Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of Proposed Rule To Reclassify the Arroyo Toad as Threatened, 79805-79816 [2015-32075]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 246 (Wednesday, December 23, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 79805-79816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32075]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0007;FXES11130900000-156-FF09E42000]
RIN 1018-AY82


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of 
Proposed Rule To Reclassify the Arroyo Toad as Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), withdraw the 
proposed rule to reclassify the arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus) as 
threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 
This withdrawal is based on our conclusion that the types of threats to 
the arroyo toad remain the same as at the time of listing and are 
ongoing, and new threats have been identified. Some conservation 
efforts are ongoing in most populations to help manage and reduce 
impacts to arroyo toads from many ongoing threats; however, the species 
has not yet responded to an extent that would allow a change in listing 
status. The intent of the reclassification criteria in the recovery 
plan (Service 1999) has not been met. We have therefore determined that 
reclassification of this species is not appropriate at this time.

DATES: The March 27, 2014 (79 FR 17106), proposed rule to reclassify 
the arroyo toad as threatened is withdrawn as of December 23, 2015.

ADDRESSES: This withdrawal, comments on our March 27, 2014, proposed 
rule (79 FR 17106), and supplementary documents are available on the 
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-
0007. Comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation used in the preparation of this withdrawal, are also 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife 
Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003; telephone 805-
644-1766; or facsimile 805-644-3958.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor, 
Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES). If you use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Previous Federal Actions

    Please refer to the proposed reclassification rule for the arroyo 
toad (79 FR 17106; March 27, 2014) for a detailed description of the 
Federal actions concerning this species that occurred prior to 
publication of the proposed reclassification rule. We accepted 
submission of new information and comments on the proposed 
reclassification for a 60-day comment period, ending May 27, 2014. In 
order to ensure that the public had an adequate opportunity to review 
and comment on our proposed rule, we reopened the comment period for an 
additional 30 days on October 17, 2014 (79 FR 62408).

Background

    A scientific analysis was completed and presented in detail within 
the arroyo toad species report (Service 2014, entire), which was 
available on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R8-ES-
2014-0007 after the publication of the proposed reclassification. The 
species report was updated to include the information we received from 
public and peer review comments, and the final species report (Service 
2015, entire) is available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket 
Number FWS-R8-ES-2014-0007. The species report was prepared by Service 
biologists to provide thorough discussion of the species' ecology, 
biological needs, and an analysis of the threats that may be impacting 
the species. The species report includes discussion of the species' 
life history, taxonomy, habitat requirements, range, distribution, 
abundance, threats, and progress towards recovery. This detailed 
information is summarized in the following paragraphs of this 
Background section and the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species 
section.
    Arroyo toads are found in low gradient, medium-to-large streams and 
rivers with intermittent and perennial flow in coastal and desert 
drainages in central and southern California, and Baja California, 
Mexico. Arroyo toads occupy aquatic, riparian, and upland habitats in 
the remaining suitable drainages within its range. Arroyo toads are 
breeding habitat specialists that need slow-moving streams that are 
composed of sandy soils with sandy streamside terraces (Sweet 1992, pp. 
23-28). Reproduction is dependent upon the availability of very 
shallow, still, or low-flow pools in which breeding, egg-laying, and 
tadpole development occur. Suitable habitat for arroyo toads is created 
and maintained by periodic flooding and scouring that modify

[[Page 79806]]

stream channels, redistribute channel sediments, and alter pool 
location and form. These habitat requirements are largely dependent 
upon natural hydrological cycles and scouring events (Madden-Smith et 
al. 2003, p. 3).
    Arroyo toads were once relatively abundant in coastal central and 
southern California. Arroyo toads historically were known to occur in 
coastal drainages in southern California from the upper Salinas River 
system in Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties; south through the 
Santa Maria and Santa Ynez River basins in Santa Barbara County; the 
Santa Clara River basin in Ventura County; the Los Angeles River basin 
in Los Angeles County; the coastal drainages of Orange, Riverside, and 
San Diego Counties; and south to the Arroyo San Simeon system in Baja 
California, M[eacute]xico (Sweet 1992, p. 18; Service 1999, p. 12). 
Jennings and Hayes (1994, p. 57) are most commonly cited as documenting 
a decline of 76 percent of arroyo toad populations throughout the 
species' range due to loss of habitat and hydrological alterations to 
stream systems as a result of dam construction and flood control. This 
76 percent decline was based on studies done in the early 1990s by Sam 
Sweet (Jennings and Hayes 1994, p. 57) that addressed the natural 
history and status of arroyo toad populations on a portion of the 
species' range on the Los Padres National Forest.
    Currently, arroyo toads are limited to isolated populations found 
primarily in the headwaters of coastal streams along the central and 
southern coast of California and southward to Rio Santa Maria near San 
Quintin in northwestern Baja California, M[eacute]xico (Lovich 2009, p. 
62). Arroyo toads are still extant within the range they occupied 
historically and at the time of listing, but new data indicate that the 
species has continued to decline in numbers and in area occupied within 
its current range (Hancock 2007-2014, entire; Hollingsworth in litt. 
2014; USGS in litt. 2014; Sweet 2015, pers. comm.; USGS 2015, pers. 
comm.). Overall, we recognize 25 river basins in the United States and 
an additional 10 river basins in Baja California, Mexico, as containing 
at least one extant population of arroyo toads (Service 2015, Table 1).
    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the 
arroyo toad is presented in the final species report (Service 2015) 
(the species report and other materials relating to this withdrawal can 
be found on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R8-ES-2014-
0007).

Summary of Basis for This Withdrawal

    Based upon our review of the public comments, agency comments, peer 
review comments, and new relevant information that became available 
since the March 27, 2014, publication of the reclassification proposed 
rule (79 FR 17106), we reevaluated our proposed rule. Other than minor 
clarifications and incorporation of additional information on the 
species' biology and populations, this determination differs from the 
proposal in the following ways:
    (1) As in the proposed rule, we find that the types of threats to 
arroyo toads remain the same as at the time of listing and are ongoing; 
in addition, new threats have been identified. The threats of 
urbanization, dams and water diversions, introduced predators, and 
drought have current and ongoing, high impacts to arroyo toads and 
their habitat. New threats include invasive, nonnative plants and 
effects of climate change. Some conservation efforts are ongoing in 
most populations to help manage and reduce impacts to arroyo toads from 
many ongoing threats. However, we have now determined that the best 
available scientific data do not currently support a determination that 
the species has responded to conservation actions such that a change in 
listing status is warranted (see numbers (2) and (3), below).
    (2) Based on our evaluation of peer review and public comments and 
on additional population data received during the comment periods, we 
have determined that that the intent of the reclassification criteria 
in the recovery plan (Service 1999) has not been met. The downlisting 
recovery criteria state that for arroyo toads to be reclassified to 
threatened, management plans must have been approved and implemented on 
federally managed lands, and at least 20 self-sustaining 
metapopulations or populations at specified locations on Federal lands 
must be maintained. At the time of our proposed reclassification rule, 
as well as currently, there were no long-term population trend data 
available that demonstrate that arroyo toad populations have stabilized 
or are increasing. However, the Service is required by section 4(b)(1) 
of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) to make determinations regarding 
the status of a species solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available. We must make a determination based on the 
available information even when data that are lacking would be more 
desirable. In other words, we cannot delay or decline to make a 
determination because we lack data that would be more ideal. In the 
March 27, 2014, proposed rule, we stated that current available 
information indicates that arroyo toads are persisting or are presumed 
to be persisting on Federal lands in 17 river basin occurrences and 5 
additional occurrences on non-Federal lands, for a total of 22 extant 
or presumed extant occurrences in California. Because we lacked long-
term population trend data, this constituted the best available 
information on the status of arroyo toad populations. As the only 
population data available, we used this information as a proxy measure 
in attempting to determine whether populations were stable or 
increasing. We stated that this information supported our conclusion 
that the occurrences are self-sustaining (79 FR 17106; March 27, 2014), 
and, therefore, that the intent of the criteria identified in the 
arroyo toad recovery plan for downlisting had been met.
    Since we published the proposed rule to downlist the arroyo toad, 
however, we have received additional information through the peer 
review and public comment process that refutes our finding that the 
intent of the recovery criteria has been met. First, we reevaluated our 
use of extant or presumed extant populations as a proxy for self-
sustaining populations. While these kind of data do indicate that some 
level of reproduction and recruitment is occurring, we now agree with 
commenters that these data cannot be used to infer that arroyo toad 
populations are self-sustaining in the long term, and we conclude it is 
scientifically inaccurate to do so. Self-sustaining is clearly defined 
in the recovery plan as populations that have stabilized or are 
increasing. No long-term population trend data for arroyo toads 
demonstrate that populations have stabilized or are increasing anywhere 
within the species' range. Second, although arroyo toads are still 
persisting within the range they occupied historically and at the time 
of listing, new data indicate that the species has continued to decline 
in numbers and in area occupied within its current range (Hancock 2007-
2014, entire; Hollingsworth in litt. 2014; USGS in litt. 2014; Sweet 
2015, pers. comm.; USGS 2015, pers. comm.). At least three occurrences 
in the Northern Recovery Unit (Salinas River Basin, Santa Ynez River 
Basin, and Santa Clara River Basin) (Hancock 2007-2014, entire; Sweet 
2015, pers. comm.) and at least eight occurrences in the Southern 
Recovery Unit (Lower Santa Margarita River Basin, Upper San Luis Rey 
River Basin, Upper and Lower Santa Ysabel Creek Basins, Upper San Diego 
River

[[Page 79807]]

Basin, Upper Sweetwater River Basin, and Upper and Lower Cottonwood 
Creek Basins) (USGS in litt. 2014; USGS 2015, pers. comm.) have shown 
recent declines.
    (3) Because no information indicates that populations have 
stabilized or are increasing, and new information suggests several 
occurrences are in decline, we have determined that downlisting the 
arroyo toad is not appropriate at this time. As a result, this document 
withdraws the proposed rule published on March 27, 2014 (79 FR 17106).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) 
set forth the procedures for listing species, reclassifying species, or 
removing species from listed status. ``Species'' is defined by the Act 
as including any species or subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, 
and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish 
or wildlife which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A 
species may be determined to be an endangered species or threatened 
species because of any one or a combination of the five factors 
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or human made 
factors affecting its continued existence. A species may be 
reclassified on the same basis.
    Determining whether the status of a species has improved to the 
point that it can be downlisted or delisted requires consideration of 
whether the species is endangered or threatened because of the same 
five categories of threats specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For 
species that are already listed as endangered species or threatened 
species, this analysis of threats is an evaluation of both the threats 
currently facing the species and the threats that are reasonably likely 
to affect the species in the foreseeable future following the delisting 
or downlisting and the removal or reduction of the Act's protections.
    A species is an ``endangered species'' for purposes of the Act if 
it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range and is a ``threatened species'' if it is likely to become 
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. The word ``range'' in the definitions 
of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened species'' refers to the 
range in which the species currently exists. For the purposes of this 
analysis, we first evaluate the status of the species throughout all 
its range; then, if we determine that the species is neither in danger 
of extinction nor likely to becomes so, we next consider whether the 
species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in any 
significant portion of its range.
    A threats analysis for the arroyo toad is included in the final 
species report (Service 2015, entire) associated with this document 
(and available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-
ES-2014-0007). All potential threats that are acting upon arroyo toads 
currently or in the future (and consistent with the five listing 
factors identified above) were evaluated and addressed in the final 
species report, and are summarized in the following paragraphs.
    At the time of listing, the primary threats to arroyo toads were 
urban development, agricultural conversion, operations of dams and 
water flow, roads and road maintenance, recreational activities, 
introduced predator species, and drought (59 FR 64859; December 16, 
1994). Other threats identified in 1994 included livestock grazing, 
mining and prospecting, and alteration of the natural fire regime (59 
FR 64859).
    Current and potential future threats to arroyo toads include urban 
development (Factors A and E), agriculture (Factors A and E), operation 
of dams and water diversions (Factor A), mining and prospecting 
(Factors A and E), livestock grazing (Factor A), roads and road 
maintenance (Factors A and E), recreation (Factors A and E), invasive, 
nonnative plants (Factor A), disease (Factor C), introduced predator 
species (Factor C), drought (Factor E), fire and fire suppression 
(Factors A and E), and climate change (Factor E).
    Please see the ``Threats'' section of the final species report for 
a thorough discussion of all potential and current threats (Service 
2015, pp. 29-91). In the final species report, we use threat impact 
categories to reflect the magnitude to which arroyo toads are affected 
by the threat. Impact categories are: (1) High: Likely to have a major 
impact on local populations or habitat that rises to a species-level 
effect; (2) medium: Likely to have a moderate impact on local 
population numbers or habitat, but populations in other locations may 
not be impacted such that the effect does not rise to the species 
level; and (3) low: Likely to have minimal impacts on local population 
numbers or habitat such that the effect does not rise above the 
individual level. Timing is used to characterize the period of the 
available data and determine the general timeframe over which we can 
make reliable predictions about how threats will affect arroyo toads. 
In general, we have information about effects of threats on arroyo 
toads since time of listing, approximately 20 years ago. Therefore, the 
timeframe we are comfortable predicting into the future for most 
threats is also 20 years. The following sections provide a summary of 
the current and potential future threats that are impacting or may 
impact arroyo toads.

Urban Development

    At the time of listing, habitat loss from development projects in 
riparian wetlands caused permanent losses of riparian habitats. Urban 
development was the most conspicuous factor in the decline of arroyo 
toads at the time of listing because the loss of arroyo toad breeding 
habitat was permanent. By the time the arroyo toad was listed in 1994, 
development and urban sprawl had already resulted in conversion to 
urban and suburban use of nearly 40 percent of the riparian areas along 
the coast from Ventura County to the Mexican border (CDFG 2005). The 
trend toward increasing urbanization in California continues to the 
present day.
    Existing urban development currently affects 25 out of 32 river 
basins (3 unknown) where arroyo toads are known to occur and has a 
serious effect on arroyo toads and their habitats. While this threat 
has been somewhat reduced at 10 occurrences, we categorize the threat 
of urban development as having a high level of impact to the species 
throughout its range. Decline in number of populations of arroyo toads 
has already occurred (Jennings and Hayes 1994, p. 57), and new data 
indicate that the species has continued to decline in numbers and in 
area occupied within its current range (Hancock 2007-2014, entire; 
Hollingsworth in litt. 2014; USGS in litt. 2014; Sweet 2015, pers. 
comm.; USGS 2015, pers. comm.). In addition, increases in human 
population and urban development pressures will, through time, continue 
to cause new loss of arroyo toad populations and reduce opportunities 
for conservation and enhancement of existing populations; they will 
also reduce the potential for reintroduction of the species, and likely 
further reduce the genetic variation found in this species (Lovich 
2009, p. 91). While impacts

[[Page 79808]]

from development have been reduced at 10 occurrences through current 
conservation measures, over the next 20 years urban development is 
expected to continue to have a high level of impact to arroyo toads.

Agriculture

    At the time of listing, habitat loss from agricultural development 
projects in riparian wetlands also had caused permanent losses of 
riparian habitats. Agricultural development currently affects 20 out of 
35 river basins where arroyo toads are known to occur and has a 
moderate effect on arroyo toads and their habitats. While this threat 
has been reduced at two occurrences, we categorize the threat of 
agriculture as having a medium level of impact to the species 
throughout its range. Because arroyo toads use both aquatic and 
terrestrial environments, they are impacted both by agricultural 
activities that subject their habitats to increased fragmentation and 
by decreased habitat quality from groundwater pumping, water 
diversions, and contaminated runoff. Additionally, arroyo toads are 
attracted to open areas of farm fields to find foraging and burrowing 
sites, and thus are vulnerable to being run over by farm equipment or 
trampled by field workers. Where chemicals are used, arroyo toads are 
exposed to residues that can collect in soils where they burrow or in 
pools where they breed. Overall, over the next 20 years, agriculture is 
expected to continue to have a medium level of impact to arroyo toads.

Operation of Dams and Water Diversions

    At the time of listing, short- and long-term changes in river 
hydrology, including construction of dams and water diversions, were 
responsible for the loss of 40 percent of the estimated original range 
of the species, and nearly half of historical extirpations prior to 
listing are attributed to impacts from original dam construction and 
operation (Sweet 1992, pp. 4-5; Ramirez 2003, p. 7). These changes are 
a result of dam construction and operation because the original 
construction of a dam: (1) Effectively fragments a watershed by slowing 
rivers and blocking the natural flow of water and sediments; (2) 
inundates large areas of arroyo toad habitat; and (3) blocks in-stream 
movement of arroyo toads, which effectively isolates populations 
upstream and downstream of dams and may preclude recolonization of 
areas formerly occupied by arroyo toads (Campbell et al. 1996, p. 18).
    Dams and water diversions currently affect 19 out of 26 river 
basins (9 unknown) where arroyo toads are known to occur and have a 
serious effect on arroyo toads and their habitats. While this threat 
has been reduced at four occurrences, we categorize the threat of the 
operation of dams and water diversions as having a high level of impact 
to the species throughout its range. Dam construction results in the 
immediate destruction of habitat above the dam through inundation, 
destroying both arroyo toad breeding and upland habitats. Downstream 
habitat is eliminated by regulated stream flows that: Destroy sand bars 
used during the breeding season; reconfigure, and in some cases 
eliminate, suitable breeding pools; and disrupt clutch and larval 
development (Ramirez 2005, p. 2). The initial downstream effects of a 
dam will modify and degrade breeding habitat for arroyo toads, but in 
the long term will eventually eliminate it (Madden-Smith et al. 2005, 
p. 23). Impacts from unseasonal water releases have been minimized at 
three occurrences at the Santa Clara River Basin, Lower Sweetwater 
River Basin, and Lower Cottonwood Creek Basin, and have been partially 
minimized at the Upper San Diego River Basin occurrence. Although the 
threat is reduced in these areas, other impacts from dams and water 
diversions, such as reduction of sediments and nutrients, and increased 
desiccation, vegetation density, and presence of aquatic predators, 
still exist. Overall, over the next 20 years, operation of dams and 
water diversions are expected to continue to have a high level of 
impact to arroyo toads.

Mining and Prospecting

    At the time of listing, habitat loss through recreational suction 
dredge mining for gold was considered an additional threat to the 
species. For example, in 1991, during the Memorial Day weekend, four 
small dredges operating on Piru Creek in the Los Padres National Forest 
produced sedimentation visible more than 0.8 miles (mi) (1 kilometer 
(km)) downstream and adversely affected 40,000 to 60,000 arroyo toad 
larvae. Subsequent surveys revealed an almost total loss of the species 
in this stream section; fewer than 100 larvae survived, and only four 
juvenile toads were located (Sweet 1992, pp. 180-187). Currently, the 
California Department of Fish and Wildlife has prohibited suction 
dredge mining in Class A streams; only one occurrence is located 
outside Class A streams in the United States (24 total occurrences).
    Mining and prospecting currently affect 8 out of 27 river basins (8 
unknown) where arroyo toads are known to occur and have minimal impacts 
on local population numbers or habitat and their habitats. Therefore, 
we categorize this threat as having a low level of impact to the 
species throughout its range. Sand and gravel mining remain a threat at 
five occurrences in the United States and two occurrences in Baja 
California, Mexico, and gold prospecting is a threat at one occurrence 
in the United States. Overall, over the next 20 years, mining and 
prospecting are expected to continue to have a low level of impact to 
arroyo toads.

Livestock Grazing

    At the time of listing, overgrazing caused mortality to arroyo 
toads if horses or cattle were allowed to graze in riparian areas. The 
effects of livestock grazing on arroyo toads included directly crushing 
individuals and burrows; trampling stream banks, resulting in soil 
compaction, loss or reduction in vegetative bank cover, stream bank 
collapse, and increased in-stream water temperatures from loss of 
shade; and excess sedimentation entering stream segments at crossings 
or other stream areas used by livestock for watering or grazing on 
riparian vegetation.
    Livestock grazing currently affects 20 out of 35 river basins where 
arroyo toads are known to occur and has a moderate effect on arroyo 
toads and their habitats. While this threat has been reduced at four 
occurrences, we categorize the threat of livestock grazing as having a 
medium level of impact to the species throughout its range. Due to 
their fragile nature, even occasional use of riparian corridors by 
cattle can cause harm to the riparian and aquatic habitats. 
Concentrated grazing by cattle will, over time, reduce or eliminate the 
under- and mid-story components of vegetation. Evidence of livestock 
overgrazing is seen in the lack of breeding pool habitat, sloughed and 
trampled stream-banks, and a stressed riparian plant community where 
desirable species such as sedges (Carex spp.) and young willows (Salix 
spp.) are becoming scarce and undesirable species such as tamarisk 
(Tamarix spp.) are increasing. Livestock grazing on Federal lands has 
been reduced to some extent through section 7 consultation and the 
addition of minimization measures to grazing allotment permits issued 
by Los Padres and Cleveland National Forests. Overall, over the next 20 
years, livestock grazing is expected to

[[Page 79809]]

continue to have a medium level of impact to arroyo toads.

Roads and Road Maintenance

    At the time of listing, the use of heavy equipment in yearly 
reconstruction of roads and stream crossings in the National Forests 
had a significant and repeated impact to arroyo toads and their 
habitat. Conversion of streams and stream terraces to roads eliminates 
foraging and burrowing habitat for arroyo toads. Toads are crushed by 
equipment on the roads or when vehicles use the low water crossings 
during normal daytime project activities. For example, as described in 
the listing rule (59 FR 64859; December 16, 1994), grading in Mono 
Creek for Ogilvy Ranch Road destroyed habitat and likely killed 
individual toads; maintenance of the road continues to depress 
populations of toads in Mono Creek.
    Roads and road maintenance currently affect 30 out of 35 river 
basins where arroyo toads are known to occur and have a moderate effect 
on arroyo toads and their habitats. While this threat has been reduced 
at three occurrences, we categorize the threat of roads and road 
maintenance as having a medium level of impact to the species 
throughout its range. Overall, over the next 20 years, roads and road 
maintenance are expected to continue to have a medium level of impact 
to arroyo toads.

Recreation

    At the time of listing, recreational activities in riparian 
wetlands had substantial negative effects on arroyo toad habitat and 
individuals. Streamside campgrounds in southern California National 
Forests were frequently located adjacent to arroyo toad habitat (Sweet 
1992). With nearly 20 million people living within driving distance of 
the National Forests and other public lands in southern California, 
recreational access and its subsequent effects are an ongoing concern 
(CDFG 2005). Numerous studies have documented the effects of recreation 
on vegetation and soils, and document results of human trampling caused 
by hiking, camping, fishing, and nature study. Significantly fewer 
studies report the consequences of horse and bicycle riding or that of 
off-road vehicles (OHV) and snowmobiles (Cole and Landres 1995).
    Recreational activities are currently known to affect 22 out of 25 
river basins (10 unknown) where arroyo toad are known to occur and have 
a moderate effect on arroyo toads and their habitats. While this threat 
has been reduced at six occurrences, we categorize this threat as 
having a medium level of impact to the species throughout its range. 
Many of the recreational activities described above may result in the 
loss and fragmentation of arroyo toad habitat. Roads, trails, OHV use, 
recreational facilities, and water impoundments can replace natural 
habitat, and this destruction can displace arroyo toad populations 
(Maxell and Hokit 1999, p. 2.15). The U.S. Forest Service (Forest 
Service) has been proactive in reducing or eliminating some of these 
threats on their lands. To help control recreational activities, the 
Forest Service has closed campgrounds seasonally or permanently, 
installed road and interpretive signs, erected barriers, re-routed 
trails and trailheads, and implemented seasonal road closures in six 
occurrences on Federal lands. However, impacts have not been reduced at 
the remaining recreational sites on National Forests. Overall, over the 
next 20 years, recreational activities are expected to continue to have 
a medium level of impact to arroyo toads.

Invasive, Nonnative Plants

    At the time of listing, invasive, nonnative plants were not 
identified as a threat to arroyo toads. Since then, invasive, nonnative 
plants have had a negative effect on arroyo toads and their habitat. 
Nonnative plant species, particularly tamarisk and giant reed (Arundo 
donax), alter the natural hydrology of stream drainages by eliminating 
sandbars, breeding pools, and upland habitats.
    Invasive, nonnative plants are known to currently affect 16 out of 
25 river basins (10 unknown) where arroyo toads are known to occur and 
have a moderate effect on arroyo toad habitats. While this threat has 
been reduced at six occurrences, we categorize the threat of invasive, 
nonnative plants as having a medium level of impact to the species 
throughout its range. Invasive, nonnative plants such as tamarisk and 
giant reed alter the natural hydrology and habitat features of 
watersheds occupied by arroyo toad. Large riparian corridors have 
historically acted as natural firebreaks in southern California because 
of their low-lying topography and relative absence of flammable fuels. 
However, the highly flammable tamarisk and giant reed have altered this 
situation and pose a serious problem for management because they 
vigorously resprout after burning. Management of invasive plants and 
weeds with chemical herbicides and pesticides can also have impacts to 
arroyo toads. Management of invasive plants that minimizes impacts to 
arroyo toads is currently limited to proactive control and minimizing 
habitat disturbances that permit some invasive species to become 
established. Overall, over the next 20 years, invasive, nonnative 
plants are expected to continue to have a medium level of impact to 
arroyo toads.

Disease

    Disease was not considered a threat to arroyo toads at the time of 
listing in 1994. However, during the last several decades, significant 
declines in populations of amphibians have been observed worldwide 
(Beebee and Griffiths 2005, p. 273). Since the arroyo toad was listed, 
chytridiomycosis, an infectious amphibian disease caused by the fungus 
Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), has been clearly linked to these 
amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Bullfrogs (Rana 
catesbeiana), an introduced predator, may also carry the pathogen 
without showing clinical signs of the disease (Beebee and Griffiths 
2005, p. 273). Infection caused by Bd would likely have a major effect 
to arroyo toads because the available information indicates that arroyo 
toads are susceptible to the disease. However, it is not currently 
known to occur in any populations. We therefore do not consider disease 
to be a threat currently affecting the species, although it could be a 
potential future threat that should be monitored.

Introduced Predator Species

    At the time of listing, nonnative predators had caused substantial 
reductions in the sizes of extant populations of arroyo toads, and 
nonnative predators have caused arroyo toads to disappear from large 
portions of historically occupied habitat (Jennings and Hayes 1994, p. 
57).
    Introduced predators currently affect 26 out of 35 river basins 
where arroyo toads are known to occur and have a serious effect on 
arroyo toads and their habitats. While this threat has been somewhat 
reduced at five occurrences, we categorize the threat of introduced 
predators as having a high level of impact to the species throughout 
its range. Introduced fishes and bullfrogs prey on arroyo toad larvae, 
juveniles, and adults. These predator species pose a continuing threat 
to almost all arroyo toad populations and have essentially become 
residents of the ecosystem. In reality, bullfrogs, green sunfish 
(Lepomis cyanellus), and other exotic predatory fishes are not well-
adapted to be permanent residents of the portions of streams occupied 
by arroyo toads; they die off during droughts, or are

[[Page 79810]]

washed out by moderate flooding (Sweet 1992, p. 156). However, they 
thrive in reservoirs and need only part of one season to reinvade 
upstream. Additionally, the deep pools formed below dams provide refuge 
for these introduced predators and allow them to rapidly recolonize 
downstream areas (Sweet 1992, p. 156). Modeling has indicated that 
arroyo toad populations are not self-sustaining in the presence of 
nonnative predators, but rather are dependent upon continued aquatic 
invasive species management (USGS in litt. 2014). Overall, over the 
next 20 years, introduced predators are expected to continue to have a 
high level of impact to arroyo toads.

Drought

    At the time of listing, drought and the resultant deterioration of 
riparian habitats was considered to be the most significant natural 
factor adversely affecting arroyo toads. Although drought is a 
recurring phenomenon in southern California, there is no doubt that 
this natural event combined with the many manmade factors negatively 
affects arroyo toad survival.
    Drought continues to have negative effects on arroyo toads. Drought 
tends to be regional in scale, and thus we expect Baja California, 
Mexico, to experience similar effects to southern California. 
Therefore, drought currently affects 35 out of 35 river basins where 
arroyo toads are known to occur and has a serious effect on arroyo 
toads and their habitats. Most arroyo toad occurrences are small and 
occur in ephemeral streams at high elevations. At lower elevations, 
impacts from drought on arroyo toad occurrences are exacerbated by 
alteration of hydrology from dams, water diversions, and groundwater 
extraction due to urbanization and agriculture. Arroyo toads' lifespan 
averages approximately 5 years; if drought persists longer than 6 
years, entire populations could be extirpated for lack of water 
necessary to reproduce and complete their life cycle (Sweet 1992, p. 
147; USGS in litt. 2014). Drought is certainly not unusual in southern 
California and arroyo toad populations have withstood such episodes in 
the past, such that no occurrences have become extirpated since 
listing; however, the 2014-2015 rainy season was part of the driest 4-
year stretch ever recorded in California history. Overall, over the 
next 20 years, episodes of drought are expected to have a high level of 
impact to arroyo toads.

Periodic Fire and Fire Suppression

    At the time of listing and at present, periodic fires are 
considered a threat to arroyo toads because fires can cause direct 
mortality of arroyo toads, destroy streamside vegetation, or eliminate 
vegetation that sustains the watershed. Direct mortality to arroyo 
toads can also result from construction of fuel breaks and safety zones 
in stream terraces where arroyo toads are burrowed. Bulldozing 
operations for construction of fuel breaks can severely degrade other 
essential upland habitats. In recent decades, large fires in the West 
have become more frequent, more widespread, and potentially more deadly 
to wildlife (Joint Fire Science Program 2007, entire). There has been a 
shift to more severe fires on the Los Padres National Forest, including 
the Day and Zaca Fires.
    Periodic fire and fire suppression activities could potentially 
affect 22 out of 25 river basins (10 unknown) where arroyo toads are 
known to occur and have a moderate effect on arroyo toads and their 
habitats. This threat has been reduced at none of the occurrences, and 
we categorize this threat as having a medium level of impact to the 
species throughout its range. Overall, over the next 20 years, periodic 
fire and fire suppression activities are expected to continue to have a 
medium level of impact to arroyo toads.

Climate Change

    Climate change is a new threat identified since listing. Climate 
change currently affects 35 out of 35 river basins where arroyo toads 
are known to occur; however, the impact of climate change on arroyo 
toad populations or habitat throughout the species' range remains 
unknown. Over the next 35 to 55 years, the key risk factor for climate 
change impacts to arroyo toads is likely the interaction between: (1) 
Reduced water levels limiting breeding and larval development or 
causing direct mortality; (2) reduction or loss of breeding and upland 
habitat; and (3) the relative inability of individuals to disperse 
longer distances in order to occupy more favorable habitat conditions 
(i.e., move up and down stream corridors, or across river basins). This 
reduced adaptive capacity for arroyo toad is a function of its highly 
specialized habitat requirements, the dynamic nature of its habitat, 
natural barriers such as steep topography at higher elevations, and 
extensive fragmentation (unnatural barriers) within and between river 
basins from reservoirs, urbanization, agriculture, roads, and the 
introduction of nonnative plants and predators. The potential loss of 
breeding and foraging habitats due to climate change can work in 
combination with and exacerbate the effects of the other threats. 
Overall, climate change is a current and future threat with an unknown 
impact to arroyo toads.

Cumulative and Synergistic Effects of Threats

    Threats working in combination with one another have the ability to 
negatively impact species to a greater degree than individual threats 
operating alone (IPCC 2002, p. 22; IPCC 2014, pp. 4-15; Boone et al. 
2003, pp. 138-143; Westerman et al. 2003, pp. 90-91; Opdam and Wascher 
2004, pp. 285-297; Boone et al. 2007, pp. 293-297; Vredenburg and Wake 
2007, p. 7; Lawler et al. 2010, p. 47; Miller et al. 2011, pp. 2360-
2361). Combinations of threats impede dispersal of arroyo toads, which 
could affect the long-term viability of individual occurrences. Should 
arroyo toad occurrences become extirpated, recolonization of these 
localities may not be possible when occurrences are isolated by 
physical barriers that may be too large or difficult to cross. Threats 
such as urbanization, agriculture (including road infrastructure), and 
dams and reservoirs create unnatural barriers that have already 
eliminated habitat that arroyo toads used for dispersal within and 
between river basins. In addition, drought-caused population 
bottlenecks may be more severe when coupled with habitat loss and 
degradation in the range of the arroyo toad, and while being impacted 
by introduced predators, water releases, and other anthropogenic 
activities. If the effects of climate change become more severe as 
predicted, these disturbances could increase, along with the potential 
spread or change in virulence of Bd, and these effects could further 
reduce dispersal habitat for arroyo toads.

Geographic Distribution of Threats

    We also examined the distribution of threats across the range of 
the species to assist in determining whether the status and the threats 
affecting the species might vary across its range.
Northern Recovery Unit
    Threats in the northern portion of the arroyo toad's range (five 
occurrences in Monterey, Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles 
Counties) that are likely to impact some of the river basins in the 
Northern Recovery Unit are characterized as medium to high in impact; 
impacts primarily involve roads and road maintenance, recreation, 
urbanization, nonnative plants,

[[Page 79811]]

introduced predator species, and fire and fire suppression on Forest 
Service lands. All five occurrences in the Northern Recovery Unit are 
afforded some protection that contributes to the management of arroyo 
toads or their habitat through existing land management plans or an 
integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) on Federal lands.
Southern Recovery Unit
    In the central/southern portion of the species' range (18 
occurrences in Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego 
Counties), threat impacts are medium to high, and are expected to 
continue to increase as the demand for water and suitable development 
sites continues. Threats here primarily involve urban development, 
agriculture, roads, operation of dams and water diversions, recreation, 
nonnative plants, introduced predator species, fire and fire 
suppression, and drought. As the human population grows, the negative 
effects from increased water needs and recreational activities will put 
more pressure on the remaining habitats, even those sites receiving 
some protection. Most occurrences (12 of 18) are restricted to 
ephemeral or low-order streams, and of these, most (10 of 12) are 
unnaturally restricted to these areas because habitat downstream was 
destroyed by large reservoirs, urbanization, or agriculture, thereby 
reducing the ability of arroyo toads to act in response to dynamic 
habitat conditions and increased threats, especially drought, climate 
change effects, roads, recreation, agriculture, and introduced 
predators. Five habitat conservation plans (HCPs) were developed to 
minimize impacts to arroyo toad at eight occurrences from development 
and associated infrastructure. There are also large areas of Federal 
lands, such as the Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, Naval Weapons 
Station Seal Beach Detachment Fallbrook, and the Remote Training Site 
Warner Springs, where arroyo toads are managed under the military's 
INRMPs, and 11 of 18 occurrences within the Southern Recovery Unit are 
on Forest Service lands or are partly on Forest Service lands and 
benefit from land management plans.
Desert Recovery Unit
    In the desert portion of the species' range (two occurrences in Los 
Angeles and San Bernardino Counties), threats are moderate in impact, 
and result primarily from recreation, urban development, agriculture, 
overgrazing, and dam operations. Portions of both occurrences are 
afforded some management through Forest Service land management plans.
Baja California, Mexico
    There are 10 occurrences in Baja California, Mexico, for which we 
have limited to no information concerning the scope or degree of impact 
from each threat. Urban development, agriculture, livestock grazing, 
roads, introduced predators, drought, and climate change are the 
threats known or suspected to impact arroyo toads within these 10 
occurrences.
Summary of Geographic Distribution of Threats
    Although the specific threats affecting the species may be 
different at individual sites or in different parts of the arroyo 
toad's range, on the whole threats are occurring throughout the 
species' range, and the severity of threats and their effects on arroyo 
toad populations are similar. We conclude that all populations 
throughout the species' range and all recovery units are experiencing 
similar levels of threats.

Recovery and Recovery Plan Implementation

    Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement 
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and 
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not 
promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), 
recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include 
``objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a 
determination, in accordance with the provisions of [section 4 of the 
Act], that the species be removed from the list.'' However, revisions 
to the list (adding, removing, or reclassifying a species) must reflect 
determinations made in accordance with sections 4(a)(1) and 4(b) of the 
Act. Section 4(a)(1) requires that the Secretary determine whether a 
species is endangered or threatened (or not) because of one or more of 
five threat factors. Section 4(b) of the Act requires that the 
determination be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available.'' Therefore, recovery criteria should 
indicate when a species is no longer an endangered species or 
threatened species because of any of the five statutory factors. Thus, 
while recovery plans provide important guidance to the Service, States, 
and other partners on methods of minimizing threats to listed species 
and measurable objectives against which to measure progress towards 
recovery, they are not regulatory documents and cannot substitute for 
the determinations and promulgation of regulations required under 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act.
    The Service finalized a recovery plan for the arroyo toad in 1999 
(Service 1999, pp. 1-119). The intent of the arroyo toad recovery plan 
was to prescribe recovery criteria that would at least demonstrate 
population stability and good habitat management over a period of 
years, which would indicate a substantially improved situation for 
arroyo toads. The overall objectives of the recovery plan are to 
prevent further loss of individuals, populations, and habitat critical 
for the survival of the species; and to recover existing populations to 
normal reproductive capacity to ensure viability in the long term, 
prevent extinction, maintain genetic viability, and improve 
conservation status (Service 1999, p. 108). The general aim in species' 
recovery is to establish sufficient self-sustaining healthy populations 
for the species to be no longer considered as an endangered or 
threatened species.
    The recovery plan describes 22 river basins in the coastal and 
desert areas of nine U.S. counties along the central and southern coast 
of California, and the recovery plan divides the range of the arroyo 
toad into three large recovery units: Northern, Southern, and Desert. 
These recovery units were established to reflect the ecological and 
geographic distribution of the species and its current and historic 
range (Service 1999, p. 71-72) within the United States. The recovery 
plan did not address the species' range in Mexico. In the recovery 
plan, the downlisting recovery criteria state that for the arroyo toad 
to be reclassified to threatened, management plans must have been 
approved and implemented on federally managed lands, and at least 20 
self-sustaining metapopulations or populations at specified locations 
must be maintained (Service 1999, pp. 75-77). Self-sustaining is 
defined in the recovery plan as populations that have successful 
recruitment equal to 20 percent or more of the average number of 
breeding adults in 7 of 10 years of average to above-average rainfall 
amounts with normal rainfall patterns. Such recruitment would be 
documented by statistically valid trend data indicating stable or 
increasing populations.
    In our analysis of the status of the arroyo toad, we found that we 
lack long-term population trend data for arroyo toads demonstrating 
that populations have stabilized or are increasing anywhere within the 
species' range. Although arroyo toads are presumed to

[[Page 79812]]

be persisting on Federal lands in 18 river basin occurrences and 4 
additional occurrences on non-Federal lands, for a total of 22 extant 
or presumed extant occurrences in California, and management plans have 
been approved and are being implemented to help conserve, maintain, and 
restore habitat on Federal lands, the available data indicate that the 
species has continued to decline in numbers and in area occupied within 
its current range (Hancock 2007-2014, entire; Hollingsworth in litt. 
2014; USGS in litt. 2014; Sweet 2015, pers. comm.; USGS 2015, pers. 
comm.). At least three occurrences in the Northern Recovery Unit 
(Salinas River Basin, Santa Ynez River Basin, and Santa Clara River 
Basin) (Hancock 2006, 2007-2014; Sweet 2015, pers. comm.) and at least 
eight occurrences in the Southern Recovery Unit (Lower Santa Margarita 
River Basin, Upper San Luis Rey River Basin, Upper and Lower Santa 
Ysabel Creek Basins, Upper San Diego River Basin, Upper Sweetwater 
River Basin, and Upper and Lower Cottonwood Creek Basins) (USGS in 
litt. 2014; USGS 2015, pers. comm.) have shown recent declines.
    These and other data that we have analyzed indicate that the 
downlisting criteria have not been met for the arroyo toad. The types 
of threats to arroyo toads remain the same as at the time of listing 
and are ongoing, and new threats have been identified. Some 
conservation efforts are ongoing in most populations to help manage and 
reduce impacts to arroyo toads from many ongoing threats; however, we 
have not yet documented a response to these ongoing conservation 
actions that would indicate a change in the species' listing status is 
warranted.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published on March 27, 2014 (79 FR 17106), we 
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the 
proposal by May 27, 2014. We reopened the comment period on the 
proposed rule on October 17, 2014, for an additional 30 days (79 FR 
62408). We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, 
scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and 
invited them to comment on the proposal. We did not receive any 
comments from States or Tribes. We also did not receive any requests 
for a public hearing. All substantive information provided during the 
comment periods has been incorporated directly into this final 
determination or is addressed below.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), we received expert opinion from four knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with 
arroyo toads and their habitat, biological needs, and threats.
    We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for 
substantive issues and new information regarding the proposed 
downlisting of the arroyo toad. The peer reviewers generally disagreed 
with our finding in the proposed rule and provided additional 
information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final rule. 
Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and 
incorporated into the final determination as appropriate.
    (1) Comment: Two peer reviewers and several public comments did not 
agree that we met the intent of the recovery criteria; they stated that 
arroyo toads are extant in only 17 river basins on Federal lands and 
the currently available data do not support that arroyo toad 
populations are self-sustaining.
    Our Response: We agree with the peer reviewers and commenters that 
the intent of the reclassification criteria in the recovery plan 
(Service 1999) has not been met at this time. We have revised our 
analysis accordingly (see Summary of Basis for This Withdrawal and 
Recovery and Recovery Plan Implementation). We are withdrawing the 
proposed rule to downlist the arroyo toad from an endangered to a 
threatened species under the Act.
    (2) Comment: Two peer reviewers provided new threat information. 
One peer reviewer provided new information on the threats of drought, 
introduced predator species, livestock grazing, and operation of dams 
and water diversions; another peer reviewer provided new information 
regarding threats affecting arroyo toad occurrences in Baja California, 
Mexico.
    Our Response: We incorporated this new information into the final 
species report where applicable and summarized those changes in this 
document (see Summary of Basis for This Withdrawal and Summary of 
Factors Affecting the Species).
    (3) Comment: Several peer reviewers provided new population survey 
information and information on recent years of reproductive failure and 
adult mortality.
    Our Response: We incorporated this new information into the final 
species report where applicable; see Summary of Basis for This 
Withdrawal and Recovery and Recovery Plan Implementation.
    (4) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that we reclassify each 
threat in light of either the lack of information for the 10 Baja 
California river basins or the available information present in the 
literature or from personal communications from biologists in the 
United States and Mexico who work in the Baja California region.
    Our Response: Within our final species report, we recognize and 
account for uncertainty in the scope of each threat, defined as the 
proportion of arroyo toad occurrences that are affected by the threat, 
particularly when considering the occurrences in Baja California, 
Mexico. We now include occurrences in the scope determination only when 
we have information regarding the threat at that occurrence. For 6 of 
the 13 threats we evaluate, we do not have adequate information to 
assess whether the threat is impacting occurrences of arroyo toads in 
Baja California, Mexico; we therefore categorize these occurrences as 
``unknown'' and exclude them from our determination of scope for that 
threat.
    (5) Comment: Several peer reviewers and public comments pointed out 
that our conclusion in the proposed rule failed to account for current 
events because arroyo toads were listed at the end of a serious drought 
and we are now in the worst drought on record.
    Our Response: We incorporated this new information into the final 
species report where applicable and summarized those changes in this 
document (see the Drought section under Summary of Factors Affecting 
the Species, above).
    (6) Comment: One peer reviewer and public comment expressed concern 
that the increasing prevalence of chytrid fungus will severely impact 
the few remaining populations because arroyo toads are sensitive to 
infection and likely mortality from this pathogen.
    Our Response: Please see the Disease section under Summary of 
Factors Affecting the Species, above, for a discussion of impacts of 
chytridiomycosis on the arroyo toad.
    (7) Comment: One peer reviewer asked for information on how we have 
implemented the recovery strategy and objectives, specifically:
     Identify and secure additional suitable arroyo toad 
habitat and populations;
     Conduct research to obtain data to guide management 
efforts and determine the best methods for reducing threats; and
     Develop and implement an outreach program.
    Our Response: We have continued to work with our partners to 
protect arroyo

[[Page 79813]]

toads, and some arroyo toad habitat has been acquired since the time of 
listing at three occurrences on non-Federal land (Lower and Middle San 
Luis Rey River, Upper Santa Ysabel Creek, and Lower Cottonwood Creek 
basins) through HCPs or other mechanisms such as grants and section 7 
consultations. Additionally, the Lower Sweetwater River Basin 
occurrence (non-Federal land) is partially within the County Subarea 
Plan under the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Plan, and some 
areas could be placed in reserves in the future. Some research is being 
conducted to guide management efforts, particularly research by the 
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), much of which is described in their peer 
review. We have not developed or implemented an outreach program.
    (8) Comment: A peer reviewer recommended that climate change 
predictions and changes from historical patterns be considered or 
incorporated into the downlisting criteria. Because self-sustaining 
populations are currently defined by positive recruitment of arroyo 
toad individuals during average or above-average rainfall years, we are 
assuming that the frequency of average or above-average rainfall years 
would be consistent with historical patterns.
    Our Response: When we drafted the recovery plan for the arroyo toad 
in 1999, we did not consider climate change and its potential influence 
on recovery or the formation of the recovery criteria. Though we are 
not currently revising the recovery plan for the arroyo toad, we did 
take future climate change projections into account when evaluating 
potential threats in the final species report. Any future revisions of 
the recovery plan would consider new information, including effects of 
climate change.
    (9) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that recovery units should 
be reassessed to only include Northern and Southern Recovery Units and 
not include the Desert Recovery Unit, given that research shows desert 
unit haplotypes are virtually identical to those in the Northern 
Recovery Unit.
    Our Response: Arroyo toads survive in areas that are ecologically 
and geographically distinct from one another, and the threats in those 
areas differ to some degree (Service 1999, p. 70). To address the 
recovery needs of arroyo toads in each of these areas, we established 
the three recovery units, identified as Northern, Southern, and Desert, 
that reflect the ecological and geographic separations and cover the 
known and historical range of the species within the United States 
(Service 1999, p. 70). We did not identify the three recovery units 
(Northern, Southern, and Desert) based solely on genetics. Thus, 
stabilizing and expanding the populations in these units will preserve 
the species' genetic diversity as well as the distinct ecological 
environments in which the species is found (Service 1999, p. 70).
    (10) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that we discuss Camp 
Pendleton and Fort Hunter Liggett as military lands with INRMPs, but do 
not mention Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, Detachment Fallbrook, and 
the Navy installation at Remote Training Site Warner Springs. These 
installations also have INRMPs that include arroyo toads, and they 
spend a lot of money on arroyo toads at these installations.
    Our Response: We incorporated this new information into the final 
species report where applicable (see Geographic Breakdown of Threats: 
Southern Recovery Unit (Service 2015, pp. 93-94) and Achievement of 
Downlisting Criteria: Criterion 1--Approved and Implemented Management 
Plans on Federal Lands (Service 2015, p. 98)).
    (11) Comment: One peer reviewer pointed out that the Conjunctive 
Use Project for the Santa Margarita River is currently being planned 
and will involve increased water diversions and groundwater pumping 
from the lower Santa Margarita River Basin (MCB Camp Pendleton 2012, 
2013). The portion of the River downstream from the water diversion 
represents the most stable area of arroyo toad breeding and recruitment 
on Camp Pendleton. Although the direct and indirect impacts are still 
being reviewed, this project has the potential to result in extremely 
severe impacts to the arroyo toad population along the lower Santa 
Margarita River.
    Our Response: The Service is currently in formal consultation with 
Camp Pendleton on the Conjunctive Use Project, and we are working with 
the U.S. Marine Corps to review and address those impacts.

Federal Agency Comments

    (12) Comment: One comment from Camp Pendleton expressed 
gratification that their INRMP has contributed to the recovery and 
conservation goals for arroyo toad. The base will continue to implement 
management conservation programs and projects through their INRMP.
    Our Response: We appreciate Camp Pendleton's willingness to work 
with the Service to help conserve arroyo toads. The Sikes Act (16 
U.S.C. 670a et seq.) requires the Department of Defense to develop and 
implement INRMPs for military installations across the United States. 
INRMPs are prepared in cooperation with the Service and State fish and 
wildlife agencies to ensure proper consideration of fish, wildlife, and 
habitat needs. We look forward to continued collaboration with Camp 
Pendleton in implementing conservation measures that contribute to the 
recovery of the arroyo toad.
    (13) Comment: The Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres, and San 
Bernardino National Forests expressed concern that human-caused threats 
could be increasing as the presence of Forest Service recreation staff 
and fire prevention officers has been decreasing.
    Our Response: We recognize that lack of resources can affect the 
ability to implement conservation actions. We will work with the Forest 
Service through our consultations to determine whether changes in 
resources may impact arroyo toads.
    (14) Comment: One comment pointed out that attempts to remove 
introduced predators on Los Padres National Forest in the past have 
proved to be inadequate in scope and duration despite a focused effort 
because of the extensive distribution of these predators across 
jurisdictional boundaries and their ability to reproduce rapidly.
    Our Response: We commend the Forest Service for their efforts to 
remove introduced predators to improve arroyo toad habitat. The Forest 
Service, on the four National Forests that contain arroyo toads, 
implements conservation measures for sensitive species under their land 
and resource management plans, which outline management direction, 
including desired future conditions, suitable uses, monitoring 
requirements, goals and objectives, and standards and guidelines. 
Additionally, through section 7 of the Act, Federal agencies such as 
the Forest Service are required to use their authorities to carry out 
programs for the conservation of listed species and to consult with the 
Service when a Federal action may have an effect on listed species. We 
acknowledge the difficulty of removing introduced predators from arroyo 
toad habitat, which we recognize is one of the most serious threats to 
the survival of arroyo toads. This conservation measure to improve the 
status of arroyo toads is a long-term management action and will 
require ongoing efforts to remove or reduce the level of predation from 
introduced predators in order to recover arroyo toads.

Public Comments

    (15) Comment: Several commenters pointed out that while there have 
been some successes in mitigating the negative impacts of some threats 
to arroyo toads, others will grow in

[[Page 79814]]

severity in the future due to growing populations and greater water 
needs, leading to additional stresses on the populations of the arroyo 
toad.
    Our Response: We state in the final species report that as the 
human population grows, the negative effects from increased water needs 
and recreational activities, in the Southern Recovery Unit in 
particular, will put more pressure on the remaining arroyo toad 
habitat, even those sites receiving some protection (Service 2015, p. 
93). Additionally, we acknowledge that threats such as drought and 
climate change will place added stress on available water supplies 
throughout the species' range and may work in combination with other 
threats to impact arroyo toad populations. As noted in the final 
species report and earlier in the Geographic Distribution of Threats 
section under the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species, large-scale 
conservation planning efforts and land management plans for Federal 
lands include measures to benefit arroyo toad. Therefore, while we 
recognize the impact that a growing human population and increased 
water needs in California and Baja California, Mexico, would have on 
arroyo toads, we anticipate that these large-scale management plans 
will help buffer arroyo toads from the impact of these threats to some 
degree.
    (16) Comment: Several public commenters stated that there is little 
to no diminishment in many of the threats that caused the arroyo toad's 
widespread population decline. In particular, comments point to 
development of low-gradient river margins, OHVs, disruption of natural 
flow regimes, incompatible land uses, inappropriate vegetation 
treatments intended to reduce fires, drought, and no serious effort to 
reduce threats posed by nonnative, invasive species and invasive 
riparian plants.
    Our Response: As noted above, we conclude that the types of threats 
to arroyo toads remain the same as at the time of listing and are 
ongoing; in addition, new threats have been identified. However, while 
we conclude that threats have not been ameliorated sufficiently such 
that the species can be reclassified, conservation efforts, including 
HCPs, land and resource management plans, and INRMPs, are ongoing in 
most populations to reduce impacts from 9 of the 13 currently 
identified threats that affect arroyo toads. These plans have helped to 
manage and reduce impacts to arroyo toads from many ongoing threats. 
While we conclude that we have not yet achieved downlisting criteria 
for the species and that reclassifying arroyo toad is not warranted at 
this time, such conservation actions have prevented the extirpation of 
populations, and arroyo toads continue to persist and occupy the same 
range as they did at the time of listing.
    (17) Comment: One commenter stated that the original listing of the 
arroyo toad as endangered was intended to restrict public access to 
National Forests. Campgrounds and OHV riding areas at Littlerock Dam 
were closed; Hardluck Campground was closed; and all campgrounds were 
closed and trout stocking stopped in Big Tujunga Canyon. Even though 
heavy use occurred and lots of taxpayer dollars have been spent on 
facilities in these areas, arroyo toads were still found, and these 
areas will never be reopened.
    Our Response: Areas within Forest Service lands were closed to 
public access for recreational purposes to facilitate recovery of the 
arroyo toad. Land and resource management plans (LRMPs) provide 
guidance for activities carried out on National Forest lands. Each 
National Forest is governed by a LRMP in accordance with the National 
Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), which outlines 
management direction, including desired future conditions, suitable 
uses, monitoring requirements, goals and objectives, and standards and 
guidelines. Additionally, through section 7 of the Act, Federal 
agencies, such as the Forest Service, are required to use their 
authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of listed 
species and to consult with us (Service) when a Federal action may have 
an effect on listed species. Therefore, the Forest Service, in 
consultation with the Service under section 7 of the Act, proposed 
LRMPs for the four National Forests in which arroyo toad occurs that 
include land use priorities and fish and wildlife standards. For 
example, biological zones or wilderness areas such as Upper Big Tujunga 
and Little Rock Creeks are subject to fish and wildlife standards that 
direct activities in these areas to be neutral or beneficial to arroyo 
toads. Therefore, because recreational activities are known to 
negatively affect the arroyo toad and its habitat, certain recreational 
activities at identified locations are prohibited to avoid and minimize 
impacts to arroyo toad and its habitat.
    (18) Comment: One commenter noted that public access and recreation 
has been restricted at Hardluck Campground but it has been opened to 
environmental groups (i.e., Habitat Works) that are eradicating 
tamarisk. The public pays, but Habitat Works with the support of the 
Forest Service get to recreate where the public is not allowed.
    Our Response: The Forest Service has taken a number of steps to 
improve the status of arroyo toads. They initiated several nonnative 
and pest eradication programs, including efforts to eradicate yellow-
star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), giant reed, and tamarisk, and 
have proposed the National Forests of Southern California Weed 
Management Strategy under Appendix M of the LRMP. According to 
Standards 12, 13, and 47 of that LRMP, future pest and nonnative 
species control projects will be beneficial for the recovery of listed 
and candidate species and their critical habitats. Moreover, Forest 
Service staff and volunteers conduct annual tamarisk removal in Los 
Padres National Forest along portions of Piru Creek, Sisquoc River, 
Santa Ynez River, and Sespe Creek to protect and restore arroyo toad 
habitat. Habitat Works is an environmental stewardship action group 
performing volunteer projects to improve wildlife habitat in southern 
California (Habitat Works 2015). Therefore, while Habitat Works is able 
to access locations that the public is not, the goal of volunteer 
restoration groups is to implement projects that improve wildlife 
habitat for the benefit of species such as the arroyo toad and not to 
access a site for recreational purposes.
    (19) Comment: One commenter acknowledged the Service, Forest 
Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other agencies 
involved with the species recovery program for their efforts in 
implementing various measures to help protect the species. As an 
example, suction dredging is now prohibited in Class A streams.
    Our Response: We appreciate the comment recognizing the hard work 
of the Service and our partners who are working to help recover the 
arroyo toad.
    (20) Comment: One commenter pointed out that since listing, new 
populations have been found, but none of these appears to be thriving, 
and in some populations there is evidence to suggest recruitment has 
plummeted.
    Our Response: Since the arroyo toad was listed as an endangered 
species, several new populations have been found within the extant 
range due to increased survey efforts. As summarized in the final 
species report (Service 2015, pp. 13-15), at the time of listing in 
1994, arroyo toads were believed to be extant in 22 populations within 
8 drainages in the United States; specific populations in Mexico were 
not discussed (59 FR 64859; December 16, 1994). Subsequent to listing, 
arroyo toads were discovered in Monterey County on the San Antonio

[[Page 79815]]

River at Fort Hunter Liggett Military Reservation in 1996 (Hancock 
2009a, p. 9). In Riverside County, a small population was detected 
within Murrieta Creek basin in 2001 (WRCRCA 2006, p. 5). In Baja 
California, Mexico, surveys have identified several newly recognized 
populations and the first records of the species in the Rio Las Palmas, 
Rio El Zorillo, and Rio Santo Tomas (Lovich 2009, pp. 74-97).
    Regarding evidence of plummeting recruitment, for most populations 
of arroyo toads, we do not have long-term trend data. However, we 
received information from peer reviewers that indicates that at least 
three occurrences in the Northern Recovery Unit (Salinas River Basin, 
Santa Ynez River Basin, and Santa Clara River Basin) (Hancock 2006, 
2007-2014; Sweet 2015, pers. comm.) and at least eight occurrences in 
the Southern Recovery Unit (Lower Santa Margarita River Basin, Upper 
San Luis Rey River Basin, Upper and Lower Santa Ysabel Creek Basins, 
Upper San Diego River Basin, Upper Sweetwater River Basin, and Upper 
and Lower Cottonwood Creek Basins) (USGS in litt. 2014; USGS 2015, 
pers. comm.) have shown recent declines. This new information has been 
added to our final species report.
    (21) Comment: One commenter implements the Western Riverside County 
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), and the arroyo toad 
is one of the covered species. They appreciate that the ongoing efforts 
to conserve arroyo toads and their habitat, including their own 
efforts, are contributing to the species' recovery.
    Our Response: We appreciate the efforts by the Western Riverside 
County MSHCP to help conserve arroyo toads and their habitat by 
addressing impacts to arroyo toads from new development and associated 
infrastructure.

Determination

    As required by the Act, we considered the five factors listed in 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act in assessing whether the arroyo toad 
warrants downlisting at this time. We examined the best scientific and 
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
foreseeable future threats faced by the species. For the purposes of 
this determination, we consider the foreseeable future to be 20 years. 
In general, we have information about effects of threats on arroyo 
toads since time of listing, approximately 20 years ago. Therefore, the 
timeframe we are comfortable predicting into the future for most 
threats is also 20 years (as described under the various threats 
analysis discussions in the final species report (Service 2015, pp. 29-
91)).
    Current and potential future threats to arroyo toads include urban 
development (Factors A and E), agriculture (Factors A and E), operation 
of dams and water diversions (Factor A), mining and prospecting 
(Factors A and E), livestock grazing (Factor A), roads and road 
maintenance (Factors A and E), recreation (Factors A and E), invasive, 
nonnative plants (Factor A), disease (Factor C), introduced predator 
species (Factor C), drought (Factor E), fire and fire suppression 
(Factors A and E), and climate change (Factor E). Some factors known to 
pose a threat to arroyo toads and their habitat at the time of listing 
are no longer of concern (for example, new dam construction or 
collection for scientific or commercial purposes). Conservation 
activities and preservation of habitat have further reduced threats 
from mining and prospecting, livestock overgrazing, roads and road 
maintenance, and recreation.
    Overall, we find that four threats (introduced predator species, 
drought, urban development, and operation of dams and water diversions) 
continue to pose a significant threat to the continued existence of the 
arroyo toad, such that these threats are likely to have a major impact 
on local populations or habitat that rises to a species-level effect. 
In particular, introduced predators pose a threat to the continued 
survival of arroyo toads. Other factors, such as operation of dams and 
increased drought, can increase the ability of introduced predators to 
invade and persist in habitats where arroyo toads are found. These 
predators can have a significant impact on the breeding success and 
survival of arroyo toad populations, and if not controlled, could 
result in the extirpation of entire populations of the species. Urban 
development, drought, and operation of dams and water diversions, and 
potentially climate change, also pose a threat to the continued 
existence of arroyo toads; all of these factors have the potential to 
alter the natural flow regime in creeks and streams that support arroyo 
toads. Because arroyo toads have specialized life-history needs and 
habitat requirements, they are especially sensitive to such changes in 
habitat. Furthermore, conservation actions that would be sufficient to 
ameliorate the effects of factors such as climate change and drought 
have not been implemented.
    Arroyo toads also continue to be impacted by threats from 
agriculture; livestock grazing; roads and road maintenance; recreation; 
invasive, nonnative plants; and fire and fire suppression. These 
threats are likely to have a moderate impact on local population 
numbers or habitat. However, populations in other locations may not be 
impacted. Therefore, the effects of these threats do not rise to the 
species level.
    Management efforts are being implemented in approximately 18 arroyo 
toad occurrences on Federal lands through the LRMPs for each of the 
four southern California National Forests (Los Padres, Angeles, San 
Bernardino, and Cleveland), and through the INRMPs on Fort Hunter 
Liggett, Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, Camp Pendleton, and Naval 
Base Coronado. As a result, very few populations of arroyo toads have 
been extirpated since the time of listing, and the species continues to 
persist throughout the range known at the time of listing. However, 
data indicate that the species has continued to decline in numbers and 
in area occupied within its current range (Hancock 2007-2014, entire; 
Hollingsworth in litt. 2014; USGS in litt. 2014; Sweet 2015, pers. 
comm.). Therefore, although some conservation efforts are ongoing in 
most populations to help manage and reduce impacts to arroyo toads from 
many ongoing threats, we have not yet documented a species response to 
conservation actions that would indicate a change in listing status is 
warranted at this time.
    We examined the downlisting criteria provided in the recovery plan 
for the arroyo toad (Service 1999). Self-sustaining is defined in the 
recovery plan as populations which have stabilized or are increasing. 
We lack long-term population trend data for arroyo toads that 
demonstrate that populations have stabilized or are increasing anywhere 
within the species' range. Although arroyo toads are still extant 
within the range they occupied historically and at the time of listing, 
data indicate that the species has continued to decline (Hancock 2007-
2014, entire; Hollingsworth in litt. 2014; USGS in litt. 2014; Sweet 
2015, pers. comm.). At least three occurrences in the Northern Recovery 
Unit (Salinas River Basin, Santa Ynez River Basin, and Santa Clara 
River Basin) (Hancock 2006, 2007-2014; Sweet 2015, pers. comm.) and at 
least eight occurrences in the Southern Recovery Unit (Lower Santa 
Margarita River Basin, Upper San Luis Rey River Basin, Upper and Lower 
Santa Ysabel Creek Basins, Upper San Diego River Basin, Upper 
Sweetwater River Basin, and Upper and Lower Cottonwood Creek Basins) 
(USGS in litt. 2014; USGS 2015, pers. comm.) have shown recent 
declines. Because no information indicates that populations

[[Page 79816]]

have stabilized or are increasing, and new information suggests several 
occurrences are declining, we have determined that the intent of the 
downlisting criteria has not been met.
    In conclusion, we have carefully assessed the best scientific and 
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
future threats faced by this species. After review of the information 
pertaining to the five statutory factors, we determined that the types 
of threats to arroyo toads remain the same as at the time of listing 
and are ongoing, and new threats have been identified. Some 
conservation efforts are ongoing in most populations to help manage and 
reduce impacts to arroyo toads from many ongoing threats; however, we 
have not yet documented a species response to conservation actions that 
would indicate a change in status is warranted. We conclude that the 
intent of the reclassification criteria in the recovery plan (Service 
1999, pp. 75-77) has not been met and that ongoing threats continue to 
put all populations of arroyo at risk of extinction such that the 
species is in danger of extinction throughout all its range.
    Because we have determined that the arroyo toad is in danger of 
extinction throughout all its range, no portion of its range can be 
``significant'' for purposes of the Act's definitions of ``endangered 
species'' and ``threatened species.'' See the Service's final policy 
interpreting the phrase ``significant portion of its range'' (SPR) (79 
FR 37578; July 1, 2014).
    Based on the analysis above, we conclude the arroyo toad meets the 
Act's definition of an endangered species in that it is in danger of 
extinction throughout all of its range. We therefore conclude that 
reclassification of this species is not warranted at this time. As a 
result, this document withdraws the proposed rule published on March 
27, 2014, at 79 FR 17106.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this document is 
available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 
FWS-R8-ES-2014-0007 or upon request from the Field Supervisor, Ventura 
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).

Authors

    The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the 
Pacific Southwest Regional Office and Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office 
(see ADDRESSES).

Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: December 10, 2015
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-32075 Filed 12-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P