Historically present | |
Between 2000 and | |
Last 10 years |
Goal: Protect and enhance existing significant occurrences of arroyo toad to self-sustaining levels and re-establish occurrences in locations where they previously existed to ensure persistence over the long-term (>100 years).
Management units: 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11
Annually inspect known areas occupied by arroyo toad to identify and reduce threats that can be managed at the local scale including road crossings, illegal encroachment, off-road vehicle use, non-native plants, trash dumping, grazing by livestock, and incompatible human recreation. Where possible, restrict access to arroyo toad upland and breeding habitats to help prevent disturbance to all arroyo toad life history stages (eggs, larvae, metamorphs and adults). Activities should be restricted in upland habitat year-round and in breeding habitat during the core of the breeding season (March to July).
Action | Statement | Action status | Projects |
---|---|---|---|
IMP-1 | Using a regional "IMG" monitoring protocol, annually inspect significant Arroyo toad occurrences to assess status and quantify potential threats to determine management needs. AID_20161229_1831_100 | Available for implementation | |
IMP-2 | Roads should be examined for high risk areas for arroyo toad crossing and use. Only slow moving vehicles (<5mph) with an occupant experienced in arroyo toad identification should be allowed on high risk roads after sunset (Zimmitti and Mahrdt 1999). | Available for implementation | |
IMP-3 | An education program should be implemented that promotes the value of the arroyo toad and informs the public of restrictions and the importance of not disturbing the wildlife. | Available for implementation | |
IMP-4 | Based upon occurrence status and threats, determine management needs including whether routine management or more intensive management is warranted. | Available for implementation | |
IMP-5 | Submit monitoring and management recommendations to the MSP web portal | Available for implementation |
Criteria | Deadline year |
---|---|
Annual IMG monitoring of Arroyo toad completed | 2021 |
Threat Name | Threat Code |
---|---|
Altered fire regime | ALTFIR |
Altered hydrology | ALTHYD |
Climate change | CLICHN |
Herbivory/predation | |
Human uses of the Preserves | HUMUSE |
Invasive animals | INVANI |
Invasive plants | INVPLA |
Urban development | URBDEV |
Management units: 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11
Beginning in 2018, conduct routine management actions for arroyo toad identified through the IMG regional protocol monitoring, including protecting populations from detrimental human use (e.g. ORV, trampling, altered hydrology), removing invasive plants, and removing aquatic predators and exotic species (which compete and/or prey on arroyo toads, primarily young) within the known arroyo toad habitat.
Action | Statement | Action status | Projects |
---|---|---|---|
IMP-1 | Perform routine management activities such as protecting occurrences from human disturbance, controlling invasive plants, and removing invasive aquatic animals. | available for implementation | |
IMP-2 | Submit project metadata and management data to MSP web portal. | available for implementation |
Criteria | Deadline year |
---|---|
Routine Management Completed as Needed Based Upon Monitoring Recommendations | 2021 |
Threat Name | Threat Code |
---|---|
Altered fire regime | ALTFIR |
Altered hydrology | ALTHYD |
Climate change | CLICHN |
Herbivory/predation | |
Human uses of the Preserves | HUMUSE |
Invasive animals | INVANI |
Invasive plants | INVPLA |
Urban development | URBDEV |
Management units: 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11
From 2017 to 2021, continue genetic studies of the arroyo toad in San Diego Co. (using genetic material collected during past and present regional surveys) to evaluate the degree of genetic variation within and between populations and to possibly identify genetic bottlenecks or barriers; this information will also be used to determine source populations to use in re-establishing arroyo toads in previously occupied areas.
Action | Statement | Action status | Projects |
---|---|---|---|
RES-1 | Continue to collect genetic samples during surveys for arroyo toad for use in examining the genetic relationship of arroyo toad in western San Diego County. | waiting for precedent action | |
RES-2 | Analyze the genetic samples to evaluate the degree of genetic variation within and between populations and to possibly identify genetic bottlenecks or barriers. | waiting for precedent action | |
RES-3 | Prepare management recommendations based upon the genetic analyses that maintain or enhance gene flow and genetic diversity and that identifies source populations. | waiting for precedent action | |
RES-4 | Submit project metadata, datasets, and Arroyo Toad Genetics Study report to the MSP Web Portal. | Unknown |
Criteria | Deadline year |
---|---|
Genetic samples collected from studies completed through 2021; Genetic Analysis and Report Completed by 2021. | 2021 |
Threat Name | Threat Code |
---|---|
Loss of connectivity | LOSCON |
Management units: 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11
In 2020 and 2021 (assuming adequate rainfall levels), conduct comprehensive arroyo toad surveys using USGS survey protocols throughout the MSPA on Conserved Lands in known occupied and potential habitat to determine current distribution and status of arroyo toad, collect data on threats and habitat covariates, and identify management needs.
Action | Statement | Action status | Projects |
---|---|---|---|
SURV-1 | Survey known occupied and potantial habitat on Conserved Lands across the MSPA to determine the distribution and abundance of arroyo toad on Conserved Lands. | Available for implementation | |
SURV-2 | Collect data on threats and identify management needs to support self-sustaining occurrences. | Available for implementation | |
SURV-3 | Continue to collect genetic samples from all arroyo toads captured. | Available for implementation | |
SURV-4 | Submit survey data and management recommendations to MSP web portal | Available for implementation |
Criteria | Deadline year |
---|---|
Comprehensive surveys completed for Arroyo toad by 2021 | 2021 |
Threat Name | Threat Code |
---|---|
Altered fire regime | ALTFIR |
Altered hydrology | ALTHYD |
Climate change | CLICHN |
Herbivory/predation | |
Human uses of the Preserves | HUMUSE |
Invasive animals | INVANI |
Invasive plants | INVPLA |
Loss of connectivity | LOSCON |
Urban development | URBDEV |
Management units: 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11
In 2017, continue to convene with the working group of land managers, scientists, wildlife agencies, and local biologists knowledgeable in arroyo toad to review existing conditions of known occurrences on Conserved Lands, to prepare a plan for management of arroyo toad which considers each site, and to develop a regional monitoring strategy.
Action | Statement | Action status | Projects |
---|---|---|---|
PRP-1 | Convene working group meetings to review existing conditions of known occurrences. | in progress | |
PRP-2 | Use habitat models developed by USGS and results from survey and genetic analyses to identify suitable areas for long-term management. | in progress | |
PRP-3 | Conduct site visits as necessary to identify appropriate management actions. | in progress | |
PRP-4 | Develop an arroyo toad management plan. The plan should prioritize management actions for the next five years and detail tasks, lead entities, responsibilities, timelines, and budgets. | in progress | |
PRP-5 | Submit management plan to MSP web portal | in progress |
Criteria | Deadline year |
---|---|
Arroyo toad management plan completed by 2018 | 2021 |
Threat Name | Threat Code |
---|---|
Altered fire regime | ALTFIR |
Altered hydrology | ALTHYD |
Climate change | CLICHN |
Herbivory/predation | |
Human uses of the Preserves | HUMUSE |
Invasive animals | INVANI |
Invasive plants | INVPLA |
Loss of connectivity | LOSCON |
Urban development | URBDEV |
Management units: 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11
Beginning in 2018, implement high priority actions identified in the Arroyo Toad Management Plan.
Action | Statement | Action status | Projects |
---|---|---|---|
IMP-1 | Submit project metadata, management actions and report to MSP web portal | waiting for precedent action |
Criteria | Deadline year |
---|---|
High priority management actions implemented for Arroyo toad | 2021 |
Threat Name | Threat Code |
---|---|
Altered fire regime | ALTFIR |
Altered hydrology | ALTHYD |
Climate change | CLICHN |
Herbivory/predation | |
Human uses of the Preserves | HUMUSE |
Invasive animals | INVANI |
Invasive plants | INVPLA |
Loss of connectivity | LOSCON |
Urban development | URBDEV |
Management units: 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11
Beginning in 2018, monitor the effectiveness of management actions implemented for the arroyo toad.
Action | Statement | Action status | Projects |
---|---|---|---|
IMP-1 | Submit project metadata, monitoring data and reports to MSP web portal | waiting for precedent action |
Criteria | Deadline year |
---|---|
Effectiveness of implementing high priority arroyo toad management actions determined | 2021 |
Threat Name | Threat Code |
---|---|
Altered fire regime | ALTFIR |
Altered hydrology | ALTHYD |
Climate change | CLICHN |
Herbivory/predation | |
Human uses of the Preserves | HUMUSE |
Invasive animals | INVANI |
Invasive plants | INVPLA |
Loss of connectivity | LOSCON |
Urban development | URBDEV |
Management units: 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11
Beginning in 2018, establish program and permits to allow emergency management actions for the arroyo toad during or immediately following wildfire events, such as implementation of emergency rescue and temporary translocation, to protect from potential loss or extirpation.
Action | Statement | Action status | Projects |
---|---|---|---|
PRP-1 | Develop protocols, monitoring standards, and permit process for the rescue of Southwestern pond turtles during wildfire events. | Available for implementation |
Criteria | Deadline year |
---|---|
Wildfire rescue program established for Arroyo toad in 2018 | 2021 |
Threat Name | Threat Code |
---|---|
Altered fire regime | ALTFIR |
Altered hydrology | ALTHYD |
Management units: 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11
Beginning in 2019, implement arroyo toad rescue program during wildfire events to protect from loss and/or extirpation.
Action | Statement | Action status | Projects |
---|---|---|---|
IMP-1 | Submit management data and reports to MSP web portal | waiting for precedent action |
Criteria | Deadline year |
---|---|
Wildfire rescue program implemented for Arroyo toad | 2021 |
Threat Name | Threat Code |
---|---|
Altered fire regime | ALTFIR |
Altered hydrology | ALTHYD |
Management units: 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11
Beginning in 2019, monitor the effectiveness of arroyo toad rescue programs following wildfire events, including both translocation or re-introduction efforts.
Action | Statement | Action status | Projects |
---|---|---|---|
IMP-1 | Submit monitoring data and report to MSP web portal | waiting for precedent action |
Criteria | Deadline year |
---|---|
Monitoring of post fire rescue programs for Arroyo toad implemented | 2021 |
Threat Name | Threat Code |
---|---|
Altered fire regime | ALTFIR |
Altered hydrology | ALTHYD |
Management units: 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11
From 2017 to 2021, implement post fire management actions to ensure the recovery of arroyo toad at occupied sites following wildfire events, including invasive plant and animal control, debris/sediment removal, erosion control or other management actions as needed following a fire.
Action | Statement | Action status | Projects |
---|---|---|---|
IMP-1 | Implement needed management actions as determined through BAER or other post fire surveys. | waiting for precedent action |
Criteria | Deadline year |
---|---|
Post fire management actions implemented following wildfire events | 2021 |
Threat Name | Threat Code |
---|---|
Altered fire regime | ALTFIR |
Altered hydrology | ALTHYD |
Management units: 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11
From 2017 to 2021, monitor stream conditions and the effectiveness of management actions implemented to assist in recovery of arroyo toad for 3 years following wildfire events.
Action | Statement | Action status | Projects |
---|---|---|---|
IMP-1 | Monitor stream flows and water quality post fire, document recovery of arroyo toad populations and habitat, and effectiveness of any management actions for first 3 years after fire. | waiting for precedent action |
Criteria | Deadline year |
---|---|
Monitoring of post fire management actions, stream conditions, and population status for arroyo toads implemented for 3 years post fire | 2021 |
Threat Name | Threat Code |
---|---|
Altered fire regime | ALTFIR |
Altered hydrology | ALTHYD |
Metric | Condition | Trend | Confidence |
---|---|---|---|
1. Number of Sites Occupied by Young of the YearNumber of subwatersheds with suitable habitat occupied by young of the year |
Significant Concern |
Declining |
Moderate |
2. Water Availability ScoreWater availability score for reproduction in suitable habitat by subwatershed |
Concern |
Unknown |
High |
3. Invasive Aquatic Species Impact ScoreImpact score of invasive aquatic species by subwatershed |
Concern |
No Change |
Moderate |
Post-Fire Monitoring - Arroyo Toad Surveys
The arroyo toad surveys in southern San Diego County are part of an investigation of the impacts of fire on arroyo toads. In 2007, the Witch, Harris and Poomacha fires burned approximately 300,000 acres of wildlands in San Diego County. Many of the burned lands are currently conserved or are planned to be conserved under the San Diego County Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP). Riparian areas across four major watersheds were extensively burned during these 2007 fires, many of these streams support arroyo toad populations. The USGS (coordinating with the San Diego Association of Governments, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego) is investigating how specific target species will respond to these massive fires and resultant changes in stream morphology, vegetation communities, and vegetation structure over a five-year time period. The goal of this study is to provide information that will allow future land management decisions to include considerations of the effects of large wildfires on the biological community structure and function, especially for those species covered by conservation plans such as the San Diego County MSCP.
|
Regional Grazing Monitoring Plan
This project evaluates using grazing as a management tool for degraded grasslands and coastal sage scrub habitat. Pilot projects will be conducted to look at the efficacy of grazing as management tool and necessary monitoring methods. The project was designed to answer four primary questions (and their associated objectives): 1) How effective is grazing at reducing fire risk? 2) Can grazing effectively enhance disturbed native grassland and forb habitats 3) Can grazing enhance disturbed native coastal sage scrub habitat? 4) Can grazing reduce nonnative grass and forb cover in disturbed coastal sage scrub to increase native shrub cover and bare ground and improve habitat for MSP species such as Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino), California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica), and black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus)? Initial study sites were established at Rancho Jamul Ecological Reserve and Hollenbeck Canyon Wildlife Area. This is a SANDAG-funded project.
|
SR 94 Wildlife Infrastructure Plan
Proposed road improvements to SR 94 provide an opportunity to mitigate the potential barrier effects of the highway. This project identifies where improvements to existing infrastructure on SR-94 could improve connectivity across the South County preserves, using Best Management Practices from the scientific literature; recommends wildlife movement monitoring to identify where new crossings are needed; and identifies where additional conservation would enhance the integrity of South County linkages. The review prioritizes infrastructure improvements of 35 existing undercrossings inspected by wildlife experts in the field along 14.6 miles of SR-94 where the highway bisects conserved lands. The majority of the recommendations for infrastructure improvement focus on increasing the diameter, and thus the openness ratio (cross-sectional area divided by length), of the undercrossing itself, removing vegetation and debris blocking the undercrossing, restoring habitat in the approach to the undercrossing, and installing fencing to both (1) keep animals off the highway and (2) funnel wildlife to the undercrossings.
|
Historically occurred from upper Salinas River system in Monterey County, south through the Santa Ynez, Santa Clara, and Los Angeles River Basins and coastal drainages of Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties, to the Arroyo San Simeon system in Baja California, Mexico [1]. Also occurs on desert slopes of 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 in San Bernardino County) [2]. Primarily restricted to headwaters of streams as small, isolated populations, having been extirpated from much of their historic habitat [3].
Occurrences found in Camp Pendleton, Anza Borrego State Park, Fallbrook NWS, Barrett Reservoir Open Space, Marron Valley Mitigation Bank, Cleveland National Forest, Mount Woodson, San Vicente Reservoir Cornerstone Lands, El Capitan Reservoir Open Space, San Pasqual Valley, Boden Canyon Ecological Reserve, Pamo Valley, Ramona Grasslands Preserve, San Dieguito River Park, Santa Ysabel East Open Space, Santa Ysabel West Open Space, Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, Barrett Reservoir Open Space, Dulzura Conduit, Bureau of Land Management, McAlmond Canyon, SDGE Sunrise Powerlink Parcels Long Potre, Lake Morena Regional Park, Canada de Vicente, Sutherland Reservoir Open Space, Hodges Reservoir Open Space, San Luis Rey River Park, Groves Open Space, Faubus Farms, Roncon San Luiseno Band of Mission Indians, and Vista Irrigation District.
FE, SSC
Found in semi-arid regions near washes or intermittent streams. Habitats include: valley-foothill and desert riparian, desert wash, palm oasis, and Joshua tree, mixed chaparral and sagebrush [4;5;6; all cited from 7]. Breeding habitat consists of slow-moving streams with shallow pools, sandbars, and stream terraces. Breeding habitat is maintained by periodic flooding and scouring that alters stream channels, redistributes sand, opens up the vegetation, and changes the location and configuration of breeding pools [8]. Outside of the breeding season, toads are terrestrial and estivate in underground burrows in upland habitats including: sycamore-cottonwood woodlands, oak woodlands, coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and grassland [9;10; both cited from 3]. Elevational range extends up to 1950 m [7].
Considered a subspecies of the southwestern toad (Bufo microscaphus) at time of listing [9]. Allozyme analyses found each subspecies (B. m. microscaphus, B. m. californicus, and B .m. mexicanus) should be considered a full species and arroyo toad was reclassified as the full species Bufo californicus [11]. Later, the genus Bufo was subdivided into three genera, with the North American clade of Bufo renamed as the genus Anaxyrus [12].
Adults primarily nocturnal but may be diurnal during breeding season. Newly metamorphosed toads are active during the daylight hours and can tolerate much higher temperatures than adults [13, cited in 7]. Active at temperatures between 22-35° C [14]. Adult and subadults seek shelter during the day, by burrowing into upland terraces, along old flood channels, and often in the soils below the canopy edge of willows (Salix spp.) or cottonwoods (Populus fremontii) [8;12;15]. Usually burrow into dry or slightly damp fine sand and may even use burrows constructed by other animals or seek temporary shelter under rocks or debris [16, cited from 8]. Go into estivation in burrows during the non-breeding season when it is hot and dry, starting in the late summer from about August and continuing into January [12;15].
Breeding typically occurs from February to July on streams with persistent water [9 cited from 3]. Breed and deposit egg masses in shallow, sandy pools that are usually bordered by sand and gravel flood terraces [9;10; both cited from 3]. Adults and subadults spend much of their lives in riparian and upland habitats adjacent to breeding locations [1 cited from 8].
Tadpoles feed on loose organic material such as algae, bacteria, and diatoms [16;17; both cited from 8]. Juveniles feed on ants almost exclusively [16 cited from 8]. Adults feed on snails, Jerusalem crickets, beetles, ants, caterpillars, moths, and occasionally cannibalize newly metamorphosed individuals. Usually feed nocturnally. Individuals walk instead of hop when foraging for food [6;13; both cited from 7].
Move between stream and upland foraging sites, as well as up and down stream corridors to find suitable breeding pools [1 cited from 8]. Movements vary between watersheds or river reaches in response to different hydrological regimes [9 cited from 8]. When searching for suitable egg-laying sites in broad floodplain river systems move across parallel stream channels, such as the lower San Mateo River in San Diego County [8]. For watersheds with relatively narrower, steeper-sided drainages with alternating riffles and pools, tend to move in both up- and downstream directions rather than laterally while searching for breeding pools [9 cited from 8].
Threatened by habitat destruction and alteration from water storage reservoirs, flood control structures, roads, agriculture, urban development, recreational facilities, and mining activities. Non-native plants, such as tamarisk and Arundo have also altered arroyo toad habitat. Introduced non-native predators (e.g., bullfrogs, green sunfish, and African clawed frogs) and fire are substantial threats as well as chytrid fungus disease and wildfire suppression activities [3].
[1] Campbell, L. A., T. B. Graham, L. P. Thibault, and P. A. Stine. 1996. The Arroyo Toad (Bufo microscaphus californicus): Ecology, Threats, Recovery Actions, and Research Needs. No. NBS/CSC-96-01. National Biological Service.
[2] Hitchcock, C. J., A. R. Backlin, and R. N. Fisher. 2004. Monitoring arroyo toads (Bufo californicus) in the San Bernardino National Forest. U.S. Geological Survey final report.
[3] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Arroyo Toad (Bufo californicus [microscaphus]) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura, California, USA.
[4] Stebbins, R. C. 1954. Amphibians and reptiles of western North America. New York, McGraw-Hill.
[5] Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. 2nd ed., revised. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 336pp.
[6] Behler, J. L. and F. W. King. 1979. The Audubon Society field guide to North American reptiles and amphibians. AA Knopf. Inc., New York, New York.
[7] California Department of Fish and Game. 2005. Arroyo Toad. Sacramento, California, USA.
[8] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Arroyo Toad Species Report. Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura, California, USA.
[9] Griffin, P. C., T. J. Case, and R. N. Fisher. 1999. Radio telemetry study of Bufo californicus, arroyo toad movement patterns and habitat preferences, 66.
[10] Holland, D. C. 1995. Sensitive Species Hydroecological Evaluation–Santa Margarita River: Arroyo Southwestern Toad (Bufo microscaphus californicus) Camp. Camp Pendleton.
[11] Gergus, E. W.A. 1998. Systematics of the Bufo microscaphus complex: allozyme evidence. Herpetologica: 317-325.
[12] Frost, D.R., T. Grant, J. Faivovich, R.H. Bain, A. Haas, C.F.B Haddad, R.O. De Sá. A. Channing, M. Wilkinson, S.C. Donnellan, C.J. Raxworthy, J.A. Campbell, B.L. Blotto, P. Moler, R.C. Drewes, R.A. Nussbaum, J.D. Lynch, D.M. Green, and W.C. Wheeler. 2006. The amphibian tree of life. Bulletin of the American Museum of natural History: 1-291.
[13] Mayhew W.W. 1968. The biology of desert amphibians and reptiles. Pages 195-356 in GW Brown Jr., ed. Desert Biology, Vol. 1. Academic Press, New York. 638pp.
[14] Brattstrom, B. H. 1963. A preliminary review of the thermal requirements of amphibians. Ecology 44, no. 2: 238-255.
[15] Rancho Las Flores Limited Partnership. 2003. Arroyo toad (Bufo californicus) hydrogeomorphic habitat baseline analysis/radio telemetry study-Rancho Las Flores San Bernardino County, California. Prepared by Cadre Environmental, Carlsbad, CA.
[16] Sweet, S. S. 1992. Initial report on the ecology and status of the arroyo toad (Bufo microscaphus californicus) on the Los Padres National Forest of southern California, with management recommendations. Department of Biological Sciences, University of California.
[17] Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. Report to the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California. 255 pp.