine gravel
substrates (PCEs 1 and 2), seasonal flood
flows (PCE 3), and relatively
undisturbed riparian and upland habitat
for foraging and dispersal (PCE 4). The
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this unit may require special
management considerations or
protection to address threats from
nonnative vertebrate predators such as
bullfrogs and beavers (Castor
canadensis). These lands on Fort Hunter
Liggett are exempt from critical habitat
designation under section 4(a)(3)(B) of
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the Act because they are subject to the
2007 Integrated Natural Resources
Management Plan (INRMP) for Fort
Hunter Liggett, and the INRMP provides
a benefit to the arroyo toad (see the
‘‘Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the
Act’’ section of this proposed rule for a
detailed discussion).
Unit 2: Sisquoc River (3,775 ac (1,528
ha))
This unit is located in Santa Barbara
County and encompasses approximately
33 mi (54 km) of the Sisquoc River and
adjacent uplands from Sycamore
Campground downstream to just below
the confluence with La Brea Creek.
Upper stretches of the river are within
the Los Padres National Forest and
mostly within the San Rafael
Wilderness Area. Below the National
Forest boundary, the river and adjacent
uplands are on rural private lands. The
unit consists of 1,700 ac (688 ha) of
Federal land and 2,073 ac (839 ha) of
private land. This long, undammed river
is one of the few remaining major rivers
in southern California with a natural
flow regime, and supports a core
population of arroyo toad that is
important for maintaining the genetic
diversity of the species. Unit 2 contains
the physical and biological features that
are essential to the conservation of the
species, including breeding pools in
low-gradient stream segments with
sandy or fine gravel substrates (PCEs 1
and 2), seasonal flood flows (PCE 3),
and relatively undisturbed riparian and
upland habitat for foraging and
dispersal (PCE 4). The physical and
biological features essential to the
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
52628
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
conservation of the species in this unit
may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats from the removal and alteration
of habitat due to sand and gravel
mining, livestock overgrazing of riparian
habitats, and limited recreational
activities. Please see the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section of this proposed rule
for a discussion of the threats to arroyo
toad habitat and potential management
considerations.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Unit 3: Upper Santa Ynez River Basin
(3,032 ac (1,227 ha))
This unit is located in Santa Barbara
County upstream of Gibraltar Reservoir
and encompasses approximately 27 mi
(43 km) of the upper Santa Ynez River,
Indian Creek, Mono Creek, and adjacent
uplands. The unit consists of 2,214 ac
(896 ha) of Federal land and 818 ac (331
ha) of private land within the Los
Padres National Forest, and supports a
large and well-studied arroyo toad
population (Sweet 1992, pp. 1–198;
1993, pp. 1–73) that likely experiences
precipitation and soil moisture
conditions not faced by toads at drier
sites. Potential adaptations to these
conditions make this unit important for
maintaining the genetic diversity of the
species. Unit 3 contains the physical
and biological features that are essential
to the conservation of the species,
including breeding pools in lowgradient stream segments with sandy or
fine gravel substrates (PCEs 1 and 2),
seasonal flood flows (PCE 3), and
relatively undisturbed riparian and
upland habitat for foraging and
dispersal (PCE 4). The physical and
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species in this unit
may require special management
considerations or protection to address
threats, primarily along the lower Santa
Ynez River and lower Mono Creek, from
nonnative species, recreation, and
problems associated with an upstream
dam (such as sediment trapping, altered
hydrological regime, and temperature
changes). Please see the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section of this proposed rule
for a discussion of the threats to arroyo
toad habitat and potential management
considerations.
Unit 4: Sespe Creek (2,760 ac (1,117 ha))
This unit is located in Ventura County
and encompasses approximately 27 mi
(43 km) of Sespe Creek and adjacent
uplands, from the lower end of Sespe
Gorge (elevation approximately 3,530 ft
(1,076 m)) downstream to the
confluence with Alder Creek. The unit
consists of 2,498 ac (1,011 ha) of Federal
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
land and 262 ac (106 ha) of private land.
This unit supports one of the largest
arroyo toad populations on the Los
Padres National Forest along Sespe
Creek, which is undammed and retains
its natural flooding regime. Up to
several hundred adult arroyo toads
inhabit this reach of the Sespe River
(Sweet 1992, p. 192), and during years
of successful reproduction, such as
2003, thousands of juveniles can be
found as well (Murphy 2008, pers.
comm.). Arroyo toads have been found
up to 3,300 ft (1,000 m) in elevation in
this area, which is one of the highest
known occurrences in the northern
recovery unit. The arroyo toads in this
unit likely experience temperature
extremes or other environmental
conditions not faced by toads at lower
elevations so that potential adaptations
to these conditions make this unit
important for maintaining the genetic
diversity of the species. Unit 4 contains
the physical and biological features that
are essential to the conservation of the
species, including numerous suitable
breeding pools (shallow, sand- or gravelbased pools with a minimum of
vegetation along one or both margins
during the breeding season from late
March to June (Sweet 1992, p. 28)) and
an abundance of sandy substrates (PCEs
1 and 2), unimpeded seasonal flood
flows (PCE 3), and relatively
undisturbed riparian habitat and upland
benches for foraging and dispersal (PCE
4). The physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this unit may require special
management considerations or
protection to address threats from
recreational activities and nonnative
predators. Please see the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section of this proposed rule
for a discussion of the threats to arroyo
toad habitat and potential management
considerations.
Unit 5: Piru Creek (2,507 ac (1,015 ha))
This unit is located in Ventura and
Los Angeles Counties and consists of
two subunits totaling 2,105 ac (852 ha)
of Federal land and 402 ac (163 ha) of
private inholdings.
Subunit 5a
Subunit 5a encompasses
approximately 17 mi (27 km) of Piru
Creek and adjacent uplands from the
confluence with Lockwood Creek
downstream to Pyramid Reservoir. The
subunit consists of 1,277 ac (517 ha) of
Federal land and 81 ac (33 ha) of private
land. The upper portion of Subunit 5a
is free of nonnative vertebrate predators,
and the substantial arroyo toad
population supported by this subunit
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
has been increasing and expanding in
this area over the past several years
(Uyehara 2003, pers. comm.). Subunit
5a contains the physical and biological
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species, including
breeding pools in low-gradient stream
segments with sandy substrates (PCEs 1
and 2), seasonal flood flows (PCE 3),
and riparian habitat and upland benches
for foraging and dispersal (PCE 4). The
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from horse
and cattle grazing and recreational
activities. Please see the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section of this proposed rule
for a discussion of the threats to arroyo
toad habitat and potential management
considerations.
Subunit 5b
Subunit 5b is primarily within the
Sespe Wilderness and encompasses
approximately 15 mi (24 km) of Piru
Creek from the confluence with Fish
Creek downstream to Lake Piru, as well
as Agua Blanca Creek from Devil’s
Gateway downstream to the confluence
with Piru Creek. The subunit supports
a substantial arroyo toad population and
consists of 828 ac (335 ha) of Federal
land and 321 ac (130 ha) of private land.
Subunit 5b contains the physical and
biological features that are essential to
the conservation of the species,
including breeding pools in lowgradient stream segments with sandy
substrates (PCEs 1 and 2), seasonal flood
flows (modified to some extent below
Pyramid Dam) (PCE 3), and riparian
habitat and upland benches for foraging
and dispersal (PCE 4). Because lower
Piru Creek in Subunit 5b is downstream
of a large dam, the habitat there has
experienced some degradation over the
years from perennial water releases,
rapid changes in flow volume, excessive
flows during the breeding season, and
an increased presence of nonnative
predators. However, Pyramid Dam has
permanently changed the water release
schedule to one that will more closely
mimic natural flows and will benefit the
arroyo toad (State Water Board 2008, p.
3). The physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from
nonnative predators and recreational
activities. Please see the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section of this proposed rule
for a discussion of the threats to arroyo
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
toad habitat and potential management
considerations.
Unit 6: Upper Santa Clara River Basin
(3,795 ac (1,537 ha))
This unit is located in northwestern
Los Angeles County and consists of
three subunits totaling 443 ac (179 ha)
of Federal land and 3,351 ac (1,356 ha)
of private land.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Subunit 6a
Subunit 6a encompasses
approximately 7 mi (12 km) of Castaic
Creek from Bear Canyon downstream to
Castaic Lake, and 0.7 mi (1.2 km) of Fish
Creek from Cienaga Spring to the
confluence with Castaic Creek. Subunit
6a encompasses approximately 11 mi
(18 km) of upper Santa Clara River from
Arrastre Canyon downstream to the
confluence with Bee Canyon Creek. The
subunit consists of 284 ac (115 ha) of
Federal land and 236 ac (96 ha) of
private land. Subunit 6a contains the
physical and biological features that are
essential to the conservation of the
species, including breeding pools in
low-gradient stream segments with
sandy substrates (PCEs 1 and 2),
seasonal flood flows (PCE 3), and
riparian habitat and upland benches for
foraging and dispersal (PCE 4). The
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from urban
development, agriculture, recreation,
mining, and nonnative predators. Please
see the ‘‘Special Management
Considerations or Protection’’ section of
this proposed rule for a discussion of
the threats to arroyo toad habitat and
potential management considerations.
Subunit 6b
Subunit 6b encompasses: (1)
Approximately 2.6 mi (4.2 km) of
Castaic Creek from the downstream edge
of The Old Road right-of-way (adjacent
to Interstate 5) down to the confluence
with the Santa Clara River, (2) 6 mi (10
km) of the Santa Clara River from the
confluence with Bouquet Creek down to
the confluence with Castaic Creek, and
(3) 1.1 mi (2 km) of San Francisquito
Creek from Newhall Ranch Road
downstream to the confluence with the
Santa Clara River. The subunit consists
of 159 ac (65 ha) of Federal land and
1,995 ac (807 ha) of private land. This
subunit allows for natural population
expansion and fluctuation of the Santa
Clara River population by connecting
arroyo toad habitat in Castaic Creek
with San Francisquito Creek and the
occupied reach of the Santa Clara River.
Subunit 6b contains the physical and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
biological features that are essential to
the conservation of the species,
including breeding pools in lowgradient stream segments with sandy
substrates (PCEs 1 and 2), seasonal flood
flows (PCE 3), and riparian habitat and
upland benches for foraging and
dispersal (PCE 4). The physical and
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species in this
subunit may require special
management considerations or
protection to address threats from urban
development, agriculture, recreation,
mining, and nonnative predators. Please
see the ‘‘Special Management
Considerations or Protection’’ section of
this proposed rule for a discussion of
the threats to arroyo toad habitat and
potential management considerations.
Subunit 6c
Subunit 6c encompasses
approximately 11 mi (18 km) of upper
Santa Clara River from Arrastre Canyon
downstream to the confluence with Bee
Canyon Creek. The subunit consists of
159 ac (64 ha) of Federal land and 1,120
ac (453 ha) of private land. This subunit
is important for maintaining the arroyo
toad metapopulation in the upper Santa
Clara River Basin. Additionally, the
upper portion of the Santa Clara River
in this subunit supports a breeding
population of arroyo toads (Sandburg
2001, in litt.; Farris 2001, pers. comm.;
Hovore 2001, in litt.) that has the
potential to greatly increase in size.
Subunit 6c contains the physical and
biological features that are essential to
the conservation of the species,
including breeding pools in lowgradient stream segments with sandy
substrates (PCEs 1 and 2), seasonal flood
flows (PCE 3), and riparian habitat and
upland benches for foraging and
dispersal (PCE 4). The physical and
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species in this
subunit may require special
management considerations or
protection to address threats from urban
development, agriculture, recreation,
mining, and nonnative predators. Please
see the ‘‘Special Management
Considerations or Protection’’ section of
this proposed rule for a discussion of
the threats to arroyo toad habitat and
potential management considerations.
Unit 7: Upper Los Angeles River Basin
(1,190 ac (482 ha))
This unit is located in central Los
Angeles County and encompasses: (1)
Approximately 8 mi (13 km) of upper
Big Tujunga Creek from immediately
above Big Tujunga Reservoir upstream
to approximately 1.2 mi (2 km) above
the confluence with Alder Creek, (2)
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52629
almost 3.7 mi (6 km) of Mill Creek from
the Monte Cristo Creek confluence
downstream to Big Tujunga Creek, and
(3) approximately 1.9 mi (3 km) of Alder
Creek from the Mule Fork confluence
downstream to Big Tujunga Creek. The
unit consists of 1,113 ac (451 ha) of
Forest Service land and 77 ac (31 ha) of
private land. This unit supports an
important high-elevation arroyo toad
population in the Big Tujunga Canyon
watershed in the Upper Los Angeles
River Basin within the Angeles National
Forest, which is atypical for arroyo
toads, and supports the only significant
known population remaining in the
coastal foothills of the San Gabriel
Mountains. Unit 7 contains the physical
and biological features that are essential
to the conservation of the species,
including aquatic habitat for breeding
and non-breeding activities (PCEs 1, 2,
and 3) and upland habitat for foraging
and dispersal activities (PCE 4). The
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this unit may require special
management considerations or
protection to address threats from
nonnative predators, such as crayfish,
bullfrogs, and nonnative plants such as
Arundo donax. Please see the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section of this proposed rule
for a discussion of the threats to arroyo
toad habitat and potential management
considerations.
Southern Recovery Unit
As described in the recovery plan
(Service 1999, pp. 1–119), maintaining
arroyo toad populations in the following
12 critical habitat units is necessary to
conserve the species in the southern
recovery unit. The units consist of a
range of geographic locations from
coastal regions to interior mountains.
Arroyo toads likely occurred throughout
each of these river and creek basins, but
are now found only in segments of the
rivers and creeks due to loss or change
of habitat and nonnative predators.
Conserving arroyo toad populations in
these river basins is necessary for
preserving the species’ full range of
genetic and phenotypic (observable
characteristics produced by the
interaction of the genotype and the
environment) variation.
Unit 8: Lower Santa Ana River Basin
(2,182 ac (883 ha))
This unit is located in east-central
Orange County and encompasses: (1)
Approximately 6.6 mi (11 km) of
Santiago Creek from just below the town
of Modjeska downstream to Irvine Lake,
(2) approximately 2 mi (3 km) of Black
Star Creek downstream to the
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
52630
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
confluence with Santiago Creek, (3) an
approximately 2.4 mi (4 km) stretch of
lower Baker Canyon downstream to the
confluence with Santiago Creek, and (4)
approximately 7.3 mi (12 km) of
Silverado Creek from the eastern edge of
section 11 (T05S, R07W) in the
Cleveland National Forest downstream
to the confluence with Santiago Creek.
The unit consists of 54 ac (22 ha) of
Forest Service land and 2,128 ac (861
ha) of private land. This unit contains
a vital arroyo toad population in central
Orange County that may represent one
of the last remnants of a greater
historical population from the Santa
Ana River Basin that was mostly
extirpated due to urbanization of the
greater Los Angeles metropolitan area. It
is also possible that this population
belongs to a larger metapopulation that
extends across the lower coastal
mountain slopes of the Santa Ana
Mountains from Santiago Creek to San
Mateo Creek (including Units 10 and 11
discussed below). Unit 8 contains the
physical and biological features that are
essential to the conservation of the
species, including aquatic habitat for
breeding and non-breeding activities
(PCEs 1, 2, and 3) and upland habitat for
foraging and dispersal activities (PCE 4).
The physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this unit may require special
management considerations or
protection to address threats from
nearby residential activities and
degrading habitat conditions due to past
commercial sand and gravel removal
operations. Please see the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section of this proposed rule
for a discussion of the threats to arroyo
toad habitat and potential management
considerations. We are considering the
exclusion of approximately 1,497 ac
(606 ha) of lands in Unit 8 within the
Orange County Central–Coastal NCCP/
HCP from the final revised critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act (see ‘‘Application of Section
4(b)(2) of the Act’’ section of this
proposed revised rule for a detailed
discussion).
populations to the south in the Santa
Margarita Watershed, to the west in the
San Juan Watershed, and from residual
populations to the north in the Santa
Ana Watershed due to geographic
features. It is likely that this isolation
occurred over a long geologic time
period; therefore, toads in the San
Jacinto Watershed may have evolved
unique genetic, phenotypic, or
behavioral characteristics that are
important for the conservation of the
species.
Unit 9: San Jacinto River Basin (2,406 ac
(974 ha))
This unit is located in west-central
Riverside County and consists of two
subunits totaling 13 ac (5 ha) of Bureau
of Land Management land, 492 ac (199
ha) of Forest Service land, 210 ac (85 ha)
of State land, and 1,691 ac (684 ha) of
private land. This unit supports the
most northeastern arroyo toad
populations within the coastal region of
the species’ range and is effectively
isolated from other known toad
Subunit 9b
Subunit 9b encompasses
approximately 7.4 mi (12 km) of
Bautista Creek from near the eastern
edge of Section 20 (T6S, R2E)
downstream to approximately the
middle of Section 27 (T5S, R1E), where
the stream enters a debris basin. The
subunit consists of 428 ac (173 ha) of
Forest Service land, 5 ac (2 ha) of
Bureau of Land Management land, 210
ac (85 ha) of State land, and 537 ac (217
ha) of private land. Subunit 9b contains
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
Subunit 9a
Subunit 9a encompasses
approximately 6.3 mi (10 km) of the San
Jacinto River from the Sand Canyon
confluence downstream to the Soboba
Indian Reservation border. The subunit
consists of 64 ac (26 ha) of Forest
Service land, 8 ac (3 ha) of Bureau of
Land Management land, and 1,154 ac
(467 ha) of private land. Subunit 9a
contains the physical and biological
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species, including
aquatic habitat for breeding and nonbreeding activities (PCEs 1, 2, and 3)
and upland habitat for foraging and
dispersal activities (PCE 4). The
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from
cumulative impacts from human
activities, including direct mortality
from vehicular traffic, trampling, trash
dumping, and collection (Ortega 2009,
in litt. p. 1; Wilcox 2009, pers. comm.).
Please see the ‘‘Special Management
Considerations or Protection’’ section of
this proposed rule for a discussion of
the threats to arroyo toad habitat and
potential management considerations.
We are considering the exclusion of
approximately 678 ac (274 ha) of private
lands in Subunit 9a within the Western
Riverside County MSHCP from the final
revised critical habitat designation
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see
‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act’’ section of this proposed revised
rule for a detailed discussion).
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the physical and biological features that
are essential to the conservation of the
species, including aquatic habitat for
breeding and non-breeding activities
(PCEs 1, 2, and 3) and upland habitat for
foraging and dispersal activities (PCE 4).
The physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from
recreation and vehicular traffic (USGS
2001, p. 8). Please see the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section of this proposed rule
for a discussion of the threats to arroyo
toad habitat and potential management
considerations. We are considering the
exclusion of approximately 475 ac (192
ha) of private lands in Subunit 9b
within the Western Riverside County
MSHCP from the final revised critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act (see ‘‘Application of Section
4(b)(2) of the Act’’ section of this
proposed revised rule for a detailed
discussion).
Unit 10: San Juan Creek Basin (5,667 ac
(2,293 ha))
This unit is located in southern
Orange County and southwestern
Riverside County and consists of two
subunits totaling 558 ac (225 ha) of
Forest Service land, 1,909 ac (773 ha) of
local government land, and 3,200 ac
(1,295 ha) of private land. This unit
supports a vital arroyo toad population
in the San Juan Creek Basin, and arroyo
toad populations in this unit may
function as an important linkage
between toads in Santiago Creek (Unit
8) to the north and the San Mateo Creek
Basin (Unit 11) to the south.
Subunit 10a
This subunit is located in southern
Orange County and southwestern
Riverside County. Subunit 10a
encompasses: (1) Approximately 5 mi (8
km) of San Juan Creek from immediately
above the Upper San Juan Campground
downstream to Interstate 5, (2)
approximately 9.9 mi (16 km) of Bell
Canyon from the southern half of
section 8 (T06S, R06W) in the Cleveland
National Forest downstream to the
confluence with San Juan Creek, and (3)
approximately 1.2 mi (2 km) of an
unnamed tributary to the west of Bell
Canyon in sections 8 and 18 (T06S,
R06W) downstream to the confluence
with Bell Creek. The subunit consists of
547 ac (221 ha) of Forest Service land,
1,406 ac (569 ha) of local government
land, and 2,775 ac (1,123 ha) of private
land. Subunit 10a contains the physical
and biological features that are essential
to the conservation of the species,
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
including aquatic habitat for breeding
and non-breeding activities (PCEs 1, 2,
and 3) and upland habitat for foraging
and dispersal activities (PCE 4). The
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from
nonnative predators (bullfrogs),
increased water diversions, and residual
effects of recent gravel mining
operations (Bloom 1998, p. 2). Please
see the ‘‘Special Management
Considerations or Protection’’ section of
this proposed rule for a discussion of
the threats to arroyo toad habitat and
potential management considerations.
We are considering the exclusion of
approximately 3,405 ac (1,378 ha) of
permittee-owned or controlled lands in
Subunit 10a within the Southern Orange
County NCCP/Master Streambed
Alteration Agreement/HCP from the
final revised critical habitat designation
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see
‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act’’ section of this proposed revised
rule for a detailed discussion).
Subunit 10b
This subunit is located in southern
Orange County. Subunit 10b
encompasses 5.2 mi (8 km) of Trabuco
Creek downstream from approximately
the middle of section 6 (T06S, R06W) in
the Cleveland National Forest. The
subunit consists of 11 ac (4 ha) of Forest
Service land, 503 ac (204 ha) of local
government land, and 425 ac (172 ha) of
private land. Subunit 10b contains the
physical and biological features that are
essential to the conservation of the
species, including aquatic habitat for
breeding and non-breeding activities
(PCEs 1, 2, and 3) and upland habitat for
foraging and dispersal activities (PCE 4).
The physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from
nonnative predators (bullfrogs),
increased water diversions, and residual
effects of recent gravel mining
operations (Bloom 1998, p. 2). Please
see the ‘‘Special Management
Considerations or Protection’’ section of
this proposed rule for a discussion of
the threats to arroyo toad habitat and
potential management considerations.
Unit 11: San Mateo Creek Basin (1,068
ac (432 ha))
This unit is located in northwestern
San Diego County, southern Orange
County, and southwestern Riverside
County and consists of two subunits
totaling 34 ac (14 ha) of Forest Service
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
land and 1,034 ac (418 ha) of private
land. This unit supports large arroyo
toad populations in close proximity to
the coast. Nearly all of the other nearcoastal, historical populations of arroyo
toad were extirpated due to extensive
urbanization and river channelization
along the coastal regions of southern
California. Distinctive climatic
conditions near the coast may provide
different selective pressures on toads in
this area, and favor specific genetic
characteristics that help maintain the
genetic diversity of the species. We are
exempting from designation
approximately 5,994 ac (2,426 ha) of
military land that fall within the
boundaries of this proposed revised
critical habitat unit under section
4(a)(3)(B) of the Act because the lands
are subject to the 2007 INRMP for MCB
Camp Pendleton, and the INRMP
provides a benefit to the arroyo toad (see
the ‘‘Application of Section 4(a)(3) of
the Act’’ section of this proposed
revised rule for a detailed discussion).
Subunit 11a
Subunit 11a encompasses: (1)
Approximately 1.7 mi (3 km) of
Cristianitos Creek from just above
Gabino Creek downstream to the MCB
Camp Pendleton boundary; (2)
approximately 3.1 mi (5 km) of Gabino
Creek upstream from its confluence
with Cristianitos Creek, including about
0.6 mi (1 km) of La Paz Creek; and (3)
approximately 4 mi (6 km) of Talega
Creek upstream from its confluence
with Cristianitos Creek and beyond the
boundaries of MCB Camp Pendleton.
The subunit consists of 1,034 ac (418
ha) of private land. Subunit 11a
contains the physical and biological
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species, including
aquatic habitat for breeding and nonbreeding activities (PCEs 1, 2, and 3)
and upland habitat for foraging and
dispersal activities (PCE 4). The
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from
cumulative impacts from human
activities, including direct mortality
from vehicle collisions and vehicular
crossings of streambeds, grazing, and
nonnative predators (Bloom 1996, pp.
4–5; Bloom 1998, in litt., pp. 1, 3).
Please see the ‘‘Special Management
Considerations or Protection’’ section of
this proposed rule for a discussion of
the threats to arroyo toad habitat and
potential management considerations.
We are considering the exclusion of
approximately 963 ac (390 ha) of
permittee-owned or controlled lands in
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52631
Subunit 11a within the Southern Orange
County NCCP/Master Streambed
Alteration Agreement/HCP from the
final revised critical habitat designation
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see
‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act’’ section of this proposed revised
rule for a detailed discussion).
Subunit 11b
Subunit 11b encompasses
approximately 1 mi (2 km) of San Mateo
Creek beyond the boundaries of MCB
Camp Pendleton within the Cleveland
National Forest near Devil Canyon. The
subunit consists of 34 ac (14 ha) of
Forest Service land. Subunit 11b
contains the physical and biological
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species, including
aquatic habitat for breeding and nonbreeding activities (PCEs 1, 2, and 3)
and upland habitat for foraging and
dispersal activities (PCE 4). The
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from
nonnative predators (ECORP 2004, p.
16). Please see the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section of this proposed rule
for a discussion of the threats to arroyo
toad habitat and potential management
considerations.
Unit 12: Lower Santa Margarita River
Basin (1,009 ac (408 ha))
This unit is located in northwestern
San Diego County and consists of two
subunits totaling 5 ac (2 ha) of State
land and 1,004 ac (406 ha) of private
land. This unit supports large arroyo
toad populations in proximity to other
large populations to the north (Unit 11),
and provides potential connectivity to
populations in the upper Santa
Margarita River Basin (Unit 13). We are
exempting from designation
approximately 7,239 ac (2,929 ha) of
military land (7,016 ac (2,839 ha) on
MCB Camp Pendleton and 223 ac (90
ha) on Fallbrook Naval Weapons
Station) that fall within the boundaries
of this critical habitat unit from the
proposed revised designation of critical
habitat under section 4(a)(3)(B) of the
Act because the lands are subject to the
2007 INRMP for MCB Camp Pendleton
and the 2006 INRMP for the Fallbrook
Naval Weapons Station, and each
INRMP provides a benefit to the arroyo
toad (see the ‘‘Application of Section
4(a)(3) of the Act’’ section of this
proposed revised rule for a detailed
discussion).
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
52632
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Subunit 12a
Subunit 12a encompasses
approximately 2.1 mi (3 km) of De Luz
Creek from the town of De Luz
downstream to the MCB Camp
Pendleton boundary. The subunit
consists of 394 ac (159 ha) of private
land. Subunit 12a contains the physical
and biological features that are essential
to the conservation of the species,
including aquatic habitat for breeding
and non-breeding activities (PCEs 1, 2,
and 3) and upland habitat for foraging
and dispersal activities (PCE 4). The
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from
cumulative impacts to the species’
habitat from recreation, nonnative
predators, and nonnative plants
(CNDDB 2008 EO 26). Please see the
‘‘Special Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section of this proposed rule
for a discussion of the threats to arroyo
toad habitat and potential management
considerations.
Subunit 12b
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Subunit 12b encompasses
approximately 5.5 mi (9 km) of the
Santa Margarita River upstream from the
MCB Camp Pendleton boundary. The
subunit consists of 5 ac (2 ha) of State
land and 610 ac (247 ha) of private land.
Subunit 12b contains the physical and
biological features that are essential to
the conservation of the species,
including aquatic habitat for breeding
and non-breeding activities (PCEs 1, 2,
and 3) and upland habitat for foraging
and dispersal activities (PCE 4). The
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from
cumulative impacts to the species’
habitat from nonnative predators,
nonnative plants, and vehicular traffic
(Varanus Biological Services, Inc. 1999,
pp. 34–35). Please see the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section of this proposed rule
for a discussion of the threats to arroyo
toad habitat and potential management
considerations.
Unit 13: Upper Santa Margarita River
Basin (8,137 ac (3,293 ha))
This unit is located in southern
Riverside County and northern San
Diego County and consists of three
subunits totaling 23 ac (9 ha) of Bureau
of Land Management land, 434 ac (176
ha) of Forest Service land, and 7,682 ac
(3,109 ha) of private land. This unit
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
provides potential links to arroyo toad
populations in the lower Santa
Margarita River Basin and other nearby
drainages containing suitable habitat.
Subunit 13a
Subunit 13a encompasses
approximately 7.3 mi (12 km) of Arroyo
Seco Creek from just south of the San
Diego-Riverside County boundary
downstream to Vail Lake. The subunit
consists of 343 ac (139 ha) of Forest
Service land and 813 ac (329 ha) of
private land. Subunit 13a contains the
physical and biological features that are
essential to the conservation of the
species, including aquatic habitat for
breeding and non-breeding activities
(PCEs 1, 2, and 3) and upland habitat for
foraging and dispersal activities (PCE 4).
The physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from
nonnative predators and campground
activities (USGS 2000, p. 3). Please see
the ‘‘Special Management
Considerations or Protection’’ section of
this proposed rule for a discussion of
the threats to arroyo toad habitat and
potential management considerations.
We are considering the exclusion of
approximately 690 ac (279 ha) of private
land in Subunit 13a within the Western
Riverside County MSHCP from the final
revised critical habitat designation
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see
‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act’’ section of this proposed revised
rule for a detailed discussion).
Subunit 13b
Subunit 13b encompasses
approximately 16.3 mi (26 km) of
Temecula Creek from Dodge Valley
downstream to Vail Lake. The subunit
consists of 91 ac (37 ha) of Forest
Service land, 23 ac (9 ha) of Bureau of
Land Management land, and 4,643 ac
(1,879 ha) of private land. Subunit 13b
contains the physical and biological
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species, including
aquatic habitat for breeding and nonbreeding activities (PCEs 1, 2, and 3)
and upland habitat for foraging and
dispersal activities (PCE 4). The
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from road
maintenance and sand-mining
operations (HELIX 2004, p. 1). Please
see the ‘‘Special Management
Considerations or Protection’’ section of
this proposed rule for a discussion of
the threats to arroyo toad habitat and
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
potential management considerations.
We are considering the exclusion of
approximately 2,318 ac (938 ha) of
private land in Subunit 13b within the
Western Riverside County MSHCP from
the final revised critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (see ‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2)
of the Act’’ section of this proposed
revised rule for a detailed discussion).
Subunit 13c
Subunit 13c encompasses
approximately 6.5 mi (10 km) of Wilson
Creek from the confluence with Cahuilla
Creek downstream to Vail Lake. The
subunit consists of 2,226 ac (901 ha) of
private land. Subunit 13c contains the
physical and biological features that are
essential to the conservation of the
species, including aquatic habitat for
breeding and non-breeding activities
(PCEs 1, 2, and 3) and upland habitat for
foraging and dispersal activities (PCE 4).
The physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from direct
mortality and habitat degradation from
off-highway vehicular traffic, and
upstream sedimentation caused by
urbanization, agriculture, or wildfire (R.
Haase, MCAS Camp Pendleton, in litt.
2009b, p. 1). Please see the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section of this proposed rule
for a discussion of the threats to arroyo
toad habitat and potential management
considerations. We are considering the
exclusion of approximately 2,225 ac
(900 ha) of private land in Subunit 13c
within the Western Riverside County
MSHCP from the final revised critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act (see ‘‘Application of Section
4(b)(2) of the Act’’ section of this
proposed revised rule for a detailed
discussion).
Unit 14: Lower and Middle San Luis
Rey River Basin (12,906 ac (5,223 ha))
This unit is located in northern San
Diego County and encompasses
approximately 30 mi (48 km) of the San
Luis Rey River from the western edge of
the La Jolla Indian Reservation
downstream to the confluence with
Guajome Creek near the City of
Oceanside. It also includes
approximately 3.4 mi (5.5 km) of Pala
Creek and 1.7 mi (2.7 km) of Keys Creek
upstream from their confluence with the
San Luis Rey River. The unit consists of
approximately 5 ac (2 ha) of Bureau of
Land Management land, 10 ac (4 ha) of
State land, 3,540 ac (1,432 ha) of tribal
land, and 9,351 ac (3,785 ha) of private
land, and supports one of the largest
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
contiguous river reaches that is
occupied by the species. Unit 14
contains the physical and biological
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species, including
aquatic habitat for breeding and nonbreeding activities (PCEs 1, 2, and 3)
and upland habitat for foraging and
dispersal activities (PCE 4). The
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this unit may require special
management considerations or
protection to address threats from dams
and water diversions, intensive
urbanization, agriculture, and nonnative
predators and plants. Please see the
‘‘Special Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section of this proposed rule
for a discussion of the threats to arroyo
toad habitat and potential management
considerations.
As discussed in the ‘‘Application of
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’ section of
this proposed revised rule, we recognize
the importance of government-togovernment relationships with Tribes;
therefore, we are considering the
exclusion of approximately 1,155 ac
˜
(467 ha) of Rincon Band of Luiseno
Mission Indians Tribal Lands and
approximately 2,385 ac (963 ha) of Pala
˜
Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Tribal
Lands in Unit 14 from the final revised
critical habitat designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We are
seeking public comment on the
appropriateness of the inclusion or
exclusion of these lands from final
designation of revised critical habitat
and whether the conservation needs of
the arroyo toad can be achieved by
limiting the designation to non-tribal
lands (see Public Comments section).
Unit 15: Upper San Luis Rey River
Basin (12,026 ac (4,867 ha))
This unit is located in northern San
Diego County and encompasses: (1)
Approximately 8.6 mi (14 km) of the
West Fork of the San Luis Rey River
from Barker Valley downstream to the
upper end of Lake Henshaw, (2)
approximately 11.4 mi (18 km) of the
upper San Luis Rey River from the
Indian Flats area downstream to the
upper end of Lake Henshaw, and (3)
approximately 6.9 mi (11 km) of Agua
Caliente Creek from the western edge of
section 13 (T10S, R3E) to the confluence
with the San Luis Rey River. The unit
consists of 1,428 ac (578 ha) of Forest
Service land and 10,598 ac (4,289 ha) of
private land. This unit supports a
unique assemblage of several small,
disjunct, high-elevation arroyo toad
populations and one significant
population on Agua Caliente Creek
(Gergus 1992, in litt.; Ervin 2000, in litt.;
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
CNDDB 2008, Element Occurrences
(EOs) 27, 32) in an area where in-stream
and overland dispersal between
populations is likely still possible. Unit
15 contains the physical and biological
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species, including
aquatic habitat for breeding and nonbreeding activities (PCEs 1, 2, and 3)
and upland habitat for foraging and
dispersal activities (PCE 4). The
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this unit may require special
management considerations or
protection to address threats from
groundwater pumping on private lands,
nonnative predators, and grazing. Please
see the ‘‘Special Management
Considerations or Protection’’ section of
this proposed rule for a discussion of
the threats to arroyo toad habitat and
potential management considerations.
Unit 16: Santa Ysabel Creek Basin
(13,567 ac (5,490 ha))
This unit is located in north-central
San Diego County and consists of two
subunits totaling 6 ac (2 ha) of Bureau
of Land Management land, 138 ac (56
ha) of Forest Service land, 182 ac (74 ha)
of State land, 143 ac (58 ha) of local
government land, 23 ac (9 ha) of tribal
land, and 13,074 ac (5,291 ha) of private
land. This unit supports large amounts
of suitable habitat connecting large
populations with several additional
populations.
Subunit 16a
Subunit 16a encompasses: (1)
Approximately 12 mi (19 km) of Santa
Ysabel Creek from the confluence with
Temescal Creek downstream to the
confluence with Santa Maria Creek, (2)
approximately 10 mi (16.1 km) of
Guejito Creek from the 2,000 ft (610 m)
elevation contour downstream to the
confluence with Santa Ysabel Creek, (3)
approximately 2.5 mi (4.0 km) of Boden
Canyon upstream from the Santa Ysabel
Creek confluence, (4) approximately 4.3
mi (7 km) of Temescal Creek from the
northern edge of Pamo Valley to the
confluence with Santa Ysabel Creek,
and (5) approximately 9.1 mi (15 km) of
Santa Maria Creek from the west side of
Ramona to the confluence with Santa
Ysabel Creek. The subunit consists of
138 ac (56 ha) of Forest Service land, 6
ac (2 ha) of Bureau of Land Management
land, 182 ac (74 ha) of State land, 143
ac (58 ha) of local government land, and
11,667 ac (4,721 ha) of private land.
Subunit 16a contains the physical and
biological features that are essential to
the conservation of the species,
including aquatic habitat for breeding
and non-breeding activities (PCEs 1, 2,
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52633
and 3) and upland habitat for foraging
and dispersal activities (PCE 4). The
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from
grazing, nonnative predators, and
urbanization (Tierra Environmental
Services 2001, in litt.; CNDDB 2008, EOs
59, 61). Please see the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section of this proposed rule
for a discussion of the threats to arroyo
toad habitat and potential management
considerations. We are considering the
exclusion of approximately 3,915 ac
(1,585 ha) of private lands in Subunit
16a within the San Diego MSCP–City
and County of San Diego Subarea Plans
from the final revised critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (see ‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2)
of the Act’’ section of this proposed
revised rule for a detailed discussion).
Subunit 16d
Subunit 16d encompasses
approximately 5.2 mi (8.3 km) of Santa
Ysabel Creek about 0.5 mi (0.8 km) east
of Highway 79 downstream to
approximately 0.25 mi (0.4 km)
downstream of the confluence with
Witch Creek. The subunit consists of 23
ac (9 ha) of Mesa Grande Reservation
tribal land and 1,408 ac (570 ha) of
private land. Subunit 16d contains the
physical and biological features that are
essential to the conservation of the
species, including aquatic habitat for
breeding and non-breeding activities
(PCEs 1, 2, and 3) and upland habitat for
foraging and dispersal activities (PCE 4).
The physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from
grazing (CNDDB 2008, EO 62). Please
see the ‘‘Special Management
Considerations or Protection’’ section of
this proposed rule for a discussion of
the threats to arroyo toad habitat and
potential management considerations.
As discussed in the ‘‘Application of
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’ section of
this proposed revised rule, we recognize
the importance of government-togovernment relationships with Tribes;
therefore, we are considering the
exclusion of approximately 23 ac (9 ha)
of Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians Tribal Lands in Subunit
16d from the final revised critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act. We are seeking public
comment on the appropriateness of the
inclusion or exclusion of these lands
from final designation of revised critical
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
52634
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
habitat and whether the conservation
needs of the arroyo toad can be achieved
by limiting the designation to non-tribal
lands (see Public Comments section).
Unit 17: San Diego River Basin/San
Vicente Creek (4,263 ac (1,725 ha))
This unit is located in central San
Diego County and consists of three
subunits totaling 35 ac (14 ha) of Bureau
of Land Management land, 390 ac (158
ha) of Forest Service land, 93 ac (38 ha)
of Capitan Grande Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians tribal land, and 3,746
ac (1,516 ha) of private land. This unit
supports suitable habitat for population
expansion, thus increasing the
probability of the long-term persistence
of these populations.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Subunit 17a
Subunit 17a encompasses: (1)
Approximately 8.7 mi (14 km) of the
San Diego River from Temescal Creek
downstream through 0.5 mi (0.9 km) of
the Capitan Grande Reservation to the
upper edge of El Capitan Reservoir, and
(2) approximately 1 mi (2 km) of lower
Cedar Creek. The subunit consists of
354 ac (143 ha) of Forest Service land,
92 ac (37 ha) of Capitan Grande Band of
Diegueno Mission Indians tribal land,
and 795 ac (322 ha) of private land.
Subunit 17a contains the physical and
biological features that are essential to
the conservation of the species,
including aquatic habitat for breeding
and non-breeding activities (PCEs 1, 2,
and 3) and upland habitat for foraging
and dispersal activities (PCE 4). The
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from
urbanization and nonnative predators.
Please see the ‘‘Special Management
Considerations or Protection’’ section of
this proposed rule for a discussion of
the threats to arroyo toad habitat and
potential management considerations.
As discussed in the ‘‘Application of
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’ section of
this proposed revised rule, we recognize
the importance of government-togovernment relationships with Tribes;
therefore, we are considering the
exclusion of approximately 92 ac (37 ha)
of Capitan Grande Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians Tribal Lands in Subunit
17a from the final revised critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act. We are seeking public
comment on the appropriateness of the
inclusion or exclusion of these lands
from final designation of revised critical
habitat and whether the conservation
needs of the arroyo toad can be achieved
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
by limiting the designation to non-tribal
lands (see Public Comments section).
Subunit 17b
Subunit 17b encompasses
approximately 7.2 mi (12 km) of the San
Diego River downstream from San
Vicente Reservoir. The subunit consists
of 12 ac (5 ha) of Bureau of Land
Management land, 36 ac (15 ha) of
Forest Service land, and 1,817 ac (735
ha) of private land. Subunit 17b
contains the physical and biological
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species, including
aquatic habitat for breeding and nonbreeding activities (PCEs 1, 2, and 3)
and upland habitat for foraging and
dispersal activities (PCE 4). The
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from
urbanization, agriculture, nonnative
predators, and adverse water releases
(based on timing or amount) from the
Sutherland/San Vicente Aqueduct.
Please see the ‘‘Special Management
Considerations or Protection’’ section of
this proposed rule for a discussion of
the threats to arroyo toad habitat and
potential management considerations.
We are considering the exclusion of
approximately 1,730 ac (700 ha) of
private lands in Subunit 17b within the
San Diego MSCP–City and County of
San Diego Subarea Plans from the final
revised critical habitat designation
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see
‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act’’ section of this proposed revised
rule for a detailed discussion).
Subunit 17d
Subunit 17d encompasses
approximately 7.6 mi (12 km) of San
Vicente Creek upstream from San
Vicente Reservoir. The subunit consists
of 23 ac (9 ha) of Bureau of Land
Management land and 1,134 ac (459 ha)
of private land. Subunit 17d contains
the physical and biological features that
are essential to the conservation of the
species, including aquatic habitat for
breeding and non-breeding activities
(PCEs 1, 2, and 3) and upland habitat for
foraging and dispersal activities (PCE 4).
The physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from
urbanization, agriculture, nonnative
predators, and adverse water releases
(based on timing or amount) from the
Sutherland/San Vicente Aqueduct
(Varanus Biological Services, Inc. 1999,
p. 20; RECON 2008, pp. 1, 3–4). Please
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
see the ‘‘Special Management
Considerations or Protection’’ section of
this proposed rule for a discussion of
the threats to arroyo toad habitat and
potential management considerations.
We are considering the exclusion of
approximately 931 ac (377 ha) of private
lands in Subunit 17d within the San
Diego MSCP–City and County of San
Diego Subarea Plans from the final
revised critical habitat designation
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see
‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act’’ section of this proposed revised
rule for a detailed discussion).
Unit 18: Sweetwater River Basin (4,783
ac (1,936 ha))
This unit is located in south-central
San Diego County and consists of two
subunits totaling 553 ac (224 ha) of
Forest Service land, 3 ac (1 ha) of San
Diego National Wildlife Refuge land,
1,659 ac (671 ha) of State land, 391 ac
(158 ha) of tribal land, and 2,178 ac (882
ha) of private land. This unit supports
several significant populations over
large stretches of rivers and streams
(Gergus 1992, in litt.; Ervin 1997, in litt.;
Varanus Biological Services, Inc. 1999,
pp. 4–16; CNDDB 2008, EOs 38, 43, 67,
73, 77, 85, 99, 100).
Subunit 18a
Subunit 18a encompasses: (1)
Approximately 26.6 mi (43 km) of the
Sweetwater River from the top of Upper
Green Valley in Cuyamaca Rancho State
Park downstream to the top of Loveland
Reservoir, (2) approximately 4.3 mi (7
km) of Viejas Creek from the western
border of the Viejas Indian Reservation
downstream to the confluence with the
Sweetwater River, and (3)
approximately 1.5 mi (2 km) of Peterson
Canyon from just east of the Taylor
Creek confluence downstream to the top
of Loveland Reservoir. The subunit
consists of 553 ac (224 ha) of Forest
Service land, 1,554 ac (629 ha) of State
land, and 2,049 ac (829 ha) of private
land. Subunit 18a contains the physical
and biological features that are essential
to the conservation of the species,
including aquatic habitat for breeding
and non-breeding activities (PCEs 1, 2,
and 3) and upland habitat for foraging
and dispersal activities (PCE 4). The
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from
vehicular traffic, including off- highway
vehicular traffic; horse-riding activities;
nonnative predators; reservoir
inundation; and cumulative impacts
from human activities, including direct
mortality from trampling and trash
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
dumping (Varanus Biological Services,
Inc. 1999, p. 14; Mendelsohn et al. 2005,
pp. 10–11). Please see the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section of this proposed rule
for a discussion of the threats to arroyo
toad habitat and potential management
considerations. We are considering the
exclusion of approximately 545 ac (221
ha) of private lands in Subunit 18a
within the San Diego MSCP–City and
County of San Diego Subarea Plans from
the final revised critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (see ‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2)
of the Act’’ section of this proposed
revised rule for a detailed discussion).
Subunit 18c
Subunit 18c encompasses
approximately 5.8 mi (9.3 km) of the
Sweetwater River from immediately
below Loveland Dam downstream to
just above the Sycuan Resort. The
subunit consists of 3 ac (1 ha) of San
Diego National Wildlife Refuge land,
391 ac (158 ha) of Sycuan Band of the
Kumeyaay Nation tribal land, 105 ac (42
ha) of State land, and 129 ac (53 ha) of
private land. Subunit 18c contains the
physical and biological features that are
essential to the conservation of the
species, including aquatic habitat for
breeding and non-breeding activities
(PCEs 1, 2, and 3) and upland habitat for
foraging and dispersal activities (PCE 4).
The physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from
adverse water releases (based on timing
or amount) from the Loveland Reservoir
and gravel mining operations (MaddenSmith et al. 2003, pp. 15, 17). Please see
the ‘‘Special Management
Considerations or Protection’’ section of
this proposed rule for a discussion of
the threats to arroyo toad habitat and
potential management considerations.
As discussed in the ‘‘Application of
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’ section of
this proposed revised rule, we recognize
the importance of government-togovernment relationships with Tribes;
therefore, we are considering the
exclusion of approximately 391 ac (158
ha) of Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay
Nation Tribal Lands in Subunit 18c
from the final revised critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act. We are seeking public comment on
the appropriateness of the inclusion or
exclusion of these lands from final
designation of revised critical habitat
and whether the conservation needs of
the arroyo toad can be achieved by
limiting the designation to non-tribal
lands (see Public Comments section).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
We are also considering the exclusion
of approximately 595 ac (241 ha) of
private lands in Subunit 18c within the
San Diego MSCP–City and County of
San Diego Subarea Plans from the final
revised critical habitat designation
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see
‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act’’ section of this proposed revised
rule for a detailed discussion).
Unit 19: Cottonwood Creek Basin
(14,375 ac (5,817 ha))
Unit 19 is located in southern San
Diego County and consists of five
subunits totaling 190 ac (77 ha) of
Bureau of Land Management land, 3,928
ac (1,589 ha) of Forest Service land,
1,482 ac (600 ha) of local government
land, and 8,778 ac (3,551 ha) of private
land. This unit encompasses a large
number of distinct arroyo toad
occurrences (Gergus 1992, in litt.;
Varanus Biological Services, Inc. 1999,
pp. 2–3; Gergus 2000, in litt.; CNDDB
2008, EOs 20–22, 30, 40, 44, 63–65, 69,
79) in an area where in-stream and
overland dispersal between populations
is likely still possible and where there
is room for population expansion.
Subunit 19a
Subunit 19a encompasses: (1)
Approximately 7 mi (11.2 km) of
Cottonwood Creek from Buckman
Springs (near Interstate 8) downstream
to Morena Reservoir, (2) approximately
2.8 mi (4.5 km) of Morena Creek
downstream to the Cottonwood Creek
confluence, (3) approximately 0.5 mi (1
km) of an unnamed tributary of Morena
Creek in section 35 (T16S, R04E)
downstream to the confluence with
Morena Creek, (4) approximately 5 mi (8
km) of Kitchen Creek downstream to the
Cottonwood Creek confluence, and (5)
approximately 3.7 mi (6 km) of La Posta
Creek downstream to the Cottonwood
Creek confluence. The subunit consists
of 2,129 ac (862 ha) of Forest Service
land, 1,482 ac (600 ha) of local
government land, and 2,237 ac (905 ha)
of private land. Subunit 19a contains
the physical and biological features that
are essential to the conservation of the
species, including aquatic habitat for
breeding and non-breeding activities
(PCEs 1, 2, and 3) and upland habitat for
foraging and dispersal activities (PCE 4).
The physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from
grazing, recreational activities, and
nonnative plants and predators (Ervin
2000, in litt.; TAIC 2005, p. 1; CNDDB
2008, EOs 20, 44, 69). Please see the
‘‘Special Management Considerations or
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52635
Protection’’ section of this proposed rule
for a discussion of the threats to arroyo
toad habitat and potential management
considerations.
Subunit 19b
Subunit 19b encompasses
approximately 12.7 mi (20 km) of
Cottonwood Creek from immediately
below Barrett Lake downstream to the
U.S.-Mexico border and includes 10.3
mi (17 km) of Potrero Creek from
approximately the 2,466-ft (752-m)
elevation benchmark downstream to the
confluence with Cottonwood Creek. The
subunit consists of 80 ac (32 ha) of
Forest Service land, 129 ac (52 ha) of
Bureau of Land Management land, and
4,921 ac (1,991 ha) of private land.
Subunit 19b contains the physical and
biological features that are essential to
the conservation of the species,
including aquatic habitat for breeding
and non-breeding activities (PCEs 1, 2,
and 3) and upland habitat for foraging
and dispersal activities (PCE 4). The
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from
grazing, and nonnative plants and
predators (Ervin 1997, in litt.; TAIC
2005, pp. 1, 3; CNDDB 2008, EOs 40, 64,
65, 79). Please see the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section of this proposed rule
for a discussion of the threats to arroyo
toad habitat and potential management
considerations. We are considering the
exclusion of approximately 1,226 ac
(496 ha) of private lands in Subunit 19b
within the San Diego MSCP–City and
County of San Diego Subarea Plans from
the final revised critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (see ‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2)
of the Act’’ section of this proposed
revised rule for a detailed discussion).
Subunit 19c
Subunit 19c encompasses: (1)
Approximately 7.6 mi (12 km) of Pine
Valley Creek from the north edge of
section 12 (T15S, R4E) downstream to
approximately 0.6 mi (1 km) south of
Interstate 8, (2) approximately 0.6 mi (1
km) of Noble Creek downstream to the
confluence with Pine Valley Creek, (3)
approximately 2.4 mi (4 km) of Scove
Canyon downstream to the confluence
with Pine Valley Creek, and (4)
approximately 1.3 mi (2 km) of an
unnamed tributary upstream of Scove
Canyon in sections 25 and 36 (T15S,
R04E). The subunit consists of 809 ac
(327 ha) of Forest Service land and 703
ac (284 ha) of private land. Subunit 19c
contains the physical and biological
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
52636
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species, including
aquatic habitat for breeding and nonbreeding activities (PCEs 1, 2, and 3)
and upland habitat for foraging and
dispersal activities (PCE 4). The
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from
urbanization, grazing, vehicular traffic,
and nonnative predators (Holland and
Sisk 2001, p. 9; CNDDB 2008, EOs 21,
22, 30). Please see the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section of this proposed rule
for a discussion of the threats to arroyo
toad habitat and potential management
considerations.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Subunit 19d
Subunit 19d encompasses
approximately 8 mi (13 km) of Pine
Valley Creek from the Nelson Canyon
confluence downstream to Barrett
Reservoir and approximately 1.6 mi (3
km) of Horsethief Canyon downstream
to the confluence with Pine Valley
Creek. The subunit consists of 910 ac
(368 ha) of Forest Service land and 28
ac (11 ha) of private land. Subunit 19d
contains the physical and biological
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species, including
aquatic habitat for breeding and nonbreeding activities (PCEs 1, 2, and 3)
and upland habitat for foraging and
dispersal activities (PCE 4). The
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from
grazing and U.S. Border Patrol activities
(Varanus Biological Services, Inc. 1999,
p. 2; CNDDB 2008, EO 63). Please see
the ‘‘Special Management
Considerations or Protection’’ section of
this proposed rule for a discussion of
the threats to arroyo toad habitat and
potential management considerations.
Subunit 19e
Subunit 19e encompasses
approximately 4.4 mi (7 km) of Campo
Creek from Campo Lake downstream to
the U.S.-Mexico border. The subunit
consists of 61 ac (25 ha) of Bureau of
Land Management land and 889 ac (360
ha) of private land. Subunit 19e
contains the physical and biological
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species, including
aquatic habitat for breeding and nonbreeding activities (PCEs 1, 2, and 3)
and upland habitat for foraging and
dispersal activities (PCE 4). The
physical and biological features
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from fire
management activities along the U.S.Mexico border (LEI 2008, p. 2). Please
see the ‘‘Special Management
Considerations or Protection’’ section of
this proposed rule for a discussion of
the threats to arroyo toad habitat and
potential management considerations.
Desert Recovery Unit
As described in the recovery plan
(Service 1999, pp. 1–119), maintaining
arroyo toad populations in the following
4 critical habitat units is necessary to
conserve the species in the desert
recovery unit. Each of these units is
isolated from each other and from any
other recovery units, making the issues
of inbreeding, fragmentation, and
random negative impacts of great
concern. However, this recovery unit
also represents unique ecological
conditions for arroyo toads, and likely
harbors important genetic diversity.
Unit 20: Upper Santa Ana River Basin/
Cajon Wash (1,775 ac (718 ha))
This unit is located in southwestern
San Bernardino County and
encompasses approximately 7.9 mi (13
km) of Cajon Wash upstream from the
San Bernardino National Forest
boundary. The unit consists of 711 ac
(288 ha) of Forest Service land and
1,065 ac (431 ha) of private land. This
unit supports a population that may
represent some of the last vestiges of a
much greater population that
historically existed along the upper
Santa Ana River Basin, but was almost
entirely extirpated due to urbanization
of the greater Los Angeles area, and
helps preserve a critical outlier segment
of the genetic, phenotypic, or behavioral
variation of the species. Unit 20
contains the physical and biological
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species, including
aquatic habitat for breeding and nonbreeding activities (PCEs 1, 2, and 3)
and upland habitat for foraging and
dispersal activities (PCE 4). The
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this unit may require special
management considerations or
protection to address threats from
recreational activities. Please see the
‘‘Special Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section of this proposed rule
for a discussion of the threats to arroyo
toad habitat and potential management
considerations.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Unit 21: Little Rock Creek Basin (612 ac
(248 ha))
This unit is located in central Los
Angeles County and encompasses: (1)
Approximately 5.9 mi (9.5 km) of Little
Rock Creek from the South Fork
confluence downstream to the upper
end of Little Rock Reservoir (in the
vicinity of Rocky Point Picnic Ground),
and (2) approximately 1.1 mi (1.8 km)
of Santiago Creek upstream from the
confluence with Little Rock Creek in the
Little Rock Creek Basin. The unit
consists of 612 ac (248 ha) of Forest
Service land. This unit is on the
periphery of the species’ range in the
Mojave Desert and geographically
isolated from other known toad
populations; therefore, it is possible that
arroyo toads in this area possess unique
genetic and phenotypic variation. Unit
21 contains the physical and biological
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species, including
aquatic habitat for breeding and nonbreeding activities (PCEs 1, 2, and 3)
and upland habitat for foraging and
dispersal activities (PCE 4). The
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this unit may require special
management considerations or
protection to address threats from
recreational activities. Please see the
‘‘Special Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section of this proposed rule
for a discussion of the threats to arroyo
toad habitat and potential management
considerations.
Unit 22: Upper Mojave River Basin
(5,919 ac (2,395 ha))
This unit is located in San Bernardino
County and consists of two subunits
totaling 3,253 ac (1,316 ha) of Federal
land, 2,534 ac (1,025 ha) of private land,
and 132 ac (54 ha) of State land.
Subunit 22a
Subunit 22a includes: (1)
Approximately 9.3 mi (18 km) of Deep
Creek from near Holcomb Creek
downstream to the confluence with the
West Fork; (2) approximately 4 mi (6
km) of Little Horsethief Creek upstream
from its confluence with Horsethief
Creek; (3) approximately 4 mi (6 km) of
Horsethief Creek from approximately 1
mi (1.6 km) above the Little Horsethief
Creek confluence downstream to the
West Fork confluence; (4)
approximately 6 mi (10 km) of the West
Fork of the Mojave River from Highway
173 downstream to Mojave River Forks
Dam; (5) approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) of
the Mojave River below Mojave River
Forks Dam; (6) approximately 1.4 mi
(2.2 km) of Grass Valley Creek upstream
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
from the confluence with the West Fork;
and (7) approximately 2.8 mi (4.5 km)
of Kinley Creek upstream from the Deep
Creek confluence. The subunit consists
of 3,209 ac (1,299 ha) of Federal land
and 2,474 ac (1,001 ha) of private land.
This subunit supports the largest
population of the species on the desert
side of the San Bernardino Mountains
and is important for maintaining the
range of genetic and phenotypic
diversity of the species. Subunit 22a
contains the physical and biological
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species, including
aquatic habitat for breeding and nonbreeding activities (PCEs 1, 2, and 3)
and upland habitat for foraging and
dispersal activities (PCE 4). The
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from
nonnative species, urban development,
and recreation. Please see the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section of this proposed rule
for a discussion of the threats to arroyo
toad habitat and potential management
considerations.
Subunit 22c
Subunit 22c includes approximately 1
mi (1.6 km) of the upper West Fork of
the Mojave River, above Silverwood
Lake, from near the 3,613 ft (1,462 m)
elevation benchmark downstream to the
upper end of the lake. The subunit
consists of 43 ac (17 ha) of Federal land,
132 ac (54 ha) of county land, and 60
ac (24 ha) of private land. This subunit
contains Summit Valley, which
encompasses the lower portions of
Horsethief Creek and the West Fork of
the Mojave River, a broad, flat, alluvial
valley that supports a substantial arroyo
toad population (Ramirez 2003, pp. 16–
17). Additionally, the downstream
portion of this subunit contains the
driest conditions of any unit proposed
for arroyo toad critical habitat (Teale
Data Center 1998, p. 1; CIMS 2000, p.
1), which suggests that this population
may possess unique physiological
adaptations, such as a reduced rate of
evaporative water loss, and is important
for maintaining the range of genetic and
phenotypic diversity of the species.
Subunit 22c contains the physical and
biological features that are essential to
the conservation of the species,
including aquatic habitat for breeding
and non-breeding activities (PCEs 1, 2,
and 3) and upland habitat for foraging
and dispersal activities (PCE 4). The
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this subunit may require
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
special management considerations or
protection to address threats from
nonnative species, urban development,
and recreation. Please see the ‘‘Special
Management Considerations or
Protection’’ section of this proposed rule
for a discussion of the threats to arroyo
toad habitat and potential management
considerations.
Unit 23: Whitewater River Basin (1,355
ac (548 ha))
This unit is located in northern
Riverside County and encompasses
approximately 6.4 mi (10 km) of the
Whitewater River from near Red Dome
downstream to the Colorado River
Aqueduct. The unit consists of 783 ac
(317 ha) of Bureau of Land Management
land and 572 ac (231 ha) of private land.
This unit supports an isolated desert
population on the easternmost
periphery of the species’ range in the
Colorado Desert that may possess
unique phenotypic and genetic variation
that are distinct from other desert
populations in the Mojave Desert
(including Units 21 and 22 discussed
above). Unit 23 contains the physical
and biological features that are essential
to the conservation of the species,
including aquatic habitat for breeding
and non-breeding activities (PCEs 1, 2,
and 3) and upland habitat for foraging
and dispersal activities (PCE 4). The
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species in this unit may require special
management considerations or
protection to address threats from
unsuitable water flow for breeding and
off-highway vehicular traffic. Please see
the ‘‘Special Management
Considerations or Protection’’ section of
this proposed rule for a discussion of
the threats to arroyo toad habitat and
potential management considerations.
We are considering the exclusion of
approximately 538 ac (218 ha) of private
lands in Unit 23 within the Coachella
Valley MSHCP from the final revised
critical habitat designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see
‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act’’ section of this proposed revised
rule for a detailed discussion).
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies, including the Service,
to ensure that actions they fund,
authorize, or carry out are not likely to
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. Decisions by the Fifth and
Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal have
invalidated our definition of
‘‘destruction or adverse modification’’
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52637
(50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot
Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004)
and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434,
442F (5th Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely
on this regulatory definition when
analyzing whether an action is likely to
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. Under the statutory provisions
of the Act, we determine destruction or
adverse modification on the basis of
whether, with implementation of the
proposed Federal action, the affected
critical habitat would remain functional
(or retain the current ability for the PCEs
to be functionally established) to serve
its intended conservation role for the
species. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act
requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to evaluate their actions with
respect to any species that is
endangered or threatened and with
respect to its critical habitat, if any is
proposed or designated. Regulations
implementing this interagency
cooperation provision of the Act are
codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to confer with us on
any action that is likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of a species
proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat. Conference
reports provide conservation
recommendations to assist the agency in
eliminating conflicts that may be caused
by the proposed action. We may issue
a formal conference report if requested
by a Federal agency. Formal conference
reports on proposed critical habitat
contain an opinion that is prepared
according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if critical
habitat were designated. We may adopt
the formal conference report as the
biological opinion when the critical
habitat is designated, if no substantial
new information or changes in the
action alter the content of the opinion
(see 50 CFR 402.10(d)). The
conservation recommendations in a
conference report or opinion are
advisory.
If a species is listed or critical habitat
is designated, section 7(a)(2) of the Act
requires Federal agencies to ensure that
activities they authorize, fund, or carry
out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of such a species or
to destroy or adversely modify its
critical habitat. If a Federal action may
affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency
(action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. As a result of this
consultation, we document compliance
with the requirements of section 7(a)(2)
of the Act through our issuance of:
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
52638
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal
actions that may affect, but are not
likely to adversely affect, listed species
or critical habitat; or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal
actions that may affect, and are likely to
adversely affect, listed species or critical
habitat.
An exception to the concurrence
process referred to in (1) above occurs
in consultations involving National Fire
Plan projects. In 2004, the U.S. Forest
Service and the Bureau of Land
Management reached agreements with
the Service to streamline a portion of
the section 7 consultation process
(BLM–ACA 2004, pp. 1–8; FS–ACA
2004, pp. 1–8). The agreements allow
the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau
of Land Management the opportunity to
make ‘‘not likely to adversely affect’’
determinations for projects
implementing the National Fire Plan.
Such projects include prescribed fire,
mechanical fuels treatments (thinning
and removal of fuels to prescribed
objectives), emergency stabilization,
burned area rehabilitation, road
maintenance and operation activities,
ecosystem restoration, and culvert
replacement actions. The U.S. Forest
Service and the Bureau of Land
Management will insure staff is properly
trained and both agencies will submit
monitoring reports to the Service to
determine if the procedures are being
implemented properly and effects on
endangered species and their habitats
are being properly evaluated. As a result
we do not believe the alternative
consultation processes being
implemented as a result of the National
Fire Plan will differ significantly from
those consultations being conducted by
the Service.
If we issue a biological opinion
concluding that a project is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
listed species and/or destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat, we
also provide reasonable and prudent
alternatives to the project, if any are
identifiable. We define ‘‘reasonable and
prudent alternatives’’ at 50 CFR 402.02
as alternative actions identified during
consultation that:
• Can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended purpose of
the action,
• Can be implemented consistent
with the scope of the Federal agency’s
legal authority and jurisdiction,
• Are economically and
technologically feasible, and
• Would, in the Director’s opinion,
avoid jeopardizing the continued
existence of the listed species or
destroying or adversely modifying
critical habitat.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
Reasonable and prudent alternatives
can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or
relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a
reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require
Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed
actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently
designated critical habitat that may be
affected, and the Federal agency has
retained discretionary involvement or
control over the action (or the agency’s
discretionary involvement or control is
authorized by law). Consequently,
Federal agencies may sometimes need to
request reinitiation of consultation with
us on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary
involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or
designated critical habitat.
Federal activities that may affect the
arroyo toad or its designated critical
habitat will require section 7(a)(2)
consultation under the Act. Activities
on State, Tribal, local, or private lands
requiring a Federal permit (such as a
permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers under section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)
or a permit under section 10 of the Act
from the Service) or involving some
other Federal action (such as funding
from the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency) will
also be subject to the section 7(a)(2)
consultation process. Federal actions
not affecting listed species or critical
habitat, and actions on State, Tribal,
local, or private lands that are not
federally funded, authorized, or
permitted, do not require section 7(a)(2)
consultations.
Application of the ‘‘Adverse
Modification’’ Standard
The key factor related to the adverse
modification determination is whether,
with implementation of the proposed
Federal action, the affected critical
habitat would continue to serve its
intended conservation role for the
species, or would retain its current
ability for the PCEs to be functionally
established. Activities that may destroy
or adversely modify critical habitat are
those that alter the physical and
biological features (PCEs) to an extent
that appreciably reduces the
conservation value of critical habitat for
the arroyo toad.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us
to briefly evaluate and describe in any
proposed or final regulation that
designates critical habitat those
activities involving a Federal action that
may destroy or adversely modify such
habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation. Activities that may destroy
or adversely modify critical habitat may
also jeopardize the continued existence
of the species.
Activities that, when carried out,
funded, or authorized by a Federal
agency, may adversely affect critical
habitat and, therefore, should result in
consultation for the arroyo toad include,
but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Actions that alter water chemistry
or temperature. Such activities include,
but are not limited to: Release of
chemicals, biological pollutants, or
heated effluents into the surface water
or into connected groundwater at a
point source or by dispersed release
(non-point source). These activities can
alter water conditions beyond the
tolerances of the arroyo toad and result
in direct or cumulative adverse effects
to these individuals and their life
cycles.
(2) Actions that increase sediment
deposition within the stream channel or
disturb upland foraging and dispersal
habitat. Such activities include, but are
not limited to: Excessive sedimentation
from livestock overgrazing, road
construction, commercial or urban
development, channel alteration, timber
harvest, off-highway vehicle or
recreational use, and other watershed
and floodplain disturbances. These
activities could eliminate or reduce the
habitat necessary for the growth and
reproduction of the arroyo toad by
increasing the sediment deposition to
levels that would adversely affect their
ability to complete their life cycles.
(3) Actions that alter channel
morphology or geometry. Such activities
include, but are not limited to: Flood
control and water diversion structures,
such as dams and reservoirs, that
regulate stream flows and trap
sediments, direct groundwater
extraction, channelization,
impoundment, road and bridge
construction, development, mining,
dredging, and destruction of riparian
vegetation. These activities may lead to
changes to the hydrologic functioning of
the stream and alter the timing,
duration, water flows, and levels that
would degrade or eliminate the arroyo
toad and its habitat. These actions can
also lead to increased sedimentation
and degradation in water quality to
levels that are beyond the tolerances of
the arroyo toad and provide habitat for
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
nonnative species that prey on arroyo
toads.
(4) Actions that eliminate upland
foraging, aestivating, or dispersal habitat
for the arroyo toad. Such activities
include, but are not limited to: Road
construction, commercial or urban
development, timber harvest, offhighway vehicle or recreational use, and
other watershed and floodplain
disturbances. These actions could affect
the species’ habitat through erosion,
siltation, soil compaction, water quality
degradation from urban runoff
containing contaminants, fertilizers and
pesticides, and the spread of introduced
nonnative plants.
(5) Actions that lead to introducing,
spreading, or augmenting nonnative
aquatic species in stream segments used
by arroyo toad. Possible actions include,
but are not limited to: Introduction of
chytrid fungus or other diseases, fish
stocking for sport, nonnative aquatic
plant species for aesthetics, or other
related actions. These activities could
affect the growth and reproduction of
the arroyo toad by subjecting eggs,
larvae, tadpoles, and adult arroyo toads
to increased predation pressure or limit
the amount of habitat available for the
species, which would adversely affect
the arroyo toad’s ability to complete its
life cycle.
Note that the scale of these activities
is a crucial factor in determining
whether, in any instance, they would
directly or indirectly alter critical
habitat to the extent that the value of the
critical habitat would be appreciably
diminished in providing for the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the arroyo toad.
We consider all of the units and
subunits proposed as critical habitat to
contain features essential to the
conservation of the arroyo toad. All
units are within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time it
was listed, and are currently occupied
by arroyo toads. To ensure that their
actions do not jeopardize the continued
existence of the arroyo toad, Federal
agencies already consult with us on
activities in areas currently occupied by
the arroyo toad, or in unoccupied areas
if the species may be affected by their
actions.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of
1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that
includes land and water suitable for the
conservation and management of
natural resources to complete an
integrated natural resources
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP
integrates implementation of the
military mission of the installation with
stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP
includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological
needs on the installation, including the
need to provide for the conservation of
listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of
management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs;
and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive
management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP
must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife
management; fish and wildlife habitat
enhancement or modification; wetland
protection, enhancement, and
restoration where necessary to support
fish and wildlife; and enforcement of
applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108–
136) amended the Endangered Species
Act to limit areas eligible for
designation as critical habitat.
Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the
Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now
provides: ‘‘The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or
other geographical areas owned or
controlled by the Department of
Defense, or designated for its use, that
are subject to an integrated natural
resources management plan prepared
under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16
U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines
in writing that such plan provides a
benefit to the species for which critical
habitat is proposed for designation.’’
We consult with the military on the
development and implementation of
INRMPs for installations with federally
listed species. INRMPs developed by
military installations located within the
range of the arroyo toad and which
contain those features essential to the
species’ conservation were analyzed for
exemption under the authority of
section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act.
Approved INRMPS
Fort Hunter Liggett Military
Reservation, MCB Camp Pendleton, and
Fallbrook Naval Weapons Station have
approved INRMPs. The U.S. Army
Reserve and Marine Corps (on both
MCB Camp Pendleton and Fallbrook
Naval Weapons Station) committed to
working closely with us and California
Department of Fish and Game (as well
as California Department of Parks and
Recreation (California State Parks) with
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52639
regards to lands leased by MCB Camp
Pendleton) to continually refine the
existing INRMPs as part of the Sikes
Act’s INRMP review process. Based on
our review of the INRMPs for these
military installations, and in accordance
with section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we
have determined that the lands within
these installations identified as meeting
the definition of critical habitat are
subject to the INRMPs, and that
conservation efforts identified in these
INRMPs will provide a benefit to the
arroyo toad (see the following sections
that detail this determination for each
installation). Therefore, lands within
these installations are exempt from
critical habitat designation under
section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act. We are not
including approximately 19,686 ac
(7,967 ha) of habitat on Fort Hunter
Liggett, MCB Camp Pendleton, and
Fallbrook Naval Weapons Station in this
proposed revised critical habitat
designation because of this exemption.
Fort Hunter Liggett Military Reservation
Fort Hunter Liggett was established in
1940 as Hunter Liggett Military
Reservation, when the Army purchased
lands belonging to William Randolph
Hearst and other private landowners.
The installation was used intensively to
prepare troops for World War II, the
Korean and Vietnam conflicts, and the
Cold War, as a training ground for the
7th Infantry Division formerly stationed
at Fort Ord, and as a Test and
Experimentation Command Center. Fort
Hunter Liggett occupies approximately
163,000 ac (66,000 ha) of varied habitats
within the Santa Lucia Mountains in
southern Monterey County. Currently,
the installation is used for training by
the 40th Mechanized Infantry Division
of the California Army National Guard;
reserve units from several branches of
the Armed Forces; active components of
the Army Rangers, Special Forces, Navy
Seabees, and Marines; and other
government agencies.
The Fort Hunter Liggett INRMP is a
planning document that guides the
management and conservation of
natural resources under the
installation’s control. The INRMP was
prepared to ensure that natural
resources are managed in support of the
Fort Hunter Liggett military training
mission and that all activities are
consistent with Federal stewardship
requirements. The Fort Hunter Liggett
INRMP was completed in 2005,
followed by a revised and updated
version in 2007, to address conservation
and management of its natural
resources, including conservation
measures for the arroyo toad (U.S. Army
Reserve Command 2007, pp. 171–174).
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
52640
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
The INRMP is Fort Hunter Liggett’s
adaptive plan for managing natural
resources to support and be consistent
with the military mission while
protecting and enhancing the biological
integrity of lands under its use (U.S.
Army 2004, p. iv). Fort Hunter Liggett
is committed to an ecosystem
management approach for its natural
resources program by integrating all
components of natural resource
management into a comprehensive and
coordinated effort. An integrated
approach to ecosystem management will
help protect the biological diversity
found at Fort Hunter Liggett.
The INRMP identifies the following
management and protection measures
for the arroyo toad: (1) Implement
monitoring that will meet the Service’s
criteria to demonstrate population status
of arroyo toads on Fort Hunter Liggett;
(2) reduce public and military vehicle
encroachment into sandy riverine
habitat, particularly during the breeding
season for the arroyo toad; (3) minimize
adverse effects to arroyo toads from
roads and borrow sites (sites where soil
and other material is removed for
construction purposes); (4) gain an
understanding of the timing of arroyo
toad upland use, extent of upland use
and distance traveled from breeding
sites, characteristics of preferred upland
habitat to include micro- and macrohabitats and substrate of burrowing
sites, and use of rodent burrows; (5)
identify threat posed by noxious weeds
and reduce noxious weed presence to
improve native habitat and site
diversity; (6) obtain geomorphology
information that will provide a
foundation for development of
management strategies for arroyo toad
habitat and a better idea of habitat
sustainability for arroyo toads; (7)
identify threat posed by nonnative
beavers in the San Antonio River in
arroyo toad breeding habitat and
outlying areas and implement control if
threats warrant; (8) reduce bullfrog
abundance in areas most likely to
benefit arroyo toads; (9) prevent
introduction and spread of disease at
Fort Hunter Liggett; (10) maintain a
viable population of arroyo toads and
suitable habitat on Fort Hunter Liggett;
(11) evaluate current management goals
and actions and adapt to meet species
management requirements; (12)
integrate species management and
conservation with Fort Hunter Liggett
training and maintenance activities; (13)
provide for adaptive management in
accordance with the Fort Hunter Liggett
INRMP; and (14) monitor mortality in
order to augment the Service’s ability to
determine effects of Fort Hunter Liggett
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
activities on arroyo toad and identify
mortality factors at Fort Hunter Liggett.
Based on the above considerations,
and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have
determined that conservation efforts
identified in the 2005 INRMP and 2007
updated INRMP for Fort Hunter Liggett
provide a benefit to the arroyo toad and
features essential to its conservation,
and will benefit arroyo toads occurring
in habitats on the installation. This
includes habitat located in the Salinas
River Basin (Service 1999, p. 14).
Therefore, lands subject to the INRMP
for the Fort Hunter Liggett Military
Reservation are exempt from critical
habitat designation under section
4(a)(3)(B) of the Act, and we are not
including approximately 6,453 ac (2,612
ha) of habitat in this proposed revised
critical habitat designation because of
this exemption.
Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp
Pendleton
MCB Camp Pendleton is the Marine
Corps’ premier amphibious training
installation and its only west coast
amphibious assault training center. The
installation has been conducting air,
sea, and ground assault training since
World War II. MCB Camp Pendleton
occupies over 125,000 ac (50,586 ha) of
coastal southern California in the
northwest corner of San Diego County.
Aside from nearly 10,000 ac (4,047 ha)
that is developed, most of the
installation is largely undeveloped land
that is used for training. MCB Camp
Pendleton is situated between two major
metropolitan areas: Los Angeles, 82
miles (132 kilometers) to the north, and
San Diego, 38 miles (61 kilometers) to
the south. Nearby communities include
Oceanside to the south, Fallbrook to the
east, and San Clemente to the
northwest. Aside from a portion of the
installation’s border that is shared with
the San Mateo Wilderness Area and the
Fallbrook Naval Weapons Station,
surrounding land use is urban
development, rural residential
development, and agricultural farming
and ranching. The largest single
leaseholder on the installation is
California State Parks, which includes a
50-year real estate lease granted on
September 1, 1971, for 2,000 ac (809 ha)
that encompasses San Onofre State
Beach.
The MCB Camp Pendleton INRMP is
a planning document that guides the
management and conservation of
natural resources under the
installation’s control. The INRMP was
prepared to assist installation staff and
users in their efforts to conserve and
rehabilitate natural resources consistent
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
with the use of MCB Camp Pendleton to
train Marines and set the agenda for
managing natural resources on MCB
Camp Pendleton. MCB Camp Pendleton
completed its INRMP in 2001, followed
by a revised and updated version in
2007 to address conservation and
management recommendations within
the scope of the installation’s military
mission, including conservation
measures for the arroyo toad (MCB
Camp Pendleton 2007, Appendix F,
Section F.1, pp. F1–F5). Additionally,
according to the 2007 INRMP, California
State Parks is required to conduct its
natural resources management
consistent with the philosophies and
supportive of the objectives of the
revised 2007 INRMP (MCB Camp
Pendleton 2007, Chapter 2, p. 31).
The arroyo toad receives
programmatic protection from training
and other installation activities within
the riparian component of its habitat, as
outlined and required in the Riparian
Ecosystem Conservation Plan (MCB
Camp Pendleton 2007, Appendix C).
Management and protection measures
for the arroyo toad identified in
Appendix C of the INRMP include, but
are not limited to, the following: (1)
Eliminating nonnative, invasive species
(such as Arundo donax) on the
installation and off the installation in
partnership with upstream landowners
to enhance ecosystem value; (2)
providing viable riparian corridors and
promoting connectivity of native
riparian habitats; (3) maintaining
natural floodplain processes and extent
of these areas by avoiding and
minimizing further permanent loss of
floodplain habitats; (4) maintaining to
the extent practicable stream and river
flows needed to support riparian
habitat; (5) monitoring and maintaining
groundwater levels and basin
withdrawals to avoid loss and
degradation of habitat quality; (6)
restoring areas to their original
condition after disturbance, such as
following project construction or fire
damage; and (7) promoting increased
arroyo toad populations in watersheds
through perpetuation of natural
ecosystem processes and programmatic
instruction application for avoidance
and minimization of impacts (MCB
Camp Pendleton 2007, Appendix C, pp.
C5–C8).
Current environmental regulations
and restrictions apply to all threatened
and endangered species on the
installation (including the arroyo toad)
and are provided to all users of ranges
and training areas to guide activities and
protect the species and its habitat. First,
specific conservation measures are
applied to arroyo toad and its habitat
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
that include: (1) Controlling nonnative
animal species (such as bullfrogs) and
nonnative plant species (such as
Arundo donax and Rorippa spp.
(watercress)); and (2) restricting
military-related traffic use within
riparian areas to existing roads, trails,
and crossings. Second, MCB Camp
Pendleton’s environmental security staff
review projects and enforce existing
regulations and orders that, through
their implementation, avoid and
minimize impacts to natural resources,
including the arroyo toad and its
habitat. Third, MCB Camp Pendleton
provides training to personnel on
environmental awareness for sensitive
resources on the base, including the
arroyo toad and its habitat. As a result
of these regulations and restrictions,
activities occurring on MCB Camp
Pendleton are currently conducted in a
manner that minimizes impacts to
arroyo toad habitat.
MCB Camp Pendleton’s INRMP also
benefits the arroyo toad through ongoing
monitoring and research efforts. The
installation conducts annual monitoring
to track arroyo toad populations and has
conducted a study to examine arroyo
toad use of habitat dominated by
Arundo donax (although analysis of this
study is not yet complete). Data are
provided to all necessary personnel
through MCB Camp Pendleton’s GIS
database on sensitive resources and in
their published resource atlas.
Additionally, MCB Camp Pendleton
collaborated with the U.S. Geological
Survey’s Biological Resources Division
to develop and implement a rigorous,
science-based monitoring protocol for
arroyo toad populations throughout the
installation, including surveying for
presence of eggs and larvae (Atkinson et
al. 2003, pp. 4–5).
We are consulting with the Marine
Corps under section 7 of the Act to
programmatically address potential
upland impacts to the arroyo toad (and
several other species) as a result of
military training and other activities on
MCB Camp Pendleton. Upon
completion of this consultation, we
expect additional measures that benefit
the arroyo toad will be incorporated into
the INRMP for MCB Camp Pendleton.
This consultation is currently in
progress, and we did not rely on any
proposed measures in our consideration
of the INRMP under section 4(a)(3)(B) of
the Act. However, upland habitat
conservation measures being considered
include, but are not limited to: (1)
Implementing programmatic measures
to avoid and minimize impacts to
upland habitats adjacent to riparian
habitats occupied by arroyo toads, and
(2) compensating for impacts to upland
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
habitats used by arroyo toads by
implementing ongoing installation-wide
upland habitat enhancement programs
(such as nonnative vegetation control,
erosion control, and upland habitat
restoration).
Based on the above considerations,
and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have
determined that conservation efforts
identified in the 2007 INRMP for MCB
Camp Pendleton provide a benefit to the
arroyo toad and its habitat. This
includes habitat located in the following
areas: San Mateo Creek, San Onofre
Creek, and Santa Margarita River Basins
(names of areas used follow those used
in the recovery plan (Service 1999, pp.
25–27). Therefore, lands subject to the
INRMP for MCB Camp Pendleton,
which includes the lands leased from
the Department of Defense by other
parties, are exempt from critical habitat
designation under section 4(a)(3)(B) of
the Act, and we are not including
approximately 13,010 ac (5,265 ha) of
habitat in this proposed revised critical
habitat designation because of this
exemption.
Fallbrook Naval Weapons Station
The Naval Weapons Station Seal
Beach, Detachment Fallbrook (Fallbrook
Naval Weapons Station), is the primary
west coast supply point of ordinance for
the U.S. Marine Corps and the large
deck amphibious assault ships of the
Pacific Fleet. The Fallbrook Naval
Weapons Station also has the only west
coast maintenance facility for airlaunched missiles for the Pacific Fleet.
The installation encompasses
approximately 8,852 acres (3,582 ha)
and is located within the southern
foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains of
northern San Diego County, adjacent to
the city of Fallbrook, California. It is
bounded to the north, west, and much
of the south by MCB Camp Pendleton,
with the Santa Margarita River forming
the common border on the north
between the two properties. Other than
training lands on MCB Camp Pendleton,
surrounding land use includes semirural agricultural lands that include
plant nurseries, avocado and citrus
groves, vineyards, and limited urban
development.
The Fallbrook Naval Weapons Station
INRMP is a planning document that
guides the management and
conservation of natural resources under
the installation’s control. The INRMP
was prepared to assist installation staff
and users in their efforts to support
mission operations and accommodate
increased military mission requirements
for national security and emergency
homeland security, while meeting all
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52641
environmental compliance
responsibilities. The INRMP also
provides ecosystem-based management
to preserve, protect, and enhance
natural resources on the installation,
and provides the organizational support
and communication links necessary for
effective planning, implementation, and
administration of the installation’s
natural resources. The Fallbrook Naval
Weapons Station completed its INRMP
in 2006 (which was updated from an
INRMP developed by the Naval
Ordnance Center Pacific Division in
1996) to address conservation and
management of its natural resources,
including conservation measures for the
arroyo toad (Fallbrook Naval Weapons
Station 2006, Chapter 3, pp. 108–110).
The arroyo toad primarily receives
protection from installation activities
because no training occurs on the
installation, and maintenance and
potential development activities
typically do not occur in arroyo toad
habitat due to the steep sloping
topography along the Santa Margarita
River that immediately surrounds the
suitable habitat. However, some impacts
could occur associated with activities
(such as fuel break grading, fire
management, and possible
infrastructure) that may impact the
arroyo toad and thus require
implementation of specified protection
measures. The INRMP identifies the
following management and protection
measures for the arroyo toad: (1)
Avoidance and minimization measures
applied to infrastructure development
and maintenance to protect the arroyo
toad that are part of the National
Environmental Policy Act approval
process; (2) placement of riparian filter
strip and buffer along firebreaks that
lead into riparian zones where arroyo
toads may be active; (3) avoidance of
firebreak maintenance and fire
suppression activities (where possible);
(4) avoidance of discing for firebreaks
leading to the Santa Margarita River
during arroyo toad dispersal periods; (5)
implementation of erosion and sediment
control; (6) timing and location
protections associated with prescribed
burns; (7) implementation of nonnative
vegetation control measures, including
removal of Arundo donax; (8)
implementation of standardized survey
methods; (9) evaluation and control of
nonnative bullfrogs; and (10)
implementation of long-term monitoring
activities, including upland sites
(Fallbrook Naval Weapons Station 2006,
Chapter 3, pp. 108–110).
The ongoing monitoring efforts
outlined in the INRMP (as listed above)
include surveys of sites at two or more
locations along the Santa Margarita
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
52642
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
River, which includes upland surveys
conducted every 5 years, offset from
breeding surveys by 2 years. Surveys are
also conducted after major alteration of
the flow regime (natural or
anthropogenic). Finally, the installation
conducts annual monitoring to track
arroyo toad populations as part of the
fire plan activities, with survey data
available since 2001 (Fallbrook Naval
Weapons Station 2006, Chapter 3, p.
109).
Environmental regulations and
restrictions apply to all threatened and
endangered species on the installation
(including the arroyo toad) and are
provided to all users of the installation
to guide activities and protect the
species and its habitat (Fallbrook Naval
Weapons Station 2006, Chapter 5, p.
25). Biennial meetings are held with the
Service to evaluate all management
items associated with threatened and
endangered species, including the
arroyo toad.
Based on the above considerations,
and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have
determined that conservation efforts
identified in the 2006 INRMP for the
Fallbrook Naval Weapons Station
provide a benefit to the arroyo toad, and
will benefit arroyo toads occurring on
the installation, which includes habitat
located in the Santa Margarita River
Basin (as identified in the recovery plan
(Service 1999, pp. 26–27). Therefore,
lands subject to the INRMP for the
Fallbrook Naval Weapons Station are
exempt from critical habitat designation
under section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act, and
we are not including approximately 223
ac (90 ha) of habitat in this proposed
revised critical habitat designation
because of this exemption.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Exclusions
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that
the Secretary must designate and revise
critical habitat on the basis of the best
available scientific data after taking into
consideration the economic impact,
national security impact, and any other
relevant impact of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from
critical habitat if he determines that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the
benefits of specifying such area as part
of the critical habitat, unless he
determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to
designate such area as critical habitat
will result in the extinction of the
species. In making that determination,
the legislative history is clear that the
Secretary has broad discretion regarding
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
which factor(s) to use and how much
weight to give to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider all relevant impacts, including
economic impacts. In compliance with
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are
preparing a new analysis of the
economic impacts of this proposed
revision to critical habitat for the arroyo
toad, to evaluate the potential economic
impact of the proposed revised
designation. We will announce the
availability of the draft economic
analysis as soon as it is completed, at
which time we will seek public review
and comment. At that time, copies of
the draft economic analysis will be
available for downloading from the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov,
or by contacting the Ventura Fish and
Wildlife Office or Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office directly (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). During
the development of the final revised
designation, we will consider economic
impacts, public comments, and other
new information, and areas, including
those identified for potential exclusion
in this proposed rule, may be excluded
from the final critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act and our implementing regulations at
50 CFR 424.19.
In addition to economic impacts, we
consider a number of factors in a section
4(b)(2) analysis. For example, we
consider whether there are lands owned
by the Department of Defense where a
national security impact might exist. We
also consider whether landowners have
developed any habitat conservation
plans (HCPs) or other management
plans for the area, or whether there are
conservation partnerships that would be
encouraged or discouraged by
designation of, or exclusion from,
critical habitat in an area. In addition,
we look at the presence of Tribal lands
or Tribal Trust resources that might be
affected, and consider the governmentto-government relationship of the
United States with the Tribal entities.
We also consider any social impacts that
might occur because of the designation.
As discussed in further detail in the
‘‘Habitat Conservation Plan Lands—
Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act’’ and ‘‘Tribal Lands—Exclusions
Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’
sections below, we have preliminarily
identified certain areas that we are
considering excluding from the final
revised critical habitat designation for
the arroyo toad under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act. However, we specifically solicit
comments on the inclusion or exclusion
of such areas (see Public Comments
section).
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Most federally listed species in the
United States will not recover without
the cooperation of non-Federal
landowners. More than 60 percent of the
United States is privately owned
(National Wilderness Institute 1995, p.
2), and at least 80 percent of endangered
or threatened species occur either
partially or solely on private lands
(Crouse et al. 2002, p. 720). Stein et al.
(1995, p. 400) found that only about 12
percent of listed species were found
almost exclusively on Federal lands (90
to 100 percent of their known
occurrences restricted to Federal lands)
and that 50 percent of federally listed
species are not known to occur on
Federal lands at all.
Given the distribution of listed
species with respect to land ownership,
conservation of listed species in many
parts of the United States is dependent
upon working partnerships with a wide
variety of entities and the voluntary
cooperation of many non-Federal
landowners (Wilcove and Chen 1998; p.
1407; Crouse et al. 2002; p. 720; James
2002, p. 271). Building partnerships and
promoting voluntary cooperation of
landowners are essential to our
understanding the status of species on
non-Federal lands, and necessary for us
to implement recovery actions such as
reintroducing listed species and
restoring and protecting habitat.
Many private landowners, however,
are wary of the possible consequences of
attracting endangered species to their
property. Mounting evidence suggests
that some regulatory actions by the
Federal Government, while wellintentioned and required by law, can
(under certain circumstances) have
unintended negative consequences for
the conservation of species on private
lands (Wilcove et al. 1996; pp. 5–6;
Bean 2002, pp. 2–3; Conner and
Mathews 2002, pp. 1–2; James 2002, pp.
270–271; Koch 2002, pp. 2–3; Brook et
al. 2003, pp. 1639–1643). Many
landowners fear a decline in their
property value due to real or perceived
restrictions on land-use options where
threatened or endangered species are
found. Consequently, harboring
endangered species is viewed by many
landowners as a liability. This
perception results in anti-conservation
incentives, because maintaining habitats
that harbor endangered species
represents a risk to future economic
opportunities (Main et al. 1999, pp.
1264–1265; Brook et al. 2003, pp. 1644–
1648).
The purpose of designating critical
habitat is to contribute to the
conservation of threatened and
endangered species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. The outcome
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
of the designation, triggering regulatory
requirements for actions funded,
authorized, or carried out by Federal
agencies under section 7(a)(2) of the
Act, can sometimes be
counterproductive to its intended
purpose on non-Federal lands. Thus, the
benefits of excluding areas that are
covered by effective partnerships or
other conservation commitments can
often be high.
Habitat Conservation Plans—Exclusions
Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act
authorizes us to issue permits to nonFederal entities for the take of listed
species incidental to otherwise lawful
activities. An incidental take permit
application must be supported by a
habitat conservation plan (HCP) that
identifies conservation measures that
the permittee agrees to implement for
the species to minimize and mitigate the
impacts of the requested incidental take.
We may exclude from critical habitat
designation non-Federal public lands
and private lands that are covered by an
existing operative HCP and any
applicable implementation agreement
under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, if
we make a determination that the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion as discussed in
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We are
considering whether to exclude lands
covered by the Western Riverside
County Multiple Species HCP (Western
Riverside County MSHCP), San Diego
Multiple Species Conservation Program
(MSCP), Coachella Valley MultipleSpecies HCP (Coachella Valley MSHCP),
the Southern Orange County Natural
Community Conservation Plan (NCCP)/
Master Streambed Alteration
Agreement/HCP (Southern Orange
HCP), and the Orange County Central–
Coastal Subregional NCCP/HCP (Orange
County Central–Coastal NCCP/HCP) (see
the ‘‘Habitat Conservation Plan Lands—
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act’’ section below).
If the Secretary decides to exercise his
discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the
52643
Act, the following areas of habitat are
being considered for possible exclusion
from final revised critical habitat for the
arroyo toad: 6,386 ac (2,583 ha) in the
Western Riverside County MSHCP
(Units 9 and 13); 8,942 ac (3,620 ha) in
the San Diego MSCP–City and County of
San Diego’s Subarea Plans (Subunits
16a, 17b, 17d, 18a, 18c, and 19b); 538
ac (218 ha) in the Coachella Valley
MSHCP (Unit 23); 1,497 ac (606 ha) in
the Orange County Central–Coastal
NCCP/HCP; and 4,407 ac (1,784 ha) in
the Southern Orange HCP (Subunit 10a
and Subunit 11a).
Table 3 below provides approximate
areas (in acres and hectares) of lands
that meet the definition of critical
habitat but are exempt from designation
under section 4(a)(3) of the Act (see
‘‘Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the
Act’’ section above) or the Service is
considering for possible exclusion
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the
final revised critical habitat rule.
TABLE 3—EXEMPTIONS AND POTENTIAL EXCLUSIONS FROM PROPOSED REVISED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE ARROYO
TOAD
Acres
Hectares
Exemptions Under Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
Military Lands:
Fort Hunter Liggett Military Reservation ..........................................................................................................
Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton .............................................................................................................
Fallbrook Naval Weapons Station ....................................................................................................................
6,453
13,010
223
2,612
5,265
90
Total ...........................................................................................................................................................
19,686
7,967
Potential Exclusions Considered Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
6,386
2,583
8,942
538
3,620
218
4,407
1,784
1,497
606
Total ...........................................................................................................................................................
21,770
8,811
Tribal Lands:
˜
Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Tribal Lands ....................................................................................
˜
Pala Band of Luiseno Mission Indians .............................................................................................................
Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Tribal Lands .......................................................................................
Capitan Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians ........................................................................................
Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians ...........................................................................................
1,155
2,385
391
92
23
467
963
158
37
9
Total ...........................................................................................................................................................
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Habitat Conservation Plans:
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) ........................................
City of San Diego and County of San Diego Subarea Plans under the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) ...........................................................................................................................
Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Coachella Valley MSHCP) ...........................
Southern Orange Natural Community Conservation Plan/Master Streambed Alteration Agreement/Habitat
Conservation Plan (Southern Orange HCP) ................................................................................................
Orange County-Coastal Subregional Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan
(Orange County Central–Coastal NCCP/HCP ) ...........................................................................................
4,046
1,634
Values in table may not sum due to rounding.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
52644
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Western Riverside County Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(Western Riverside County MSHCP)
The Western Riverside County
MSHCP is a large-scale, multijurisdictional HCP encompassing about
1.26 million ac (510,000 ha) in western
Riverside County (including lands
within Units 9 and 13). The Western
Riverside County MSHCP addresses 146
listed and unlisted ‘‘covered species,’’
including the arroyo toad. Participants
in the Western Riverside County
MSHCP include 14 cities; the County of
Riverside, including the Riverside
County Flood Control and Water
Conservation Agency (County Flood
Control), Riverside County
Transportation Commission, Riverside
County Parks and Open Space District,
and Riverside County Waste
Department; California State Parks; and
the California Department of
Transportation. The Western Riverside
County MSHCP was designed to
establish a multi-species conservation
program that minimizes and mitigates
the expected loss of habitat and the
incidental take of covered species. On
June 22, 2004, the Service issued a
single incidental take permit (Service
2004, p. 140) under section 10(a)(1)(B)
of the Act to 22 permittees under the
Western Riverside County MSHCP for a
period of 75 years. For the reasons
discussed under the ‘‘Application of
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’ section of
this rule, if the Secretary decides to
exercise his discretion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, we are considering
the possible exclusion of non-Federal
lands that meet the definition of critical
habitat within the Western Riverside
County MSHCP from the final
designation. Specifically, we are
considering the exclusion of 6,386 ac
(2,583 ha) in Units 9 and 13.
The Western Riverside County
MSHCP will establish approximately
153,000 ac (61,917 ha) of new
conservation lands (Additional Reserve
Lands) to complement the
approximately 347,000 ac (140,426 ha)
of pre-existing natural and open space
areas (Public/Quasi-Public lands). These
Public/Quasi-Public lands include those
under Federal ownership, primarily
Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management lands, and also permitteeowned or controlled open-space areas
(such as wildlife habitat within State
and County parks). Collectively, the
Additional Reserve Lands and Public/
Quasi-Public lands form the overall
Western Riverside County MSHCP
Conservation Area. The configuration of
the 153,000 ac (61,916 ha) of Additional
Reserve Lands is not mapped or
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
precisely identified (‘‘hard-lined’’) in
the Western Riverside County MSHCP,
but rather is based on textual
descriptions of the type of habitat
conservation necessary to meet the
conservation goals for all covered
species within the bounds of the
approximately 310,000-ac (125,453-ha)
Criteria Area as implementation of the
Western Riverside County MSHCP takes
place. We internally mapped a
‘‘Conceptual Reserve Design’’ that
illustrates existing Public/Quasi-Public
lands and predicts the geographic
distribution of the Additional Reserve
Lands based on our interpretation of the
textual descriptions of habitat
conservation necessary to meet
conservation goals.
Specific conservation objectives in the
Western Riverside County MSHCP for
the arroyo toad include conserving
9,695 ac (3,914 ha) of occupied habitat
or suitable habitat for the species in the
Western Riverside County MSHCP
Conservation Area (Service 2004, p.
163). This acreage goal can be attained
through acquisition or other dedications
of land assembled from within the
Criteria Area (the Additional Reserve
Lands) and through coordinated
management of existing Public/QuasiPublic lands. (See paragraph below for
discussion of amount of habitat
expected to be conserved on Additional
Reserve Lands.) Preservation and
management of arroyo toad habitat
under the Western Riverside County
MSHCP will contribute to the
conservation and ultimate recovery of
this species. The arroyo toad is
threatened primarily by: Alterations of
stream hydrology and geomorphology;
development; agriculture, including
livestock grazing; recreational activities;
and nonnative species (Service 2004,
pp. 156–158). The Western Riverside
County MSHCP removes or reduces
threats to this species and its PCEs by
placing large blocks of occupied and
unoccupied habitat into preservation
throughout the Conservation Area.
Areas identified for preservation and
conservation include nine of the known
occurrences along portions of San Juan
Creek, Los Alamos Creek, San Jacinto
River, Indian Creek, Bautista Creek,
Wilson Creek, Temecula Creek, Arroyo
Seco, and Vail Lake. The Western
Riverside County MSHCP will maintain
ecological processes within the MSHCP
Conservation Area given existing
constraints and activities covered under
the MSHCP along portions of San Juan
Creek, San Jacinto River, Indian Creek,
Bautista Creek, Wilson Creek, Temecula
Creek, Arroyo Seco, and Vail Lake.
Additionally, the Western Riverside
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
County MSHCP requires surveys for the
arroyo toad as part of the project review
process for public and private projects
where suitable habitat is present within
defined survey areas (see Amphibian
Species Survey Area Map, Figure 6–3 of
the Western Riverside County MSHCP,
Volume I in Dudek and Associates, Inc.
2003). For locations with positive
survey results, 90 percent of those
portions of the property that provide
long-term conservation value for the
species will be avoided until it is
demonstrated that the conservation
objectives for the species are met (see
Additional Survey Needs and
Procedures, Western Riverside County
MSHCP, Volume 1, section 6.3.2 in
Dudek and Associates, Inc. 2003). Once
the species-specific objectives are met,
avoided areas would be evaluated to
determine whether they should be
released for development or included in
the MSHCP Conservation Area.
The survey requirements, avoidance
and minimization measures, and
management for the arroyo toad—(and
its PCEs) provided for in the Western
Riverside County MSHCP are expected
to benefit this species on public and
private lands covered by the plan. We
are considering the exclusion of
approximately 6,386 ac (2,583 ha) of
private lands in Units 9 and 13 within
the Western Riverside County MSHCP
Plan Area from the final revised critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act. Projects in the areas
proposed as critical habitat that occur
on these lands are subject to approval by
Western Riverside County MSHCP
permittees, therefore the conservation
requirements of the MSHCP would
apply. At this time, approximately 43 ac
(38 ha) within Units 9 and 13 have been
acquired for conservation under the
Western Riverside County MSHCP. Our
Conceptual Reserve Design indicates
that another 68 percent (4,359 ac (1,764
ha)) of the lands in Units 9 and 13 that
we are considering for exclusion will
likely be acquired for conservation as
Additional Reserve Lands. Of the
remaining 31 percent of lands in Units
9 and 13 that we are considering for
exclusion, 1,814 ac (728 ha), or 91
percent, of these lands are within the
Western Riverside County MSHCP
survey area for the arroyo toad and are
subject to the Additional Survey Needs
and Procedures Policy described above.
The Western Riverside County
MSHCP incorporates processes that
allow for Service oversight and
participation in program
implementation. These processes
include: (1) Consultation with the
Service on a long-term management and
monitoring plan; (2) submission of
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
annual monitoring reports; (3) annual
status meetings with the Service; and (4)
submission of annual implementation
reports to the Service (Service 2004, pp.
18–23).
In summary, we are considering
exclusion of 6,386 ac (2,583 ha) of
arroyo toad habitat on private lands in
Units 9 and 13 that meet the definition
of critical habitat for arroyo toad within
the Western Riverside County MSHCP
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The
1994 final listing rule for arroyo toad
identified the following primary threats
to the arroyo toad: habitat degradation,
predation, and small population size (59
FR 64866). The implementation of the
Western Riverside County MSHCP helps
to address these threats through a
regional planning effort, and outlines
species-specific objectives and criteria
for the conservation of the arroyo toad.
We will analyze the benefits of
inclusion and exclusion of this area
from proposed revised critical habitat
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We
encourage any public comment in
relation to our consideration of the areas
in Units 9 and 13 for inclusion or
exclusion (see Public Comments section
above).
San Diego Multiple Species
Conservation Plan (MSCP–City and
County of San Diego’s Subarea Plans
The MSCP is a framework HCP that
has been in place for more than a
decade. The plan area encompasses
approximately 582,243 ac (235,626 ha)
(County of San Diego 1997, p. 1–1; City
of San Diego 1998, pp. 2–1, and 4–2 to
4–4) and provides for conservation of 85
federally listed and sensitive species
(‘‘covered species’’) through the
establishment and management of
approximately 171,920 ac (69,574 ha) of
preserve lands within the Multi-Habitat
Planning Area (City of San Diego) and
Pre-Approved Mitigation Areas (County
of San Diego). The MSCP was developed
in support of applications for incidental
take permits for several federally listed
species by 12 participating jurisdictions
and many other stakeholders in
southwestern San Diego County. Under
the umbrella of the MSCP, each of the
12 participating jurisdictions is required
to prepare a subarea plan that
implements the goals of the MSCP
within that particular jurisdiction.
Separate Subarea Plans for the County
of San Diego and the City of San Diego
have been completed and include
evaluations of the arroyo toad. For the
reasons discussed under the
‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act’’ section of this rule, if the Secretary
decides to exercise his discretion under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
considering the possible exclusion of
lands that meet the definition of critical
habitat within the City of San Diego
Subarea Plan and County of San Diego
Subarea Plan. Specifically, we are
considering the exclusion of 8,942 ac
(3,620 ha) in Subunits 16a, 17b, 17d,
18a, 18c, and 19b.
Upon completion of preserve
assembly, approximately 171,920 ac
(69,574 ha) of the 582,243-ac (235,626ha) MSCP plan area will be preserved
(City of San Diego 1998, pp. 2–1, and 4–
2 to 4–4). The City of San Diego’s
preserve is delineated by mapped
preserve boundaries referred to as
‘‘hardline’’ boundaries (the MultiHabitat Planning Area). The County of
San Diego has both ‘‘hardline’’
boundaries as well as preserve areas that
do not have ‘‘hardline’’ boundaries. In
areas where the ‘‘hardlines’’ are not
defined, the County’s subarea plan
identifies areas where mitigation
activities should be focused to assemble
its preserve areas (the Pre-Approved
Mitigation Areas). Those areas of the
MSCP preserve that are already
conserved, as well as those areas that
are designated for inclusion in the
preserve under the plan, are referred to
as the ‘‘preserve area’’ in this proposed
revised critical habitat designation.
When the preserve is completed, the
public sector (Federal, State, and local
government, and the general public)
will have contributed 108,750 ac
(44,010 ha) (63.3 percent) to the
preserve, of which 81,750 ac (33,083 ha)
(48 percent) was existing public land
when the MSCP was established and
27,000 ac (10,927 ha) (16 percent) will
have been acquired. At completion, the
private sector will have contributed
63,170 ac (25,564 ha) (37 percent) to the
preserve as part of the development
process, either through avoidance of
impacts or as compensatory mitigation
for impacts to biological resources
outside the preserve. Federal and State
governments, local jurisdictions and
special districts, and managers of
privately owned lands currently and in
the future will manage and monitor
their lands in the preserve for species
and habitat protection (City of San
Diego 1998, pp. 2–1, and 4–2 to 4–4).
Private lands within the Multi-Habitat
Planning Area and Pre-Approved
Mitigation Areas are subject to special
restrictions on development, and lands
that are dedicated to the preserve must
be legally protected and permanently
managed to conserve the covered
species. Public lands owned by the City,
County, State of California, and the
Federal Government that are identified
for conservation under the MSCP must
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52645
also be protected and permanently
managed to protect the covered species.
Numerous processes are incorporated
into the MSCP that allow our oversight
of the MSCP implementation. For
example, the MSCP imposes annual
reporting requirements and provides for
our review and approval of proposed
subarea plan amendments and preserve
boundary adjustments and for Service
review and comment on projects during
the California Environmental Quality
Act review process. We also chair the
MSCP Habitat Management Technical
Committee and the Monitoring
Subcommittee (City of San Diego 1998,
pp. 5–11 to 5–23). Each MSCP subarea
plan must account annually for the
progress it is making in assembling
conservation areas. We must receive
annual reports that include, both by
project and cumulatively, the habitat
acreage destroyed and conserved within
the subareas. This accounting process
ensures that habitat conservation
proceeds in rough proportion to habitat
loss and in compliance with the MSCP
subarea plans and the plans’ associated
implementing agreements.
The subarea plans under the MSCP
contain requirements to monitor and
adaptively manage arroyo toad habitat
and provide for the conservation of this
species’ PCEs. The framework and areaspecific management plans are
comprehensive and address a broad
range of management needs at the
preserve and species levels that are
intended to reduce the threats to
covered species and thereby contribute
to the recovery of the species. These
plans include the following: (1) Fire
management, which includes deferring
to the California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection for management
activities; (2) public access control; (3)
fencing and gates; (4) ranger patrol; (5)
trail maintenance; (6) visitor,
interpretive, and volunteer services; (7)
hydrological management; (8) signage
and lighting; (9) trash and litter removal;
(10) access road maintenance; (11)
enforcement of property or homeowner
requirements; (12) removal of invasive
species; (13) nonnative predator control;
(14) species monitoring; (15) habitat
restoration; (16) management for diverse
age classes of covered species; (17) use
of herbicides and rodenticides; (18)
biological surveys; (19) research; and
(20) species management conditions
(City of San Diego 1998, pp. 6–7).
Specific conservation objectives for
the arroyo toad in the subarea plans
under the MSCP include preservation of
all known (breeding) locations of this
species and minimization of impacts to
uplands areas within the MSCP
planning area. Additionally, impacts to
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
52646
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
the species will be minimized within
the preserve through required
implementation of area-specific
management directives, which must
address maintenance of arroyo toad
populations through control of
nonnative predators, protection and
maintenance of sufficient suitable lowgradient sandy stream habitat (including
appropriate water quality) to meet
breeding requirements, and preservation
of sheltering and foraging habitat within
0.62 mi (1 km) of breeding habitat that
supports or is likely to support the
arroyo toad (City of San Diego 1997, p.
142; Service 1997, pp. 80, 102).
At this time, 10 years into the
implementation of the City and County
of San Diego’s subarea plans,
approximately 1,622 ac (656 ha), or 19
percent, of lands that we are considering
for exclusion have been conserved. An
additional 2,891 ac (1,170 ha), or 34
percent, are targeted for conservation in
accordance with the subarea plans
inside the Pre-Approved Mitigation
Areas and Multi-Habitat Planning Area.
Similarly, although some areas placed
in conservation are not yet fully
managed, such management will occur
over time as the subarea plans continue
to be implemented.
In summary, we are considering
exclusion of 8,942 ac (3,620 ha) of
arroyo toad habitat on non-Federal
lands in Subunits 16a, 17b, 17d, 18a,
18c, and 19b that meet the definition of
critical habitat for arroyo toad within
the City of San Diego’s Subarea Plan and
the County of San Diego’s Subarea Plan
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, of
which 19 percent (1,593 ac (644 ha))
have been conserved. The 1994 final
listing rule for arroyo toad identified the
following primary threats to the arroyo
toad: habitat degradation, predation,
and small population size (59 FR
64866). The implementation of both
subarea plans helps to address these
threats through a regional planning
effort rather than through a project-byproject approach, and outlines speciesspecific objectives and criteria for the
conservation of the arroyo toad. We will
analyze the benefits of inclusion and
exclusion of the areas within the
jurisdictions of each subarea plan from
critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act. We encourage any public
comment in relation to our
consideration of the areas in Subunits
16a, 17d, 18a, 18c, and 19b for inclusion
or exclusion (see Public Comments
section above).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
Coachella Valley Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (Coachella
Valley MSHCP)
The Coachella Valley MSHCP is a
large-scale, multi-jurisdictional habitat
conservation plan encompassing about
1.1 million ac (445,156 ha) in the
Coachella Valley of Riverside County
(including lands within Unit 23). An
additional 69,000 ac (27,923) of Indian
Reservation lands are not included in
the Coachella Valley MSHCP, but are
within the plan area boundary. The
Coachella Valley MSHCP addresses 27
listed and unlisted ‘‘covered species,’’
including arroyo toad. Participants in
the Coachella Valley MSHCP include
eight cities (Cathedral City, Coachella,
Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm
Desert, Palm Springs, and Rancho
Mirage); the County of Riverside,
including the Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation
District, Riverside County Parks and
Open Space District, Riverside County
Waste Management District; the
Coachella Valley Association of
Governments; Coachella Valley Water
District; Imperial Irrigation District;
California Department of
Transportation; California State Parks;
Coachella Valley Mountains
Conservancy; and the Coachella Valley
Conservation Commission (the created
joint powers regional authority). The
Coachella Valley MSHCP was designed
to establish a multiple species habitat
conservation program that minimizes
and mitigates the expected loss of
habitat and the incidental take of
covered species. On October 1, 2008, the
Service issued a single incidental take
permit (TE–104604–0) under section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act to 19 permittees
under the Coachella Valley MSHCP for
a period of 75 years. For the reasons
discussed under the ‘‘Application of
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’ section of
this rule, if the Secretary decides to
exercise his discretion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, we are considering
the possible exclusion of lands that
meet the definition of critical habitat
within the Coachella Valley MSHCP.
Specifically, we are considering the
exclusion of 538 ac (218 ha) in Unit 23.
The Coachella Valley MSHCP will
establish an approximately 721,457-ac
(291,964-ha) Reserve System comprised
of 557,100 ac (225,451 ha) of Existing
Conservation Lands, up to 29,990 ac
(12,137 ha) of Complementary
Conservation, and up to 8,777 ac (3,552
ha) of Public and Quasi-Public lands.
The permittees will mitigate for the
impacts of the take on covered species
by conserving 96,400 ac (39,012 ha)
(7,500 ac (3,035 ha) of existing local
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
permittee lands and 88,900 ac (35,977
ha) of new conservation) of habitat and
perpetually managing 125,590 ac
(50,825 ha) within the Reserve System.
The location and configuration of the
88,900 ac (35,977 ha) of new local
permittee mitigation lands and the
21,390 ac (8,656 ha) that will be
acquired through State and Federal
contributions are not precisely mapped,
but will be assembled from the 21
conservation areas identified in the
Coachella Valley MSHCP. Within each
conservation area, 90 percent of each
natural community within each
jurisdiction will be conserved and no
more than 10 percent of the habitat will
be lost. In general, the design of the
overall Reserve System was intended to
capture core habitats, ecological
processes, and biological corridors and
linkages. The permittees’ collection and
use of development mitigation fees,
landfill tipping fees, and other funding
specified in the Coachella Valley
MSHCP and related documents will be
used to acquire, protect, and manage the
Reserve System in perpetuity. The
permittees, the State, and Service will
work cooperatively to enter into a
Memorandum of Understanding or other
appropriate agreements with Federal,
State, and non-governmental
organization land managers to
cooperatively manage the Existing
Conservation Lands in conformance
with the MSHCP. In addition, the
Coachella Valley MSHCP includes
measures to avoid and minimize
impacts on covered species resulting
from covered activities.
The Coachella Valley MSHCP plan
area includes about 2,095 ac (846 ha) of
suitable arroyo toad habitat (Dudek and
CVAG 2007, pp. 9–88) of which
approximately 1,301 ac (526 ha) contain
the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species. Of suitable habitat, 2,082 ac
(841 ha) are identified in the Coachella
Valley MSHCP as ‘‘Core Habitat’’ for the
species. Core Habitat is defined as areas
of habitat that: (1) Are of sufficient size
to support a self-sustaining population
for the species; (2) are not fragmented in
a way to cause separation into isolated
populations; (3) have functional
essential ecological processes; and (4)
have effective biological corridors or
linkages to other habitats, where
feasible, to allow gene flow among
populations (Dudek and CVAG 2007, p.
xxxi). Specific conservation goals,
conservation objectives, and required
measures for the arroyo toad in the
Coachella Valley MSHCP include
protection of 2,007 ac (810 ha) of arroyo
toad habitat comprised of 2,004 ac (809
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
ha) (96 percent) of Core Habitat along
with 3 ac (1 ha) of Other Conserved
Habitat (land that is permanently
protected and managed for the benefit of
the species) (Dudek and CVAG 2007,
pp. xxxi, 9–88). Of the habitat identified
for protection in the Reserve System,
approximately 1,301 ac (525 ha) are on
Bureau of Land Management lands
(Existing Conservation Lands) and are
anticipated to be managed pending a
Memorandum of Understanding with
the Bureau of Land Management
(Service 2008, p. 176). The remaining
706 ac (285 ha) will be acquired from
willing sellers on private lands (Dudek
and CVAG 2007, pp. 9–87). We are
considering for exclusion approximately
538 ac (218 ha) of non-Federal lands
that meet the definition of critical
habitat for the arroyo toad within the
Coachella Valley MSHCP. Of these
lands, approximately 483 ac (195 ha), or
90 percent, are within Core Habitat
areas.
The Coachella Valley MSHCP Reserve
System will protect and manage Core
Habitat areas for the arroyo toad in
perpetuity. The Coachella Valley
MSHCP provides for management and
monitoring programs to ensure the
conservation of this species, including
control of activities that adversely
impact water quality and the
hydrological regime, disturbance from
recreational activity in sensitive areas,
control of invasive species where
necessary, and restoration and
enhancement of degraded habitat as
necessary (Dudek and CVAG 2007, pp.
9–89). Additionally, the Coachella
Valley MSHCP includes an educational
program for residents and visitors in
Whitewater Canyon to inform them
about the arroyo toad and its
conservation needs (Dudek and CVAG
2007, pp. 9–89).
At this time, approximately 481 ac
(195 ha), or 89 percent, of lands that we
are considering for exclusion have been
acquired for conservation under the
Coachella Valley MSHCP. In addition,
45 ac (18 ha) that meet the definition of
critical habitat are not identified as
either Core or Other Conserved Habitat
by the Coachella Valley MSHCP, but fall
within Conservation Areas under the
Coachella Valley MSHCP. We anticipate
that 41 ac (17 ha), or 90 percent, of these
lands will be conserved under the
Coachella Valley MSHCP.
In summary, we are considering
exclusion of 538 ac (218 ha) of arroyo
toad habitat on non-Federal lands in
Unit 23 that meets the definition of
critical habitat for arroyo toad within
the Coachella Valley MSHCP under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, of which 89
percent (481 ac (195 ha)) have been
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
conserved. The 1994 final listing rule
for arroyo toad identified the following
primary threats to the arroyo toad:
habitat degradation, predation, and
small population size (59 FR 64866).
The implementation of the Coachella
Valley MSHCP helps to address these
threats through a regional planning
effort, and outlines species-specific
objectives and criteria for the
conservation of the arroyo toad. We will
analyze the benefits of inclusion and
exclusion of this area from critical
habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
We encourage any public comment in
relation to our consideration of the areas
in Unit 23 for inclusion or exclusion
(see Public Comments section above).
Orange County Central–Coastal
Subregional Habitat Conservation Plan/
Natural Community Conservation Plan
(Orange County Central–Coastal NCCP/
HCP)
The Orange County Central–Coastal
NCCP/HCP in central Orange County
(Unit 8) was developed in cooperation
with numerous local and State
jurisdictions and agencies, and
participating landowners, including the
cities of Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Irvine,
Orange, and San Juan Capistrano;
Southern California Edison;
Transportation Corridor Agencies; The
Irvine Company; California Department
of Parks and Recreation; Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California;
and Orange County. Approved in 1996,
the Orange County Central–Coastal
NCCP/HCP provides for the
establishment of approximately 38,738
ac (15,677 ha) of reserve lands for 39
covered species within the 208,713-ac
(84,463-ha) planning area. We issued an
incidental take permit under section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act that provides
conditional incidental take
authorization for the arroyo toad for all
areas within the Orange County
Central–Coastal Subregion, except the
North Ranch Policy Plan Area. This take
authorization only applies to smaller
arroyo toad populations, reintroduced
populations, or populations that have
expanded due to NCCP/HCP reserve
management. It also requires
implementation of a mitigation plan to
relocate toads to protected areas within
reserves, when necessary. For the
reasons discussed under the
‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act’’ section of this rule, we are
considering the possible exclusion of
lands that meet the definition of critical
habitat within the Orange County
Central–Coastal NCCP/HCP.
Specifically, we are considering the
exclusion of 1,497 ac (606 ha) in Unit
8.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52647
The North Ranch Policy Plan Area
was excluded from take authorization
provided under the Orange County
Central–Coastal NCCP/HCP due to a
lack of detailed biological information
and specific conservation commitments
at the time of adoption of the NCCP/
HCP. We have since determined that
arroyo toad habitat within the North
Ranch Policy Plan Area meets the
definition of critical habitat for the
arroyo toad in that it has the features
essential to the conservation of the
species and because it helps support a
viable Santa Ana Mountain arroyo toad
population. In 2002, the owner, The
Irvine Company, granted a conservation
easement to The Nature Conservancy
over a portion of the North Ranch Policy
Plan Area and has taken steps to
conserve this area, including a $10
million management endowment.
Approximately 761 ac (308 ha), or 51
percent, of lands that we are considering
for exclusion fall within the
conservation easement.
The Orange County Central–Coastal
NCCP/HCP’s reserve system includes
approximately 592 ac (240 ha), or 40
percent, of lands that we are considering
for exclusion. The Orange County
Central–Coastal NCCP/HCP provides for
monitoring of covered species,
including the arroyo toad, and adaptive
management for covered species and
their habitat within this reserve system.
Adaptive management activities may
include a program to control nonnative
predators, such as bullfrogs, clawed
frogs, and nonnative fishes. To date,
monitoring related to arroyo toad has
consisted of reserve-wide herpetofauna
surveys conducted from 1997 through
2001 and management activities with
potential to benefit arroyo toad, which
include ongoing control of invasive
nonnative vegetation in the upland
environment throughout the reserve
system.
The Orange County Central–Coastal
NCCP/HCP requires the implementation
of a mitigation plan if a planned activity
results in take of arroyo toads. The
mitigation plan will: (1) Address design
modifications and other on-site
measures that are consistent with the
project’s purposes, minimize impacts,
and provide appropriate protections for
the arroyo toad; (2) provide for arroyo
toad relocation to a location acceptable
to the Service and California
Department of Fish and Game, coupled
with compensatory habitat
management/enhancement activities at
the relocation site; and (3) provide for
monitoring and adaptive management of
arroyo toads and their habitat.
In summary, we are considering
exclusion of 1,497 ac (606 ha) of arroyo
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
52648
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
toad habitat on permittee-owned or
controlled lands in Unit 8 that meets the
definition of critical habitat for arroyo
toad within the Orange County Central–
Coastal Subregional NCCP/HCP under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Approximately 51 percent (761 ac (308
ha)) of these lands are conserved within
the North Ranch Policy Plan Area and
another 40 percent (592 ac (240 ha)) are
conserved within this NCCP/HCP’s
reserve system. The 1994 final listing
rule for arroyo toad identified the
following primary threats to the arroyo
toad: habitat degradation, predation,
and small population size (59 FR
64866). The implementation of the
Orange County Central–Coastal
Subregional NCCP/HCP helps to address
these threats through a regional
planning effort, and outlines speciesspecific objectives and criteria for the
conservation of the arroyo toad. We will
analyze the benefits of inclusion and
exclusion of this area from critical
habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
We encourage any public comment in
relation to our consideration of the areas
in Unit 8 for inclusion or exclusion (see
Public Comments section above).
Southern Orange County Natural
Community Conservation Plan/Master
Streambed Alteration Agreement/
Habitat Conservation Plan (Southern
Orange HCP)
The Southern Orange HCP is a largescale multi-jurisdictional HCP
encompassing approximately 86,021 ac
(34,811 ha) in southern Orange County
(including lands within Subunit 10a
and Subunit 11a). The Southern Orange
HCP was developed by the County of
Orange (County), Rancho Mission Viejo,
and the Santa Margarita Water District
(Water District) to address impacts to 32
species, including the arroyo toad,
resulting from residential and associated
infrastructure development. On January
10, 2007, the Service issued incidental
take permits (Service 2007, p. 431)
under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act to
the three permittees for a period of 75
years. For the reasons discussed under
the ‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act’’ section of this rule, we are
considering the possible exclusion of
lands that meet the definition of critical
habitat within the Southern Orange
HCP. Specifically, we are considering
the exclusion of 4,407 ac (1,784 ha) in
Subunit 10a and Subunit 11a.
The Southern Orange HCP will
establish approximately 30,426 ac
(12,313 ha) of habitat reserve (Service
2007, p. 19). The HCP provides for a
large, biologically diverse and
permanent habitat reserve that will
protect: (1) Large blocks of natural
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
vegetation communities that provide
habitat for the covered species; (2)
‘‘important’’ and ‘‘major’’ populations of
the covered species in key locations; (3)
wildlife corridors and habitat linkages
that connect the large habitat blocks and
covered species populations to each
other, the Cleveland National Forest,
and the adjacent Orange County
Central–Coastal NCCP/HCP; and (4) the
underlying hydrogeomorphic processes
that support the major vegetation
communities providing habitat for the
covered species (Service 2007, p. 10).
Habitat for the arroyo toad was
modeled during the Southern Orange
HCP process. Specific conservation
goals in the Southern Orange HCP for
the arroyo toad include the conservation
and management of 1,322 ac (534 ha) of
HCP-modeled habitat within Rancho
Mission Viejo (Service 2007, p. 59), of
which approximately 1,208 ac (489 ha),
or 28 percent, meet the definition of
critical habitat. An additional 2,297 ac
(943 ha), or 52 percent, of lands that we
are considering for exclusion fall
outside of the HCP-modeled habitat, but
entirely within Southern Orange HCP’s
habitat reserve. Thus, Southern Orange
HCP’s habitat reserve encompasses
3,505 ac (1415 ha), or 80 percent, of
lands that we are considering for
exclusion. While not all habitat in the
reserve will be conserved, the habitat
reserve will contain habitat to support
all of the known populations in Rancho
Mission Viejo and County lands,
including San Juan Creek, Talega
Canyon, Bell Canyon, and Lower
Cristianitos Creek/Lower Gabino
Canyon (Service 2007, p. 62). Following
implementation of the HCP, all of the
known populations will be conserved as
follows:
(1) Almost all of the documented
breeding habitat will be conserved;
(2) Only a small portion (a maximum
of 28 of 650 ac (11 of 263 ha), or 4
percent) of HCP-modeled habitat for
arroyo toad in the San Mateo Creek
watershed (Subunit 11a) will be
impacted. The conservation and
management of all breeding habitat and
remaining upland habitat is anticipated
to maintain the populations in Talega
Creek and lower Cristianitos Creek/
lower Gabino Canyon;
(3) Implementation of the HCP will
impact a substantial portion (402 of
1,074 ac (163 of 435 ha), or 37 percent)
of HCP-modeled upland habitat for
arroyo toad along San Juan Creek
(Subunit 10a) on Rancho Mission Viejo.
However, the conservation and
management of breeding habitat and
remaining upland habitat in San Juan
Creek combined with the alreadyconserved habitat in Bell Canyon
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(Subunit 10a) on County land and
restoration of 24 ac (10 ha) of breeding
habitat in upper San Juan Creek on
County land is anticipated to maintain
the population along San Juan Creek;
and
(4) The population in Bell Canyon
and the portion of the population in
upper San Juan Creek (Subunit 10a) are
already conserved on County land and
will be cooperatively managed by the
County (Service 2007, p. 67).
In addition to the creation of a habitat
reserve, the following conservation
measures specified in the Southern
Orange HCP will contribute to the
protection and management of arroyo
toad habitat:
(1) Potential impacts to arroyo toads
associated with construction activities
on Rancho Mission Viejo will be
avoided and minimized through
preparation of Biological Resources
Construction Plans in coordination with
the Service;
(2) Potential impacts to arroyo toad
habitat from grazing activities will be
addressed through implementation of
the Grazing Management Plan, which
includes the management of grazing
activities and restoration of upland
habitat with native grasses and coastal
sage scrub;
(3) Implementation of the Invasive
Species Control Plan on Rancho Mission
Viejo will result in removal of nonnative
plant species that degrade aquatic
habitats and removal of aquatic
predators of the arroyo toad;
(4) Through Water Quality
Management Plans, flow duration
(which influences channel morphology)
and water quality will be maintained
such that hydrologic conditions of
concern such as erosion or
sedimentation or pollutants of concern
will be addressed; and
(5) A detailed monitoring program for
the arroyo toad that includes monitoring
conducted both at a species-specific
level and also at a habitat-landscape
level will be developed in coordination
with the Service (Service 2007, pp. 62–
64).
In summary, we are considering
exclusion of 4,407 ac (1,784 ha) of
arroyo toad habitat on permittee-owned
or controlled lands in Subunit 10a and
Subunit 11a that meets the definition of
critical habitat for arroyo toad within
the Southern Orange HCP under section
4(b)(2) of the Act. Although not all lands
proposed as critical habitat that are
targeted for preservation and
management within the Southern
Orange HCP have been officially
dedicated to the preserve system, we
believe that all conservation anticipated
under the Southern Orange HCP will
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
occur. The 1994 final listing rule for
arroyo toad identified the following
primary threats to the arroyo toad:
habitat degradation, predation, and
small population size (59 FR 64866).
The implementation of the Southern
Orange HCP helps to address these
threats through a regional planning
effort, and outlines species-specific
objectives and criteria for the
conservation of the arroyo toad. We will
analyze the benefits of inclusion and
exclusion of this area from critical
habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
We encourage any public comment in
relation to our consideration of the areas
in Subunit 10a and Subunit 11a for
inclusion or exclusion (see Public
Comments section above).
Tribal Lands—Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
In accordance with the Secretarial
Order 3206, ‘‘American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act’’ (June 5, 1997); the
President’s memorandum of April 29,
1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government
Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments’’ (59 FR 22951); Executive
Order 13175; and the relevant provision
of the Departmental Manual of the
Department of the Interior (512 DM 2),
we believe that fish, wildlife, and other
natural resources on tribal lands are
better managed under tribal authorities,
policies, and programs than through
Federal regulation wherever possible
and practicable. Based on this
philosophy, we believe that, in most
cases, designation of tribal lands as
critical habitat provides very little
additional benefit to threatened and
endangered species. Conversely, such
designation is often viewed by tribes as
unwarranted and an unwanted intrusion
into tribal self-governance, thus
compromising the government-togovernment relationship essential to
achieving our mutual goals of managing
for healthy ecosystems upon which the
viability of threatened and endangered
species populations depend. We will
take into consideration our partnerships
and existing conservation actions that
tribes have or are currently
implementing when conducting our
exclusion analysis in the final revised
critical habitat designation. We will also
take into consideration conservation
actions that are planned (such as a
Memorandum of Understanding
addressing arroyo toad conservation that
is under development between the
Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and
affected tribes (as discussed in detail
below)) as part of our on-going
commitment to the government-to-
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
government relationship with tribes. If
the Secretary decides to exercise his
discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, we are considering lands covered
by the tribes identified below for
possible exclusion from final critical
habitat.
Considered Exclusion for Several Tribal
Lands
We are considering the exclusion of
4,046 ac (1,636 ha) of arroyo toad
habitat proposed in Units 14, 16, 17,
and 18 under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
These areas overlap with tribal lands
that are owned or managed by the
following tribes: (1) Rincon Band of
˜
Luiseno Mission Indians; (2) Pala Band
˜
of Luiseno Mission Indians; (3) Sycuan
Band of the Kumeyaay Nation; (4) the
Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission
Indians; and (5) the Barona Group of
Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians
and the Viejas (Baron Long) Group of
Capitan Grande Band of Mission
Indians, which jointly manage the
Capitan Grande Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians Reservation (Capitan
Grande Reservation). Conservation
afforded (or currently being developed)
for the arroyo toad and its habitat on
each of these tribe’s lands is addressed
in the following paragraphs.
˜
The Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission
Indians of the Rincon Reservation
˜
(Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission
Indians) encompasses approximately
4,026 ac (1,625 ha) in northern San
Diego County (Unit 14), which includes
approximately 910 ac (368 ha) of arroyo
toad habitat proposed as critical habitat.
Additionally, a total of 245 ac (99 ha) of
off-reservation lands (such as feeowned) are owned or managed by the
Tribe and contain arroyo toad habitat
proposed as critical habitat. The Rincon
˜
Band of Luiseno Mission Indians
developed a management plan for the
arroyo toad in 2005 that provides
guidelines for the protection and
management of arroyo toad habitat
within a 97-ac (39-ha) Habitat
Management Plan area, which is within
the area proposed as critical habitat.
Specific tasks that will be implemented
include: (1) Removal and monitoring of
nonnative species within the plan area
that pose a threat to the arroyo toad; (2)
removal and monthly monitoring of
trash and debris within the plan area;
(3) maintenance and monitoring of oil
and grease traps at the edge of facility
parking lots; (4) assessment and
monthly monitoring of vehicle,
livestock, and other incursions (such as
trespassing) into the plan area; (5)
reporting of unauthorized activities
within the plan area to the Service; (6)
development of an arroyo toad
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52649
education program; and (7) placement of
signs at regular intervals along the plan
area boundary.
˜
The Pala Band of Luiseno Mission
Indians of the Pala Reservation (Pala
˜
Band of Luiseno Mission Indians)
encompasses approximately 12,429 ac
(5,018 ha) in northern San Diego County
(Unit 14), which includes
approximately 1,662 ac (673 ha) of
arroyo toad habitat proposed as critical
habitat. Additionally, a total of 723 ac
(293 ha) of off-reservation lands (such as
fee-owned) are owned or managed by
the Tribe and contain arroyo toad
habitat proposed as critical habitat. The
Reservation is located in the Middle San
Luis Rey River basin approximately 6
miles (9.7 km) east of Interstate 15 on
California Highway 76. The town of Pala
is located along California Highway 76
in approximately the center of the
Reservation. The Reservation was
˜
established for the Cupeno and Luiseno
Indians, who considered themselves to
be one ‘‘people’’—Pala. The Pala Band
˜
of Luiseno Mission Indians developed a
Master Plan in 2005 that is currently
being implemented to guide
management and land use on the
Reservation. Additionally, the Tribe has
developed a management plan to
address resource management and
conservation of the arroyo toad, which
outlines the following conservation
goals to benefit the species: (1)
Maintenance of designated open space
and waterways for the arroyo toad along
Pala Creek and the San Luis Rey River;
(2) encouraging allottees (owners of
individual allotments within reservation
lands) to locate new construction away
from inland allotment areas; (3)
replacing the Lilac Extension vehicle
crossing of the San Luis Rey River with
a bridge; (4) reducing off-highway
vehicle activity by establishing a
designated area for these activities
outside of arroyo toad habitat; (5)
purchasing adjacent property known to
be occupied by arroyo toads and placing
occupied areas in reserve; (6)
discouraging development of six
allotments within the San Luis Rey
River; and (7) removal of nonnative
species within arroyo toad habitat
corridors.
The Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay
Nation own reservation lands that
encompass approximately 806 ac (325
ha) in southern San Diego County (Unit
18), which includes approximately 22
ac (9 ha) of arroyo toad habitat proposed
as critical habitat. Additionally, a total
of 369 ac (149 ha) of off-reservation
lands (such as fee-owned) are owned or
managed by the Tribe and contain
arroyo toad habitat proposed as critical
habitat. The Sycuan Band of the
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
52650
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Kumeyaay Nation has two land
management plans in place relevant to
their reservation that provide direct and
indirect benefits to the arroyo toad and
its habitat on the reservation: an Interim
Land Use Master Plan that was adopted
by the Sycuan General Council on
January 10, 2002 (BRG 2002), and the
Sycuan Tribal Environmental Plan that
was approved by the Tribal Council in
June 2003 (Sycuan 2003). The Land Use
Master Plan provides recommended
land use planning for the reservation
and additional surrounding properties
that are to be brought into Trust, and is
based on preservation of sensitive
environmental and tribal resources
(BRG 2002, p. 1). The Sycuan Tribal
Environmental Plan includes policies,
procedures, and guidance that are in
compliance with the Tribal
Environmental Policy Act (Sycuan 2003,
p. 1). The Sycuan Tribal Environmental
Plan outlines procedures for
environmental planning, project
implementation, and operations that
minimize adverse considerations where
potential negative impacts to human
health and the environment could
occur. Additionally, the Sycuan Tribal
Environmental Plan promotes
environmental protection through
responsible management practices that
will benefit conservation of threatened
and endangered species, including the
arroyo toad and its habitat. Conservation
measures are organized into the
following three categories that are
outlined in more detail within the
‘‘Sycuan Conservation Strategy and
Conservation Measures Plan’’
(Conservation Plan) portion of the
Sycuan Tribal Environmental Plan: (1)
Conservation area site selection, design,
and management; (2) land cover type
conservation measures; and (3) speciesspecific conservation measures (which
protect and restore populations and
habitat of each covered species) (Sycuan
2003, p. 5). The overall Conservation
Plan includes the following types of
conservation measures for arroyo toad
and other covered species: (1) Protection
of existing habitat for compliance and
species recovery; (2) enhancement of
existing habitat; (3) restoration to create
new habitat; (4) management of habitat
to maintain and preserve ecological
functions; avoidance and minimization
of direct impacts on individuals and
habitat of covered species; (5)
population enhancement measures that
directly or indirectly increase
abundance of covered species; and (6)
research necessary to improve
conservation measure effectiveness
(Sycuan 2003, pp. 5–6).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
The Mesa Grande Reservation, which
is owned and managed by the Mesa
Grande Band of Diegueno Mission
Indians, is situated in the hills above
Sutherland Reservoir near the mountain
community of Santa Ysabel, which is
approximately 35 miles northeast of San
Diego, San Diego County. The
Reservation encompasses approximately
1,818 ac (734 ha) of land in Unit 16,
which includes approximately 23 ac (9
ha) of arroyo toad habitat proposed as
critical habitat. Although an arroyo toad
management plan currently does not
exist for the Mesa Grande Reservation,
the Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
and Tribe are currently coordinating to
discuss management of the arroyo toad
and its habitat on the Reservation.
The Capitan Grande Reservation lands
fall within the Capitan Grande Canyon
where the San Diego River once ran,
which is approximately 35 miles (56
km) east of San Diego, San Diego
County. The Reservation encompasses
approximately 15,619 ac (6,306 ha) of
land in Unit 17, which includes
approximately 92 ac (37 ha) of arroyo
toad habitat proposed as critical habitat.
Following an 1875 Presidential
Executive Order, a number of small
reservations (including the Capitan
Grande Reservation) was formed. It was
from this reservation that the following
two tribes were formed: Barona Group
of Capitan Grande Band of Mission
Indians of the Barona Reservation, and
the Viejas (Baron Long) Group of
Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians
of the Viejas Reservation. Both the
Barona Group of Capitan Grande Band
of Mission Indians and the Viejas Group
of Capitan Grande Band of Mission
Indians jointly manage the Capitan
Grande Reservation. Although an arroyo
toad management plan currently does
not exist for the Capitan Grande
Reservation, the Service, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, and both Tribes are
currently coordinating to discuss
management of the arroyo toad and its
habitat on the Reservation.
In summary, we are considering
exclusion of the following lands under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act: 1,155 ac (467
ha) in Unit 14 within the Rincon Band
˜
of Luiseno Mission Indians Reservation
and other associated tribal lands owned/
˜
managed by the Rincon Band of Luiseno
Mission Indians; 2,385 ac (963 ha) in
˜
Unit 14 within the Pala Band of Luiseno
Mission Indians Reservation and other
associated tribal lands owned/managed
˜
by the Pala Band of Luiseno Mission
Indians; 391 ac (158 ha) in Unit 18
within the Sycuan Band of the
Kumeyaay Nation’s Reservation and
other associated tribal lands owned/
managed by the Sycuan Band of the
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Kumeyaay Nation; 92 ac (37 ha) in Unit
17 within the Capitan Grande
Reservation; and 23 ac (9 ha) in Unit 16
within the Mesa Grande Reservation.
We are seeking public comment on
whether the conservation needs of the
arroyo toad can be achieved by limiting
the designation to non-Tribal lands and
the appropriateness of the inclusion or
exclusion of these lands from the final
revised critical habitat designation (see
Public Comments section).
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy
published in the Federal Register on
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will be
obtaining the expert opinions of at least
three appropriate independent
specialists regarding this proposed rule.
The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our critical habitat designation is
based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. We will
invite these peer reviewers to comment
during this public comment period on
our specific assumptions and
conclusions in this proposed revised
designation of critical habitat.
We will consider all comments and
information we receive during the
comment period on this proposed rule
during our preparation of a final
determination. Accordingly, our final
decision may differ from this proposal.
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for
one or more public hearings on this
proposal, if we receive any requests for
hearings. We must receive your request
for a public hearing within 45 days after
the date of this Federal Register
publication. Send your request to the
addresses listed in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule
public hearings on this proposal, if any
are requested, and announce the dates,
times, and places of those hearings, as
well as how to obtain reasonable
accommodations, in the Federal
Register and local newspapers at least
15 days before the first hearing.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review—
Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) determines whether this rule is
significant under Executive Order (E.O.)
12866. OMB bases its determination
upon the following four criteria:
(1) Whether the rule will have an
annual effect of $100 million or more on
the economy or adversely affect an
economic sector, productivity, jobs, the
environment, or other units of the
government.
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
(2) Whether the rule will create
inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies’ actions.
(3) Whether the rule will materially
affect entitlements, grants, user fees,
loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of their recipients.
(4) Whether the rule raises novel legal
or policy issues.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996), whenever an agency must
publish a notice of rulemaking for any
proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment
a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small
entities (small businesses, small
organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if the
head of an agency certifies the rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA
to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of factual basis for certifying
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
An analysis of the economic impacts
of the 2004 proposed critical habitat
designation was made available to the
public on February 14, 2005 (70 FR
7459), and finalized in the final rule to
designate critical habitat published in
the Federal Register on April 13, 2005
(70 FR 19562). In our economic analysis
of that designation (70 FR 19562, p.
19613), we evaluated small business
entities in three categories: Land
development, fruit and nut farms, and
cattle ranching. On the basis of our
analysis we determined that the
designation of critical habitat for the
arroyo toad would result in: (1) An
annual impact of less than one percent
(17 projects and therefore businesses,
assuming one project per business) of
land development small businesses and
that those businesses could realize an
impact of approximately 20 percent of
total annual sales; (2) an annual impact
to less than one percent (one farm) of
small fruit and nut farms and that that
farm would realize an impact of less
than three percent of total annual sales;
(3) an annual impact of less than one
percent of cattle ranches (one ranch)
and that the ranch would realize an
impact of less than approximately
$100,000 of total annual sales; (4) an
annual impact of less than one percent
of small viticulture firms (one firm) and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
that the firm would realize an impact of
less than approximately five percent of
total annual sales; and (5) an annual
impact of less than one percent of small
governments as a percent of the county
total and small governments would
realize an impact of less than one
percent of annual government budget.
Based on these data, the impacts on
small business, small governments, and
small nonprofits were expected to be
negligible (Economic & Planning, Inc.
2005, pp. A–5—A–18). However, the
economic analysis prepared for the 2005
critical habitat designation does not
accurately reflect the full range of
potential economic impacts that may
result from this proposed revision to
arroyo toad critical habitat.
We will prepare a new economic
analysis for this proposed revised
critical habitat designation for the
arroyo toad. At this time, we lack
current economic information necessary
to provide an updated factual basis for
the required RFA finding with regard to
this proposed revision to critical habitat.
Therefore, we defer the RFA finding
until completion of the draft economic
analysis prepared under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act and E.O. 12866. The draft
economic analysis will provide the
required factual basis for the RFA
finding. Upon completion of the draft
economic analysis, we will announce its
availability in the Federal Register and
reopen the public comment period for
the proposed revised designation. We
will include with this announcement, as
appropriate, an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis or a certification that
the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities accompanied
by the factual basis for that
determination. We have concluded that
deferring the RFA finding until
completion of the draft economic
analysis is necessary to meet the
purposes and requirements of the RFA.
Deferring the RFA finding in this
manner will ensure that we make a
sufficiently informed determination
based on adequate economic
information and provide the necessary
opportunity for public comment.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, we make the
following findings:
1. This rule will not produce a
Federal mandate. In general, a Federal
mandate is a provision in legislation,
statute, or regulation that would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
Tribal governments, or the private
sector, and includes both ‘‘Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52651
intergovernmental mandates’’ and
‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C.
658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental
mandate’’ includes a regulation that
‘‘would impose an enforceable duty
upon State, local, or [T]ribal
governments’’ with two exceptions. It
excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal
assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty
arising from participation in a voluntary
Federal program,’’ unless the regulation
‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or
more is provided annually to State,
local, and [T]ribal governments under
entitlement authority,’’ if the provision
would ‘‘increase the stringency of
conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps
upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal
Government’s responsibility to provide
funding,’’ and the State, local, or Tribal
governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust
accordingly. At the time of enactment,
these entitlement programs were:
Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child
Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services
Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation
State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption
Assistance, and Independent Living;
Family Support Welfare Services; and
Child Support Enforcement. ‘‘Federal
private sector mandate’’ includes a
regulation that ‘‘would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private
sector, except (i) a condition of Federal
assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from
participation in a voluntary Federal
program.’’
The designation of critical habitat
does not impose a legally binding duty
on non-Federal government entities or
private parties. Under the Act, the only
regulatory effect is that Federal agencies
must ensure that their actions do not
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities who receive Federal
funding, assistance, permits, or
otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted
by the designation of critical habitat, the
legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests squarely on the
Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are
indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate
in a voluntary Federal aid program, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would
not apply, nor would critical habitat
shift the costs of the large entitlement
programs listed above onto State
governments.
2. Based in part on an analysis
conducted for the previous designation
of critical habitat and extrapolated to
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
52652
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
this designation, we do not expect this
rule to significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. Small governments
will be affected only to the extent that
any programs having Federal funds,
permits, or other authorized activities
must ensure that their actions will not
adversely affect the critical habitat.
Therefore, a Small Government Agency
Plan is not required. However, as we
conduct our economic analysis for the
revised rule, we will further evaluate
this issue and revise this assessment if
appropriate.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Takings—Executive Order 12630
In accordance with E.O. 12630
(‘‘Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private
Property Rights’’), we have analyzed the
potential takings implications of
designating revised critical habitat for
the arroyo toad in a takings implications
assessment. The takings implications
assessment concludes that this
designation of revised critical habitat for
the arroyo toad does not pose significant
takings implications for lands within or
affected by the revised designation.
Federalism—Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132
(Federalism), the proposed rule does not
have significant Federalism effects. A
Federalism assessment is not required.
In keeping with Department of the
Interior and Department of Commerce
policy, we requested information from,
and coordinated development of, this
proposed revised critical habitat
designation with appropriate State
resource agencies in California. The
designation may have some benefit to
these governments because the areas
that contain the features essential to the
conservation of the species are more
clearly defined, and the primary
constituent elements of the habitat
necessary to the conservation of the
species are specifically identified. This
information does not alter where and
what federally sponsored activities may
occur. However, it may assist these local
governments in long-range planning
(rather than having them wait for caseby-case section 7 consultations to
occur).
Where State and local governments
require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for actions that may
affect critical habitat, consultation
under section 7(a)(2) would be required.
While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits,
or that otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted
by the designation of critical habitat, the
legally binding duty to avoid
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests squarely on the
Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order
12988
In accordance with Executive Order
12988 (Civil Justice Reform), it has been
determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and
meets the requirements of sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have
proposed to revise critical habitat in
accordance with the provisions of the
Act. This proposed rule uses standard
property descriptions and identifies the
primary constituent elements within the
designated areas to assist the public in
understanding the habitat needs of the
arroyo toad.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new
collections of information that require
approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995. This rule will
not impose recordkeeping or reporting
requirements on State or local
governments, individuals, businesses, or
organizations. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the
jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of
Appeals of the United States for the
Tenth Circuit, we do not need to
prepare environmental analyses as
defined by NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Act. We
published a notice outlining our reasons
for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244). This position was upheld by the
Circuit Court of Appeals of the United
States for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas
County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir.
1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042
(1996)).
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by E.O. 12866, E.O.
12988, and by the Presidential
Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write
all rules in plain language. This means
that each rule we publish must:
1. Be logically organized;
2. Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
3. Use clear language rather than
jargon;
4. Be divided into short sections and
sentences; and
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5. Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
If you feel that we have not met these
requirements, send us comments by one
of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. To better help us revise the
rule, your comments should be as
specific as possible. For example, you
should tell us the numbers of the
sections or paragraphs that are unclearly
written, which sections or sentences are
too long, the sections where you feel
lists or tables would be useful, etc.
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994,
Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175,
and the Department of the Interior’s
manual at 512 DM 2, we readily
acknowledge our responsibility to
communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal tribes on a
government-to-government basis. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206
of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act), we readily acknowledge
our responsibilities to work directly
with tribes in developing programs for
healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that
tribal lands are not subject to the same
controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and
to make information available to tribes.
We are currently coordinating with
affected Tribes regarding this proposed
revised critical habitat designation, and
have included Tribal lands in this
revised proposal. We are requesting
public comment on the appropriateness
of including or excluding these lands in
the final revised critical habitat rule. We
will continue to coordinate with the
Tribal governments during the
designation process.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use—
Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211 requires agencies to
prepare Statements of Energy Effects
when undertaking certain actions. Based
on an analysis conducted for the
previous designation of critical habitat
and extrapolated to this designation,
along with a further analysis of the
additional areas included in this
revision, we have determined that this
proposed rule to revise critical habitat
for the arroyo toad is not expected to
significantly affect energy supplies,
distribution, or use. Therefore, this
action is not a significant energy action,
and no Statement of Energy Effects is
required. However, we will further
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
52653
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
in this rulemaking is available on
https://www.regulations.gov and upon
request from the Field Supervisor,
Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, or the
Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author(s)
PART 17—ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
evaluate this issue as we conduct our
economic analysis, and review and
revise this assessment as warranted.
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.
1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–
625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend
part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
The primary authors of this notice are
staff from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office and the Carlsbad Fish and
Vertebrate population
where endangered or
threatened
Historic range
*
AMPHIBIANS
*
Toad, arroyo (= arroyo
southwestern.
*
Scientific name
*
*
*
Anaxyrus californicus
*
§ 17.95
Critical habitat—fish and wildlife.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Amphibians.
*
*
*
*
*
Arroyo Toad (Anaxyrus californicus)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted
for Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara,
and Ventura Counties, California, on the
maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary
constituent elements for the arroyo toad
consist of four components:
(i) Rivers or streams with hydrologic
regimes that supply water to provide
space, food, and cover needed to sustain
eggs, tadpoles, metamorphosing
juveniles, and adult breeding toads.
Breeding pools must persist a minimum
of 2 months for the completion of larval
development. However, due to the
dynamic nature of southern California
riparian systems and flood regimes, the
location of suitable breeding pools may
vary from year to year. Specifically, the
conditions necessary to allow for
successful reproduction of arroyo toads
are:
(A) Breeding pools with areas less
than 12 in (30 cm) deep;
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
*
Jkt 220001
*
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Status
Sfmt 4702
*
When
listed
*
Critical
habitat
*
Special
rules
*
*
E
*
568
*
(B) Areas of flowing water with
current velocities less than 1.3 ft per
second (40 cm per second); and
(C) Surface water that lasts for a
minimum of 2 months during the
breeding season (i.e., a sufficient wet
period in the spring months to allow
arroyo toad larvae to hatch, mature, and
metamorphose).
(ii) Riparian and adjacent upland
habitats, particularly low-gradient
(typically less than 6 percent) stream
segments and alluvial streamside
terraces with sandy or fine gravel
substrates that support the formation of
shallow pools and sparsely vegetated
sand and gravel bars for breeding and
rearing of tadpoles and juveniles; and
adjacent valley bottomlands that
include areas of loose soil where toads
can burrow underground, to provide
foraging and living areas for juvenile
and adult arroyo toads.
(iii) A natural flooding regime, or one
sufficiently corresponding to natural,
characterized by intermittent or near
perennial flow that contributes to the
persistence of shallow pools into at least
mid-summer, and that maintains areas
of open, sparsely vegetated, sandy
stream channels and terraces by
periodically scouring riparian
vegetation; and also that modifies
stream channels and terraces and
redistributes sand and sediment, such
PO 00000
*
*
(h) * * *
*
*
*
*
U.S.A. (CA), Mexico .. Entire .........................
*
3. In § 17.95(d), revise the entry for
‘‘Arroyo Toad (Bufo californicus)’’ to
read as follows:
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
Species
Common name
2. In § 17.11(h), revise the entry for
‘‘Toad, arroyo (= arroyo southwestern)’’
under ‘‘Amphibians’’ in the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to
read as follows:
*
17.95(d)
NA
*
that breeding pools and terrace habitats
with scattered vegetation are
maintained.
(iv) Stream channels and adjacent
upland habitats that allow for
movement to breeding pools, foraging
areas, overwintering sites, upstream and
downstream dispersal, and
recolonization of areas that contain
suitable habitat.
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures existing on the
effective date of this rule and not
containing one or more of the primary
constituent elements, such as buildings,
aqueducts, airports, and roads, and the
land on which such structures are
located.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data
layers defining map units were created
on a base of USGS 7.5’ quadrangles
using USDA National Agricultural
Imagery Program (NAIP) county-wide
MrSID compressed mosaics of 1 meter
resolution and natural color aerial
photography from summer 2005.
Critical habitat units were then mapped
using Universal Transverse Mercator
(UTM) zone 10, North American Datum
(NAD) 1983 coordinates.
(5) Note: Index map 1 of Units of
Critical Habitat for Arroyo Toad
(Anaxyrus californicus) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
EP13OC09.000
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
52654
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
52655
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
EP13OC09.001
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
(6) Note: Index map 2 of Units of
Critical Habitat for Arroyo Toad
(Anaxyrus californicus) follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
(7) Units 2 and 3, Santa Barbara
County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
units.]
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
(ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for
Arroyo Toad (Anaxyrus californicus),
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
Units 2 and 3, Santa Barbara County,
California, follows:
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
EP13OC09.002
52656
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
(ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for
Arroyo Toad (Anaxyrus californicus),
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
Units 4 and 5, Ventura and Los Angeles
Counties, California, follows:
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
EP13OC09.003
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
(8) Units 4 and 5, Ventura and Los
Angeles Counties, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
units.]
52657
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
(9) Unit 6, Los Angeles County,
California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
units.]
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
(ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for
Arroyo Toad (Anaxyrus californicus),
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
Unit 6, Los Angeles County, California,
follows:
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
EP13OC09.004
52658
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
(ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for
Arroyo Toad (Anaxyrus californicus),
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
Units 7 and 21, Los Angeles County,
California, follows:
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
EP13OC09.005
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
(10) Units 7 and 21, Los Angeles
County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
units.]
52659
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
(11) Units 8, 10, and 11, Orange,
Riverside, and San Diego Counties,
California.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
units.]
(ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for
Arroyo Toad (Anaxyrus californicus),
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
Units 8, 10, and 11, Orange, Riverside,
and San Diego Counties, California,
follows:
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
EP13OC09.006
52660
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
(ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for
Arroyo Toad (Anaxyrus californicus),
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
Units 9 and 23, Riverside County,
California, follows:
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
EP13OC09.007
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
(12) Units 9 and 23, Riverside County,
California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
units.]
52661
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
(13) Units 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17,
Riverside and San Diego Counties,
California.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
units.]
(ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for
Arroyo Toad (Anaxyrus californicus),
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
Units 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17,
Riverside and San Diego Counties,
California, follows:
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
EP13OC09.008
52662
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
(ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for
Arroyo Toad (Anaxyrus californicus),
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
Units 18 and 19, San Diego County,
California, follows:
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
EP13OC09.009
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
(14) Units 18 and 19, San Diego
County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
units.]
52663
52664
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 / Proposed Rules
(ii) Note: Map of Critical Habitat for
Arroyo Toad (Anaxyrus californicus),
*
Dated: September 28, 2009.
Thomas L. Strickland,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. E9–24076 Filed 10–9–09; 8:45 am]
*
*
*
*
Units 20 and 22, San Diego County,
California, follows:
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:33 Oct 09, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\13OCP3.SGM
13OCP3
EP13OC09.010
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3
(15) Units 20 and 22, San Diego
County, California.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
units.]
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 13, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52612-52664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24076]
[[Page 52611]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat
for the Arroyo Toad (Anaxyrus californicus); Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 13, 2009 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 52612]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2009-0069; 92210-1117-0000-B4]
RIN 1018-AV89
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical
Habitat for the Arroyo Toad (Anaxyrus californicus)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
revise designated critical habitat for the arroyo toad (Anaxyrus
californicus), pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). The previous final rule designated 11,695 acres (ac)
(4,733 hectares (ha)) of critical habitat and was published in the
Federal Register (FR) on April 13, 2005. We now propose to designate
approximately 109,110 ac (44,155 ha) of lands located in Santa Barbara,
Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and San Diego
Counties, California, which, if finalized as proposed, would result in
an increase of approximately 97,415 ac (39,422 ha) of critical habitat.
DATES: We will consider comments we receive on or before December 14,
2009. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the
address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by
November 27, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-R8-
ES-2009-0069.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2009-0069, Division of Policy and Directives
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information on the
proposed designation and information about the proposed revised
designation in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties, northern Los Angeles
County, and the desert portion of San Bernardino County, contact Diane
Noda, Field Supervisor, or Michael McCrary, Listing and Recovery
Coordinator, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003; telephone (805)
644-1766; facsimile (805) 644-3958.
For information about the proposed revised designation in the
remaining portions of Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, as well
as Riverside, Orange, and San Diego Counties, contact Jim Bartel, Field
Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011;
telephone (760) 431-9440; facsimile (760) 431-9624.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We intend any final action resulting from this proposed revised
rule to be based on the best scientific and commercial data available
and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from the public, other government agencies,
Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or other interested parties
concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments
concerning:
1. The reasons why we should or should not revise the designation
of habitat as ``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
including whether there are threats to the species from human activity,
the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the designation,
and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of
designation such that the designation of critical habitat is not
prudent;
2. Specific information on:
The amount and distribution of arroyo toad habitat
included in this proposed revised rule,
What areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing contain features essential to the
conservation of the species and why, and
What areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing are essential for the conservation of
the species and why;
3. Land-use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible effects on proposed revised critical
habitat;
4. Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts on small
entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit
these impacts;
5. Comments or information that may assist us in identifying or
clarifying the primary constituent elements and the resulting physical
and biological features essential to the conservation of the arroyo
toad;
6. How the proposed revised critical habitat boundaries could be
refined to more closely circumscribe the landscapes identified as
essential;
7. Information regarding Trabuco Creek in Orange County and any
special management considerations or protection that any essential
physical or biological features in this area may require;
8. Information regarding the San Diego River in San Diego County
from just below El Capitan Reservoir downstream to the confluence with
San Vicente Creek, and any special management considerations or
protection that any essential physical or biological features in this
area may require;
9. Whether the potential exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act
of non-Federal lands covered by the Western Riverside County Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan from final revised critical habitat
is or is not appropriate and why;
10. Whether the potential exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act of non-Federal lands covered by the San Diego Multiple Species
Conservation Program-City and County of San Diego's Subarea Plans from
final revised critical habitat is or is not appropriate and why;
11. Whether the potential exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act of non-Federal lands covered by the Coachella Valley Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan from final revised critical habitat
is or is not appropriate and why;
12. Whether the potential exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act of non-Federal lands covered by the Orange County Central-Coastal
Subregional Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation
Plan from final revised critical habitat is or is not appropriate and
why;
13. Whether the potential exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act of non-Federal lands covered by the Southern Orange County Natural
Community Conservation Plan/Master Streambed Alteration Agreement/
Habitat Conservation Plan from final revised critical habitat is or is
not appropriate and why;
[[Page 52613]]
14. Whether the conservation needs of the arroyo toad can be
achieved or not by limiting the designation of final revised critical
habitat to non-Tribal lands and why;
15. Whether the potential exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act of Tribal lands of the Rincon Band of Luise[ntilde]o Mission
Indians from final revised critical habitat is or is not appropriate
and why;
16. Whether the potential exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act of Tribal lands of the Pala Band of Luise[ntilde]o Mission Indians
from final revised critical habitat is or is not appropriate and why;
17. Whether the potential exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act of Tribal lands of the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation from
final revised critical habitat is or is not appropriate and why;
18. Whether the potential exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act of Tribal lands of the Capitan Grande Band of Diegueno Mission
Indians from final revised critical habitat is or is not appropriate
and why;
19. Whether the potential exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act of Tribal lands of the Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
from final revised critical habitat is or is not appropriate and why;
20. Whether our exemption under section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act of
the lands on Department of Defense land at Marine Corps Base, Camp
Pendleton, in San Diego County; Fallbrook Naval Weapons Station in San
Diego County; and Fort Hunter Liggett Military Reservation in San Luis
Obispo County is or is not appropriate, and why;
21. Information on any quantifiable economic costs or benefits of
the proposed revised designation of critical habitat;
22. Whether the benefit of exclusion of any other particular area
not specifically identified above outweighs the benefit of inclusion
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act;
23. Information on the currently predicted effects of climate
change on the arroyo toad and its habitat;
24. Any foreseeable impacts on energy supplies, distribution, and
use resulting from the proposed revised designation and, in particular,
any impacts on electricity production, and the benefits of including or
excluding any particular areas that exhibit these impacts; and
25. Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
Our final determination concerning revised critical habitat for the
arroyo toad will take into consideration all written comments received
during the comment period, including comments requested from peer
reviewers, comments received during a public hearing should one be
requested, and any additional information we receive during the 60-day
comment period. Our final determination will also consider all written
comments and any additional information we receive during the comment
period for the draft economic analysis. All comments will be included
in the public record for this rulemaking. On the basis of peer reviewer
and public comments, we may, during the development of our final
determination, find that areas within those proposed do not meet the
definition of critical habitat, that some modifications to the
described boundaries are appropriate, or that areas are or are not
appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section.
We will post your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--on https://www.regulations.gov. If you provide
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your
document that we withhold this information from public review. However,
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all
hardcopy comments on https://www.regulations.gov. Please include
sufficient information with your comment to allow us to verify any
scientific or commercial data you submit.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
You may obtain copies of the proposed revised rule by mail from the
Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT)
or by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the revised designation of critical habitat in this proposed rule.
Additional information on the arroyo toad may also be found in the
final listing rule published in the Federal Register on December 16,
1994 (59 FR 64859), the ``Recovery Plan for the Arroyo Southwestern
Toad'' (recovery plan; Service 1999), and the designation of critical
habitat for the arroyo toad published in the Federal Register on April
13, 2005 (70 FR 19562). These documents are available on the Ventura
Fish and Wildlife Office and Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office Web
sites at https://www.fws.gov/ventura and https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad.
However, please note that this proposed rule incorporates new
information on the distribution of arroyo toads that became available
since the 2005 final critical habitat designation for this species.
Taxonomy and Nomenclature
On December 16, 1994, we published a final rule listing the arroyo
southwestern toad (Bufo microscaphus californicus) as endangered (59 FR
64859). This animal, originally described as Bufo cognatus californicus
(Camp 1915, p. 331), has consistently been treated as a distinct taxon.
However, its rank as a subspecies or species and taxonomic affiliations
with other species has changed several times since it was described.
Myers (1930, p. 75) elevated it to species rank as Bufo californicus
citing morphological, vocalization, and ecological data to distinguish
it from B. cognatus. Subsequent to Myers' paper, other authors again
relegated the animal to subspecies rank aligned with various other
species of Bufo. The name in use at the time of listing, Bufo
microscaphus californicus, was published by Stebbins (1951, p. 275).
Since the toad was listed, an analysis of allozyme data (Gergus
1998, p. 322) supports recognition of Bufo californicus as separate
from B. microscaphus. In addition, a phylogenetic analysis of
comparative anatomical and molecular genetic data for amphibians (Frost
et al. 2006, p. 363) segregated the Nearctic taxa of Bufo as the genus
Anaxyrus and published the combination Anaxyrus californicus, the
arroyo toad. This treatment is accepted by the Committee on Standard
English and Scientific Names of the American Society of Ichthyologists
and Herpetologists, The Herpetologists' League, and the Society for the
Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (Frost et al. 2008, p. 3).
In light of these changes and their acceptance by the above
scientific authorities, we are proposing to amend the List of
Threatened and Endangered Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11 to identify the
[[Page 52614]]
listed entity as ``arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus).'' This change
does not alter the description or distribution of the animals.
Species Description
The arroyo toad is a small, dark-spotted toad of the family
Bufonidae. Its coloration ranges from light olive green or gray to
light brown with a distinctive light-colored, V-shaped stripe across
the head and the eyelids. The belly is white or buff and often lacks
dark blotches or spots (Stebbins 2003, p. 212). The species is endemic
to the coastal plain and mountains of central and southern California,
and northwestern Baja California, Mexico, from near sea level to about
8,000 feet (ft) (2,440 meters (m)) in elevation. For a detailed
description of the species, see the recovery plan and references cited
within the plan (Service 1999, pp. 1-119), and information in previous
Federal Register notices, proposed rules, and final rules (59 FR 64859,
December 16, 1994; 66 FR 9414, February 7, 2001; 69 FR 23254, April 28,
2004; 70 FR 19562, April 13, 2005). In addition to the recovery plan,
important sources for information on the biology of the arroyo toad
include: Sweet (1992, pp. 1-198; 1993, pp. 1-73); Campbell et al.
(1996, pp. 1-46); Griffin et al. (1998, pp. 1-66); Griffin and Case
(2001, pp. 633-644); Holland and Sisk (2001); and Ramirez (2002a, pp.
1-62; 2002b; 2002c; 2003, pp. 1-101).
Life History
Breeding typically occurs from February to July on streams with
persistent water (Griffin et al. 1999, p. 1). Males may breed with
several females in a season; however, female arroyo toads release their
entire clutch of eggs as a single breeding effort and probably do not
produce a second clutch during the mating season. Eggs are deposited
and tadpoles develop in shallow pools with minimal current and little
or no emergent vegetation. The substrate in these pools is generally
sand or fine gravel overlain with silt. The eggs hatch in 4 to 5 days
and the tadpoles are immobile for an additional 5 to 6 days. Tadpoles
then begin to disperse from the pool margin into the surrounding
shallow water, where they spend an average of 10 weeks. Peak
metamorphosis occurs during June and July in the northern part of the
arroyo toad's range, and from late April through June farther south,
although it could occur later, particularly at higher elevations
(Holland 2000, in litt. p. 8). After metamorphosis, the juvenile arroyo
toads remain on the bordering gravel bars until the pool dries out
(usually from 8 to 12 weeks depending on the site and rainfall). Most
individuals become sexually mature by the following spring (Sweet 1992,
p. 52).
Arroyo toad tadpoles feed on loose organic material such as
interstitial algae, bacteria, and diatoms. They do not forage on
macroscopic vegetation (Sweet 1992, p. 82; Jennings and Hayes 1994, p.
56). Juvenile arroyo toads feed on ants almost exclusively (Service
1999, p. 36). By the time they reach 0.7 to 0.9 inch (in) (1.78
centimeters (cm)) in length, they consume beetles along with ants
(Sweet 1992, p. 99; Service 1999, p. 36). Adult arroyo toads probably
consume a wide variety of insects and arthropods including (but not
limited to) ants, beetles, spiders, larvae, and caterpillars.
Geographic Range
The historical and current range of the arroyo toad extends from
the Salinas River Basin southward through the Santa Ynez, Santa Clara,
and Los Angeles River basins (Sweet 1992, p. 18), to Orange, Riverside,
and San Diego Counties (Jennings and Hayes 1994, p. 54) and southward
to the Arroyo San Simeon system, Baja California, Mexico (Service 1999,
p. 12; Ramirez 2007, p. 5). Populations also occur on the desert slopes
of both the San Gabriel Mountains (in Little Rock Creek in Los Angeles
County) and the San Bernardino Mountains (in the Mojave River and in
its tributaries, Little Horsethief and Deep Creeks, in San Bernardino
County) (Sweet 1992, p. 18; Jennings and Hayes 1994, p. 54).
At the time of listing (59 FR 64859; December 16, 1994), arroyo
toads were believed to be extirpated from the Salinas River Basin. In
1996, arroyo toads were found during surveys on the Fort Hunter Liggett
Military Reservation approximately 40 miles (mi) (64 kilometers (km))
downstream of the historical Santa Margarita arroyo toad locality (U.S.
Army Reserve 2004, pp. 5-10). In 1997, arroyo toads were detected along
a 17-mi (27-km) stretch of the San Antonio River. The Army surveyed
approximately 6 mi (9.6 km) of the San Antonio River on the Military
Reservation in 2002 and estimated there were as many as 7,000 arroyo
toad larvae (tadpoles) in the area (U.S. Army Reserve Command 2004, p.
12). We believe this population was present but undetected on Fort
Hunter Liggett at the time of listing for the following reasons: (1)
Annual surveys (U.S. Army Reserve 2004, p. 38) indicate there is
suitable breeding and upland habitats for this large, robust
population; and (2) given that the nearest extant population of arroyo
toads is 150 mi (240 km) southeast of Fort Hunter Liggett in Santa
Barbara County, it is unlikely that arroyo toads could have dispersed
and newly colonized the Fort Hunter Liggett area by 1996, just 2 years
subsequent to the species being listed in 1994. Therefore, we consider
the population on Fort Hunter Liggett to have existed in 1994 and to
represent the northernmost limit of the species' range at listing and
currently. The geographical area occupied by the species at the time it
was listed is the same as the species' current range in the coastal
streams extending from Monterey County southward to San Diego County,
and extending eastward into the riparian (along the shore of a river,
stream, or lake) environments of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties.
Arroyo toads have been extirpated from approximately 75 percent of
the habitat they originally occupied (Sweet 1992, p. 189; Jennings and
Hayes 1994, p. 57; Campbell et al. 1996, p. 2). At present, arroyo
toads are limited to isolated populations primarily in the headwaters
of coastal streams. The species is likely restricted naturally as a
result of specific habitat requirements for breeding and development
(Service 1999, p. 39). These natural restrictions, coupled with the
small sizes of many arroyo toad populations, make them particularly
vulnerable to the negative effects of human-induced changes to their
habitat (Jennings and Hayes 1994, p. 57).
Habitat
Stream order, elevation, and floodplain width appear to be
important factors in determining habitat suitability (Sweet 1992, pp.
24-26; Griffin et al. 1999, pp. 1-3). Stream order ranks the size and
potential power of streams. The smallest channels in a watershed with
no tributaries are referred to as first-order streams. When two first-
order streams unite, they form a second-order stream; when two second-
order streams unite, they form a third-order stream, and so on. Fifth-
and sixth-order streams are usually larger rivers, while first- and
second-order streams are often small, steep, or intermittent. In the
northern portion of the range, arroyo toads are found on third- to
sixth-order streams (Sweet 1992, p. 24), while in the central and
southern portion of the range, arroyo toads are found in first- to
sixth-order streams (Service 1999, p. 32).
Optimal breeding habitat consists of low-gradient sections of slow-
moving streams with shallow pools, nearby sandbars, and adjacent stream
terraces. Arroyo toads breed and deposit egg masses in the shallow,
sandy pools of these streams, which are usually
[[Page 52615]]
bordered by sand-gravel flood-terraces. Breeding sites favored by adult
arroyo toads have clear water in shallow (less than 12 in (30 cm) deep)
pools (Sweet 1992, p. 28). Optimal breeding sites also have flow rates
less than 1.97 in (5 cm) per second and bottoms composed of sand or
well-sorted, fine gravel, although a significant component of large
gravel or cobble may also be present (Sweet 1992, p. 37).
Stream terrace habitat consisting of alluvial bars and terraces
that may have established cottonwoods (Populus spp.), oaks (Quercus
spp.), or willows (Salix spp.) and almost no grass and herbaceous cover
at ground level are extremely important for arroyo toads prior to,
during, and after the breeding season (Griffin et al. 1999, p. 45;
Sweet 1992, pp. 28-49). Areas that are used by juveniles consist
primarily of sand or fine gravel bars with varying amounts of large
gravel or cobble and adjacent stable sandy terraces and oak flats.
Juvenile arroyo toads favor areas that are damp and have some
vegetation cover (less than 10 percent), which offer refugia and
thermal characteristics that are needed for juvenile survival and rapid
growth (Campbell et al. 1996, p. 12). Bare sand and gravel bars may
support large numbers of juvenile toads, but survivorship can be
reduced due to high levels of predation (Sweet 1992, p. 113).
Adult arroyo toads are often found on sandy alluvial terraces
adjacent to the stream that may be sparsely-to-heavily vegetated with
brush and trees, such as mulefat (Baccharis spp.), California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa), cottonwoods, coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia),
and willow (Campbell et al. 1996, pp. 12-13). The understory of stream
terraces may consist of scattered short grasses, herbs, and leaf
litter, with patches of bare or disturbed soil, or have no vegetation
at all. When foraging, juvenile and adult arroyo toads are often found
around the drip lines of oak trees (Sweet 1992, pp. 45-46; Campbell et
al. 1996, p. 10). When active at night, arroyo toads can often be
observed near ant trails feeding on passing ants and other prey.
Upland habitats used by arroyo toads during both the breeding and
non-breeding seasons include alluvial scrub, coastal sage scrub,
chaparral (shrubby plants adapted to dry summers and moist winters),
grassland, and oak woodland. Within terrace and upland habitats, arroyo
toads aestivate (a state of dormancy similar to hibernation) in burrows
during the non-breeding season, which usually starts in the late summer
and extends from August to January (Ramirez 2003, p. 46). In habitat
utilization studies conducted by Ramirez (2007, pp. 11-14) from 1999 to
2006 in the West Fork Mojave River and Grass Valley Creek areas, arroyo
toads were generally found burrowed within sandy or loamy substrates
with no associated canopy cover, or within mulefat scrub or arroyo
willow (Salix lasiolepis) patches. The majority of individuals tracked
in these studies burrowed immediately adjacent to the active channel or
on sandy terraces within riparian habitat located within flood-prone
areas; however, toads were also found to use upland habitats up to
1,063 ft (324 m) from the active channel (Ramirez 2007, p. 13). In his
2005 study, Ramirez (2007, p. 93) observed several arroyo toad
individuals burrowed in stable terrace habitats dominated by Great
Basin sage scrub and Utah junipers (Juniperus osteosperma). At Little
Rock Creek on the desert slopes of the San Gabriel Mountains, arroyo
toads burrowed in areas closest to the creek that retained higher soil
saturation and were cooler (Ramirez 2002a, p. 50). Griffin et al.
(1999, p. 45) noted that sands are the preferred burrowing substrate
for both male and female arroyo toads, confirming the importance of
natural hydrologic regimes that maintain sand and fine sediment
deposition across the floodplain.
Dispersal
Arroyo toad movement patterns also vary between watersheds or river
reaches in response to different hydrological regimes (Griffin et al.
1999, p. 11). In broad floodplain river systems, arroyo toads searching
for suitable egg-laying sites may have to move across parallel stream
channels. Cristianitos Creek, Talega Creek, and the lower San Mateo
River are examples of this type of river system because of their wide,
sandy floodplains where the river flows into several channels during
floods. Despite river depths of 24 in (60 cm) and swift currents,
Griffin et al. (1999, p. 21) observed numerous toads crossing Talega
Creek and the lower San Mateo River, confirming these river systems are
not a barrier to arroyo toad dispersal. In their study of arroyo toad
movement patterns, Griffin et al. (1999, pp. 18-21) tracked 10 female
and 3 male arroyo toads in the lower San Mateo River and observed
female arroyo toads regularly using riparian and upland habitats far
from the river's edge and returning to these areas after traveling far
upstream for egg-laying. In one case, a female arroyo toad traveled 919
ft (280 m) across the San Mateo Campground into upland native habitat;
in another instance, a female was found 558 ft (170 m) from the San
Mateo River under cover of mulefat scrub (Griffin et al. 1999, p. 20).
They also recorded arroyo toads moving in both up- and downstream
directions, such as the female arroyo toad that traveled upstream more
than 492 ft (150 m) in a single night to a breeding pool. The study
found that both male and female arroyo toads moved more into upland
habitats after completing individual breeding activity (Griffin et al.
1999, p. 46).
In contrast, arroyo toads searching for breeding pools in
watersheds with relatively narrower, steeper-sided drainages (such as
the Piru and Sespe Creek Watersheds in Ventura County) tend to move in
both up- and downstream directions along these channels with their
structure of alternating riffles and pools (Griffin et al. 1999, p.
11). In his Mono Creek study, Sweet (1993, pp. 24-65), concluded that
female arroyo toads became relatively sedentary as they matured whereas
males tended to travel up- and downstream fairly often during the
breeding season (Sweet 1993, p. 65). This study also suggested that
most juvenile arroyo toads disperse away from their natal pools about a
year after metamorphosis (Sweet 1993, p. 65). In fact, numerous
juvenile and adult arroyo toads were observed moving up- and downstream
as much as 0.5 mi (0.8 km) and over 0.6 mi (1 km) in some cases (Sweet
1993, p. 1). Arroyo toads in these watersheds also travel laterally
away from the stream channel into terrace and upland native habitats.
On lower Piru Creek, Sweet (1992, pp. 42-45) observed two adult males
under oaks that were 200 ft (61 m) away.
Reasons for Decline and Threats
A variety of factors contribute to the decline of arroyo toads but
nearly half of historical extirpations prior to listing are attributed
to dam building and operation (Sweet 1992, pp. 4-5; Ramirez 2003, p.
7). Suitable habitat is often flooded out by reservoir water, and
downstream breeding and non-breeding habitat may be severely altered by
reduced flows at some times and sudden excessive flows at others.
Sudden excessive releases of water may destroy sand bars used during
the breeding season, and reconfigure or destroy suitable breeding
pools, thus disrupting clutch and larval development (Ramirez 2003, p.
7). Additionally, dams can interrupt the scouring and deposition
processes needed to maintain arroyo toad pool and terrace habitats.
Areas below dams can become unsuitable as fine sands are lost and not
replaced (Service 1999, pp. 42-43).
[[Page 52616]]
In addition to flood control projects, other threats include
agriculture; sand and gravel mining; urban development; off-highway
vehicle use; urbanization; recreational activities such as camping,
fishing, hiking, picnicking; and natural factors, including drought and
fire (59 FR 64859; Service 1999, p. 39; Ramirez 2003, p. 7). Conversion
of stream terrace habitat for farming, road construction, and
residential and commercial uses has eliminated substantial arroyo toad
habitat in some areas. Suction dredge mining of sand and gravel causes
substantial alteration of habitat by degrading water quality, altering
stream morphology, increasing siltation downstream, and creating deep
pools that hold water year-round for introduced predators of arroyo
toad eggs and larvae (Campbell et al. 1996, p. 16). Natural
disturbances, such as drought and fire, also threaten the arroyo toad
(Campbell et al. 1996, p. 17). Prolonged drought can result in the loss
of suitable breeding pools, foraging habitat, and prey availability
(Sweet 1992, p. 190). Fire can affect arroyo toads by causing direct
mortality and destruction of stream or terrace vegetation.
The introduction of nonnative species that compete for resources or
that prey on arroyo toads also poses a serious threat to arroyo toad
existence. The introduction of aquatic species not native to southern
California watercourses has been facilitated by construction of the
California Aqueduct and other sources of inter-basin water transport
(Service 1999, p. 48). Currently, the California Aqueduct is linked
directly to the Santa Ynez River, Santa Clara River, San Jacinto River,
and Mojave River Basins. Predatory species, many of which have used the
aqueduct to colonize these river basins, include green sunfish (Lepomis
cyanellus), largemouth bass (Micropterous salmoides), black bullhead
(Ictalurus nebulosus), prickly sculpin (Cottus asper), stocked rainbow
trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), oriental gobies (Tridentiger spp.), red
shiners (Notropis lutrensis), bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana), African
clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis), and crayfish (Procambarus clarkii)
(Sweet 1992, pp. 118-122; Service 1999, p. 48). All of these species
prey on arroyo toad tadpoles.
Of the above introduced-predators, bullfrogs are probably the most
serious threat to arroyo toads (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999, p. 82).
Bullfrogs are well adapted to deep water conditions in ponded areas
above dams, and dam releases can introduce them to downstream habitats
(CDFG 2005, p. 178). A broad diet and an extended breeding season give
bullfrogs a competitive advantage over native amphibians. Whereas
arroyo toad breeding habitat requirements are highly specialized, in
that they require shallow, slow-moving streams and riparian habitats
that are disturbed on a regular basis, bullfrogs can tolerate elevated
water temperatures and make use of standing pools resulting from urban
runoff to complete their 2-year life cycle (CDFG 2005, p. 178).
Introduced plants have also had a negative effect on arroyo toads
and their habitat. Nonnative plant species, particularly tamarisk
(Tamarix spp.) and giant reed (Arundo donax) alter the natural
hydrology of stream drainages by eliminating sandbars, breeding pools,
and upland habitats. Tamarisk is an aggressive, woody invasive plant
species that can tolerate a variety of environmental conditions and has
become established over as much as a million acres of floodplains,
riparian areas, wetlands, and lake margins in the western United States
(Carpenter 2004, pp. 1-30). Tamarisk can replace or displace native
woody species such as cottonwood and willow which occupy similar
habitats, especially when timing and amount of peak water discharge,
salinity, temperature, and substrate texture have been altered by human
activities (Carpenter 2004, pp. 1-30). Tamarisk also consumes large
quantities of water, possibly more than woody native plant species
occupying the same habitat (Carpenter 2004, p. 3). Highly resistant to
removal by flooding, tamarisk has the potential to form dense corridors
along most large streams. Where this has been allowed to occur,
tamarisk has replaced native vegetation, invaded sand bars, and led to
channelization by constricting flood flows. Arundo donax is a tall,
grass-like plant that grows up to 20 ft (6.1 m) in height with jointed
stems that resemble corn stalks. Arundo donax also invades stream banks
and lakeshores, where it can completely displace native vegetation,
reduce wildlife habitat, increase fire risks, and alter flow regimes
which can cause flooding (Ventura County 2006, pp. 21-23).
In summary, predation from introduced aquatic species and the loss
of habitat, coupled with habitat modifications due to the establishment
of nonnative plants and the manipulation of water levels in many
central and southern California streams and rivers, have caused arroyo
toads to disappear from a large portion of their previously occupied
habitat in California.
Previous Federal Action
For more information on previous Federal actions concerning the
arroyo toad, refer to our final designation of critical habitat
published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2005 (70 FR 19562). On
July 20, 2007 (Service 2007, pp. 1-2), we announced that we would
review the April 13, 2005, final rule after questions were raised about
the integrity of scientific information used and whether the decision
made was consistent with the appropriate legal standards. Based on our
review of the previous final critical habitat designation, we
determined it was necessary to revise critical habitat and this rule
proposes those revisions. On December 19, 2007, the Center for
Biological Diversity filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California challenging our designation of
critical habitat for the arroyo toad (Center for Biological Diversity
v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Case No. 07-2380-JM-AJB). On June 5,
2008, the court entered a consent decree requiring a proposed revised
critical habitat rule to be submitted to the Federal Register by
October 1, 2009, and a final revised critical habitat designation to be
submitted to the Federal Register by October 1, 2010.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features;
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species; and
(b) That may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means the use
of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring any
endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the
measures provided under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods
and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities
associated with scientific resources management such as research,
census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance,
propagation, live trapping and transplantation, and in the
extraordinary case where population
[[Page 52617]]
pressures within a given ecosystem cannot otherwise be relieved, may
include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out, funding,
or authorizing activities that are likely to result in the destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act
requires consultation on Federal actions that may affect critical
habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land
ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
private landowners. Where a landowner seeks or requests Federal agency
funding or authorization of an activity that may affect a listed
species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section
7(a)(2) would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse
modification finding, the Federal action agency's and the applicant's
obligation is not to restore or recover the species, but to implement
reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat.
To be considered for inclusion in a critical habitat designation,
habitat within the geographical area occupied by the species at the
time it was listed must contain the physical or biological features
that are essential to the conservation of the species. Areas supporting
the essential physical or biological features are identified, to the
extent known using the best scientific data available, as the habitat
areas that provide essential life cycle needs of the species; that is,
areas on which are found the primary constituent elements laid out in
the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement essential to the
conservation of the species. Habitat within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing that contains features
essential to the conservation of the species meets the definition of
critical habitat only if these features may require special management
considerations or protection. Under the Act and the regulations at 50
CFR 424.12, we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed only
when we determine that the best available scientific data demonstrate
that the designation of those areas is essential for the conservation
of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality
Guidelines, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific
data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to
use primary and original sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas to propose as revised critical
habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information
developed during the listing process for the species and any previous
designations of critical habitat. Additional information sources may
include the recovery plan and 5-year reviews for the species, articles
in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and
counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological
assessments, or other unpublished materials and expert opinion or
personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. In particular, we recognize that climate change may cause
changes in the arrangement of occupied habitat patches. Current climate
change predictions for terrestrial areas in the Northern Hemisphere
indicate warmer air temperatures, more intense precipitation events,
and increased summer continental drying (Field et al. 1999, pp. 1-3;
Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12422; Cayan et al. 2005, p. 6;
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007, p. 11; Cayan et al.
2009, p. xi). However, predictions of climatic conditions for smaller
sub-regions such as California remain uncertain. It is unknown at this
time if climate change in California will result in a warmer trend with
localized drying, higher precipitation events, or other effects. Thus,
the information currently available on the effects of global climate
change and increasing temperatures does not make sufficiently precise
estimates of the location and magnitude of the effects. Nor are we
currently aware of any climate change information specific to the
habitat of the arroyo toad that would indicate what areas may become
important to the species in the future. Therefore, we are unable to
determine what additional areas, if any, may be appropriate to include
in the proposed revised critical habitat for this species; however, we
specifically request information from the public on the currently
predicted effects of climate change on the arroyo toad and its habitat.
Additionally, we recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated critical habitat area is unimportant or
may not be required for recovery of the species.
Areas that support populations of the arroyo toad, but are outside
the critical habitat designation, may continue to be subject to
conservation actions we and other Federal agencies implement under
section 7(a)(1) of the Act. They are also subject to the regulatory
protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as
determined on the basis of the best available information at the time
of the agency action. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting
listed species outside their designated critical habitat areas may
still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, critical
habitat designations made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation will not control the direction
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans
(HCPs), section 7 consultations, or other species conservation planning
efforts if new information available to these planning efforts calls
for a different outcome.
Methods
As required by section 4(b) of the Act, we used the best scientific
and commercial data available in determining which areas within the
geographic area occupied by the species at the time of listing contain
the features essential to the conservation of the arroyo toad, and
which areas outside the geographical area occupied at the time of
listing are essential for the conservation of the species. We reviewed
information used to prepare the 2004 proposed critical habitat rule (69
FR 23254); the approach to provide conservation for the arroyo toad
provided in its recovery plan (Service 1999, pp. 1-119); the 5-year
review for the arroyo toad (Service 2009, pp. 1-51); the California
Department of Fish and Game's (CDFG) California Natural Diversity
Database (CNDDB) records; published peer-reviewed articles;
[[Page 52618]]
unpublished papers and reports; academic theses; survey results;
Geographic Information System (GIS) data (such as species occurrences,
soil data, land use, topography, and ownership maps); and
correspondence to the Service from recognized experts. We solicited new
information collected since publication of the recovery plan and 2005
final critical habitat designation, including information from State,
Federal, and Tribal governments, and from academia and private
organizations that have collected scientific data on the arroyo toad.
We also based our determination of areas meeting the definition of
critical habitat for the arroyo toad in part on the approach in the
recovery plan that focuses on protection and management of breeding and
non-breeding habitat on a watershed basis for the conservation of the
species (Service 1999, pp. 1-119).
Physical and Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas within the geographical
area occupied at the time of listing to propose as revised critical
habitat, we consider the physical and biological features that are
essential to the conservation of the species that may require special
management considerations or protection. Those features are the primary
constituent elements (PCEs) laid out in the appropriate quantity and
spatial arrangement for conservation of the species. The PCEs include,
but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth, and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific PCEs required for conservation of the arroyo
toad from its biological needs. The areas proposed for designation as
revised critical habitat provide aquatic habitat for breeding
activities and upland habitat for shelter, foraging, predator
avoidance, and dispersal across the arroyo toad's current range. The
PCEs and the resulting physical and biological features essential to
the conservation of the species are determined based on studies of
arroyo toad ecology as described in the ``Background'' section of this
proposed rule and in the final listing rule published in the Federal
Register on December 16, 1994 (59 FR 64859).
Space for Individual and Population Growth, and for Normal Behavior
The arroyo toad is found along medium-to-large streams in coastal
and desert drainages in central and southern California, and Baja
California, Mexico. It occupies aquatic, riparian, and upland habitats
in a number of the remaining suitable drainages within its range.
Suitable habitat for the arroyo toad is created and maintained by the
fluctuating hydrological, geological, and ecological processes that
naturally occur in riparian ecosystems and adjacent uplands (Campbell
et al. 1996, pp. 13-15; Service 1999, p. 39). Periodic flooding that
modifies stream channels, redistributes channel sediments, and alters
pool location and form, coupled with upper terrace stabilization by
vegetation, is required to keep a stream segment suitable for all life
stages of the arroyo toad (Campbell et al. 1996, p. 13; Service 1999,
p. 39). This natural flooding regime helps maintain areas of open,
sparsely vegetated, sandy stream channels and terraces.
The substrate in habitats preferred by arroyo toads consists
primarily of sand, fine gravel, or pliable soil, with varying amounts
of large gravel, cobble, and boulders. Areas that are damp and have
less than 10 percent vegetation cover provide the best conditions for
juvenile survival and rapid growth (Campbell et al. 1996, p. 12;
Service 1999, pp. 32-34). Arroyo toads breed in the quiet margins of
open streams and avoid sites with deep or swift water, tree canopy
cover, or steeply incised banks. Larvae occupy shallow areas of open
streambeds on substrates ranging from silt to cobble, with preferences
for sand or gravel. Newly metamorphosed arroyo toads and juveniles
remain on sparsely vegetated sand and gravel bars bordering the natal
pool for 3 to 5 weeks (Sweet 1992, p. 52).
Arroyo toads must be able to move between the stream and upland
foraging sites, as well as up and down the stream corridor. Juveniles
and adult arroyo toads require and spend much of their lives in
riparian and upland habitats adjacent to breeding locations (Campbell
et al. 1996, p. 12). Riparian habitats used for foraging and burrowing
include sand bars, alluvial terraces, and streamside benches that lack
vegetation, or are sparsely to moderately vegetated. Upland habitats
used by arroyo toads during both the breeding and non-breeding seasons
include alluvial scrub, coastal sage scrub, chaparral, grassland, and
oak woodland.
Food, Water, and Physiological Requirements
Arroyo toad tadpoles eat microscopic algae, bacteria, and
protozoans consumed from the spaces among pebbles, gravel, and sand, or
abraded from stones (Sweet 1992, p. 82). Juveniles and adults eat
insects, although ants are preferred. When foraging, arroyo toads are
often found around the drip lines of oak trees. These areas often lack
vegetation, yet have levels of prey that will support arroyo toads.
When active at night, toads often are observed near ant trails feeding
on ants, beetles, and other prey.
Cover or Shelter
During the day and other periods of inactivity, arroyo toads seek
shelter by burrowing into sand. Thus, areas of sandy or friable
(readily crumbled) soils are necessary, but these soils can be
interspersed with gravel or cobble deposits. Additionally, arroyo toads
may seek temporary shelter under rocks or debris and have been found in
mammal burrows on occasion. Upland sites with compact soils can also be
used for foraging and dispersal (Holland 2000, in litt.).
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, and Rearing of Offspring
The arroyo toad has specialized breeding habitat requirements. They
favor shallow pools (less than 12 in (30 cm) deep) and open sand and
gravel channels along low-gradient (typically less than 6 percent)
reaches of medium to large streams (Service 1999, pp. 31-32). These
streams can have either intermittent or perennial streamflow and
typically experience periodic flooding that scours vegetation and
replenishes fine sediments. In at least some portions of its range, the
species also breeds in smaller streams and canyons where low-gradient
breeding sites are more sporadically distributed. Breeding pools must
persist long enough for the completion of larval development, which is
generally March through June, depending on location and weather.
Because the suitability of breeding pools may vary from year to year
due to the dynamics of southern California riparian systems and flood
regimes, adult arroyo toads may move up or down stream in search of
suitable breeding pools, or not breed that year (Campbell et al. 1996,
p. 14).
Arroyo toads breed in rivers with intermittent, seasonal flow, with
a breeding period that may range from late February through July.
Breeding at
[[Page 52619]]
a given site may extend over several months (Griffin and Case 2001, p.
634). Breeding arroyo toads lay their eggs in water over substrates of
sand, gravel, or cobble in open sites such as overflow pools, old flood
channels, and shallow pools along streams. Such habitats rarely have
closed canopies over the lower banks of the stream channel due to
periodic flood events. Heavily shaded pools are generally unsuitable
for larval and juvenile arroyo toads because of lower water and soil
temperatures and poor algal mat development. Pools less than 12 in (30
cm) deep with clear water, flow rates less than 0.2 ft per second (5 cm
per second), and bottoms composed of sand or well-sorted fine gravel
are favored by adults for breeding and egg deposition (Sweet 1992, pp.
29-37). Although egg strings are laid in very slow-moving water, larvae
(tadpoles) can be found in water velocities of up to 1.0 to 1.3 ft per
second (30 to 40 cm per second) (Sweet 1992, p. 29). Breeding may occur
on several dates at a single site, and eggs may be deposited over a
period of 7 to 8 weeks (Campbell et al. 1996, p. 6). Breeding pools
must persist a minimum of 2 months for the completion of larval
development because changes in stream level or altering of the stream
bed or breeding pool may cause high mortality to eggs and small larvae,
sweeping them downstream, stranding and exposing them to desiccation,
or burying and asphyxiating them with silt (Campbell et al. 1996, p.
6). Larvae usually hatch in 4 to 6 days at water temperatures of 54 to
59 degrees Fahrenheit (12 to 16 degrees Celsius). Tadpoles disperse
from the pool margin into the surrounding shallow water, where they
spend an average of 10 weeks. After metamorphosis, the juvenile arroyo
toads remain on the bordering gravel bars until the pool dries out
(usually from 8 to 12 weeks depending on the site and rainfall).
Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) for the Arroyo Toad
Pursuant to the Act and its implementing regulations, when
considering the designation of critical habitat, we must focus on the
known principal primary constituent elements within the geographical
area occupied by the arroyo toad at the time of listing that are
essential to the conservation of the species. The essential physical
and biological features are those PCEs laid out in an appropriate
quantity and spatial arrangement determined to be essential to the
conservation of the species. All areas proposed in this rule as revised
critical habitat for the arroyo toad are currently occupied, are within
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing,
and contain sufficient PCEs to support at least one life-history
function.
Based on the above needs and our current knowledge of the life
history, biology, and ecology of the species, and the habitat
requirements for sustaining the essential life-history functions of the
species, we have determined that the PCEs specific to the arroyo toad
are:
(1) Rivers or streams with hydrologic regimes that supply water to
provide space, food, and cover needed to sustain eggs, tadpoles,
metamorphosing juveniles, and adult breeding toads. Breeding pools must
persist a minimum of 2 months for the completion of larval development.
However, due to the dynamic nature of southern California riparian
systems and flood regimes, the location of suitable breeding pools may
vary from year to year. Specifically, the conditions necessary to allow
for successful reproduction of arroyo toads are:
Breeding pools with areas less than 12 in (30 cm) deep;
Areas of flowing water with current velocities less than
1.3 ft per second (40 cm per second); and
Surface water that lasts for a minimum of 2 months during
the breeding season (a sufficient wet period in the spring months to
allow arroyo toad larvae to hatch, mature, and metamorphose).
(2) Riparian and adjacent upland habitats, particularly low-
gradient (typically less than 6 percent) stream segments and alluvial
streamside terraces with sandy or fine gravel substrates that support
the formation of shallow pools and sparsely vegetated sand and gravel
bars for breeding and rearing of tadpoles and juveniles; and adjacent
valley bottomlands that include areas of loose soil where toads can
burrow underground, to provide foraging and living areas for juvenile
and adult arroyo toads.
(3) A natural flooding regime, or one sufficiently corresponding to
natural, characterized by intermittent or near perennial flow that
contributes to the persistence of shallow pools into at least mid-
summer, and that maintains areas of open, sparsely vegetated, sandy
stream channels and terraces by periodically scouring riparian
vegetation; and also that modifies stream channels and terraces and
redistributes sand and sediment, such that breeding pools and terrace
habitats with scattered vegetation are maintained.
(4) Stream channels and adjacent upland habitats that allow for
movement to breeding pools, foraging areas, overwintering sites,
upstream and downstream dispersal, and connectivity to areas that
contain suitable habitat.
In summary, the need for space for individual and population growth
and normal behavior is met by PCE (1); the need for food, water and
physiological requirements is met by PCE (1); cover and shelter
requirements are met by PCE (2); areas for breeding reproduction, and
rearing of offspring are met by PCEs (1), (2), and (3); and habitats
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species are met by PCE (4).
With this proposed revised designation of critical habitat, we
intend to conserve the physical and biological features that are
essential to the conservation of the species, through the
identification of the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement of
the PCEs sufficient to support the life-history functions of the
species. Because not all life-history functions require all the PCEs,
not all areas designated as critical habitat will contain all the PCEs.
Each of the areas proposed for designation in this rule has been
determined to contain sufficient PCEs to provide for one or more of the
life-history functions of the arroyo toad.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
In accordance with the definition of critical habitat in section
3(5)(A) of the Act, when designating critical habitat within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, we
assess whether the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the arroyo toad may require special management
considerations or protection. All areas being proposed as critical
habitat may require some level of management to address current and
future threats to the arroyo toad, to maintain or enhance the physical
and biological features essential to its conservation, and to ensure
the recovery and survival of the species.
A detailed discussion of threats impacting the physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of the arroyo toad
which may require special management considerations or protection, can
be found in the final listing rule (59 FR 64859; December 16, 1994),
the 2001 critical habitat designation (66 FR 9414; February 7, 2001),
the 2005 critical habitat designation (70 FR 19561; April 13, 2005),
and the recovery plan (Service 1999, pp. 1-119). In summary, these
threats include habitat destruction and alteration due to short- and
long-term changes in river hydrology, including
[[Page 52620]]
construction of dams and water diversions; alteration of riparian
wetland habitats by agriculture and urbanization; construction of
roads; site-specific damage by off-highway vehicle use and other
recreational activities; overgrazing; and mining activities. Arroyo
toads and their habitats are also threatened by introduced nonnative
predators (such as bullfrogs and predatory fish), drought, periodic
fires, unseasonal water releases from dams, livestock grazing, and
light and noise pollution from adjacent developments and campgrounds.
Activities that may require special management considerations or
protection of the features essential to the conservation of the arroyo
toad include, but are not limited to: dam construction and operation,
river diversion, conversion of riparian wetland habitat by agriculture
and urbanization, road construction, off-highway vehicle use,
campground development, grazing, and mining. In each proposed critical
habitat unit, special management may be needed to ensure that aquatic
and terrestrial habitat are able to provide abundant breeding and non-
breeding habitat, prey habitat, shelter, and connectivity within the
landscape.
In summary, we find that each of the areas we are proposing as
revised critical habitat contains features essential to the
conservation of the arroyo toad, and that these features may require
special management considerations or protection. Special management
considerations or protection may be required to eliminate, or reduce to
negligible level, the threats affecting each unit and to preserve and
maintain the essential features that the proposed critical habitat
units provide to the arroyo toad. A more comprehensive discussion of
threats facing individual sites is in the individual unit descriptions.
The designation of critical habitat does not imply that lands
outside of critical habitat do not play an important role in the
conservation of the arroyo toad. Activities with a Federal nexus that
may affect those unprotected areas outside of critical habitat, such as
development, agricultural activities, and road construction, are still
subject to review under section 7 of the Act if they may affect the
arroyo toad. The take prohibitions of section 9 of the Act also
continue to apply both inside and outside of designated critical
habitat. Take is broadly defined in the Act as to harass, harm, pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect a listed species,
or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
Using the best scientific and commercial data available as required
by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we identified those areas to propose
for revised designation as critical habitat that, within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing (see
``Geographic Range'' section), possess those physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the arroyo toad and which may
require special management considerations or protection. We also
considered the area outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing for any areas that are essential for the
conservation of the arroyo toad. The material we used included the 1994
final listing rule (59 FR 64859), the 2004 proposed critical habitat
rule (69 FR 23254), 2008 CNDDB records, the arroyo toad recovery plan,
data in reports submitted during section 7 consultations and by
biologists holding section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits, research
published in peer-reviewed articles and presented in academic theses
and agency reports, the 5-year review for the arroyo toad (Service
2009, pp. 1-51), and regional GIS coverages. We analyzed this
information to develop criteria for identifying areas that contain the
PCEs in the appropriate quantit