[Federal Register: September 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 178)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 54343-54386]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14se06-8]
[[Page 54343]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for the Southern California Distinct Population Segment of the
Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana muscosa); Final Rule
[[Page 54344]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AU30
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Southern California Distinct Population
Segment of the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana muscosa)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are
designating critical habitat for the southern California distinct
population segment of the mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa)
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In
total, approximately 8,283 acres (ac) (3,352 hectares (ha)) fall within
the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The critical
habitat is located in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside
Counties, California.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on October 16, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in the preparation of this final rule, will be
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours, at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley
Road, Carlsbad, California 92011 (telephone 760/431-9440). The final
rule, economic analysis, and maps are available via the Internet at
http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad
Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California
92011, (telephone 760/431-9440; facsimile 760/431-9624).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Role of Critical Habitat in Actual Practice of Administering and
Implementing the Act
Attention to and protection of habitat is paramount to successful
conservation actions. The role that designation of critical habitat
plays in protecting habitat of listed species, however, is often
misunderstood. As discussed in more detail below in the discussion of
exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1513 et seq.),
there are significant limitations on the regulatory effect of
designation under ESA section 7(a)(2) of the Act. In brief, (1)
Designation provides additional protection to habitat only where there
is a federal nexus; (2) the protection is relevant only when, in the
absence of designation, destruction or adverse modification of the
critical habitat would in fact take place (in other words, other
statutory or regulatory protections, policies, or other factors
relevant to agency decision-making would not prevent the destruction or
adverse modification); and (3) designation of critical habitat triggers
the prohibition of destruction or adverse modification of that habitat,
but it does not require specific actions to restore or improve habitat.
Currently, 475 species, or 36 percent of the 1,310 listed species
in the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the Service, have designated
critical habitat. We address the habitat needs of all 1,310 listed
species through conservation mechanisms such as listing, section 7
consultations, the section 4 recovery planning process, the section 9
protective prohibitions of unauthorized take, section 6 funding to the
States, the section 10 incidental take permit process, and cooperative,
nonregulatory efforts with private landowners. We believe that it is
these measures that may make the difference between extinction and
survival for many species.
In considering exclusions of areas originally proposed for
designation, we evaluated the benefits of designation in light of
Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
In that case, the Ninth Circuit invalidated the Service's regulation
defining ``destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.''
In response, on December 9, 2004, the Director issued guidance to be
considered in making section 7 adverse modification determinations.
This critical habitat designation does not use the invalidated
regulation in our consideration of the benefits of including areas in
this final designation. The Service will carefully manage future
consultations that analyze impacts to designated critical habitat,
particularly those that appear to be resulting in an adverse
modification determination. Such consultations will be reviewed by the
Regional Office prior to finalizing to ensure that an adequate analysis
has been conducted that is informed by the Director's guidance.
On the other hand, to the extent that designation of critical
habitat provides protection, that protection can come at significant
social and economic cost. In addition, the mere administrative process
of designation of critical habitat is expensive, time-consuming, and
controversial. The current statutory framework of critical habitat,
combined with past judicial interpretations of the statute, make
critical habitat the subject of excessive litigation. As a result,
critical habitat designations are driven by litigation and courts
rather than biology, and made at a time and under a time frame that
limits our ability to obtain and evaluate the scientific and other
information required to make the designation most meaningful.
In light of these circumstances, the Service believes that
additional agency discretion would allow our focus to return to those
actions that provide the greatest benefit to the species most in need
of protection.
Procedural and Resource Difficulties in Designating Critical Habitat
We have been inundated with lawsuits for our failure to designate
critical habitat, and we face a growing number of lawsuits challenging
critical habitat determinations once they are made. These lawsuits have
subjected the Service to an ever-increasing series of court orders and
court-approved settlement agreements, compliance with which now
consumes nearly the entire listing program budget. This leaves the
Service with little ability to prioritize its activities to direct
scarce listing resources to the listing program actions with the most
biologically urgent species conservation needs.
The consequence of the critical habitat litigation activity is that
limited listing funds are used to defend active lawsuits, to respond to
Notices of Intent (NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, and to
comply with the growing number of adverse court orders. As a result,
listing petition responses, the Service's own proposals to list
critically imperiled species, and final listing determinations on
existing proposals are all significantly delayed.
The accelerated schedules of court-ordered designations have left
the Service with limited ability to provide for public participation or
to ensure a defect-free rulemaking process before making decisions on
listing and critical habitat proposals, due to the risks associated
with noncompliance with judicially imposed deadlines. This in turn
fosters a second round of litigation in which those who fear adverse
impacts from critical habitat designations challenge those
designations. The cycle of litigation appears endless, and is very
expensive, thus diverting resources from conservation actions that may
provide relatively more benefit to imperiled species.
[[Page 54345]]
The costs resulting from the designation include legal costs, the
cost of preparation and publication of the designation, the analysis of
the economic effects and the cost of requesting and responding to
public comment, and in some cases the costs of compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
These costs, which are not required for many other conservation
actions, directly reduce the funds available for direct and tangible
conservation actions.
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the designation of critical habitat in this rule. For more information
on the southern California distinct population segment (DPS) of the
mountain yellow-legged frog, hereafter referred to as the mountain
yellow-legged frog, refer to the final listing rule published in the
Federal Register on July 2, 2002 (67 FR 44382) and the proposed
critical habitat designation published in the Federal Register on
September 13, 2005 (70 FR 54106).
Previous Federal Actions
Previous Federal actions for the mountain yellow-legged frog can be
found in our proposal to designate critical habitat for the mountain
yellow-legged frog published in the Federal Register on September 13,
2005 (70 FR 54106). That information is incorporated by reference into
this final rule.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We requested written comments from the public on the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog in
the proposed rule published on September 13, 2005 (70 FR 54106). We
also requested written comments from the public on the draft economic
analysis (DEA) of the proposed designation in a notice of availability
published on July 3, 2006 (71 FR 37881). We contacted appropriate
Federal, State, and local agencies; scientific organizations; and other
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposed rule and
the DEA.
During the comment period that opened on September 13, 2005, and
closed on November 14, 2005, we received 11 comments directly
addressing the proposed critical habitat designation. Of these
comments, five were from peer reviewers, two from Federal agencies, and
four from organizations or individuals. During the comment period that
opened on July 3, 2006, and closed on July 24, 2006, we received no
comments directly addressing the proposed critical habitat designation
and one comment directly addressing the DEA. Of all comments received
during both comment periods, five commenters supported the designation
of critical habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog and two opposed
the designation. Five letters included comments or information, but did
not express support or opposition to the proposed critical habitat
designation. Comments received were grouped into two general issues
specifically relating to the proposed critical habitat designation for
the mountain yellow-legged frog and are addressed in the following
summary and/or incorporated into the final rule as appropriate. We did
not receive any requests for a public hearing.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers and the
public for substantive issues and new information regarding critical
habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog, and we address them in the
following summary.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited expert opinions from five knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with
the species, the geographic region in which the species occurs, and
conservation biology principles. We received responses from all five
peer reviewers. The peer reviewers generally agreed with our methods
and conclusions and provided additional information, clarifications,
and suggestions to improve the final critical habitat rule. Four of the
five reviewers supported the designation and emphasized the importance
of including unoccupied areas. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in
the following summary and incorporated into the final rule as
appropriate.
Peer Reviewer Comments
(1) Comment: Several peer reviewers supported our proposed
designation. In addition, several of the peer reviewers strongly
supported our inclusion of unoccupied areas and encouraged inclusion of
additional unoccupied areas due to the small number of sites that
support known populations, the presence of suitable habitat in
unoccupied sites with historical occurrence records, and the
uncertainty in determining streams as unoccupied because of the
difficulty in detecting this cryptic species.
Our Response: We appreciate the peer reviewers' comments and
concerns for including unoccupied areas. We believe that designating
critical habitat in streams not known to be currently occupied, but
historically occupied, will assist in the conservation of the mountain
yellow-legged frog by identifying possible reintroduction sites or
facilitating natural recovery by expansion of very small populations.
The peer reviewers did not provide us with site-specific information on
other areas that should also be included in the critical habitat
designation, and we did not include additional unoccupied habitat in
the final designation.
(2) Comment: One peer reviewer cited new information from the 2005
mountain yellow-legged frog survey efforts conducted by the United
States Geological Survey (USGS). The peer reviewer reported the
rediscovery of mountain yellow-legged frog metamorphs in East Fork of
City Creek in the San Bernardino Mountains in September of 2005. This
rediscovery was surprising since all of the surviving frogs were
thought to have been collected and moved to a captive-rearing facility
after the 2003 fire and flood events. The peer reviewer also reported
the rediscovery of young tadpoles in Dark Canyon in the San Jacinto
Mountains in August of 2005 after more than five years of survey
efforts that did not detect this species. The peer reviewer also stated
that no mountain yellow-legged frogs were detected in Bear Gulch in the
San Gabriel Mountains during three survey efforts in 2005, despite this
population being one of the two largest remaining populations in
southern California as of 2003.
Our Response: The recent rediscovery of mountain yellow-legged
frogs in City Creek and in Dark Canyon highlights the difficulty in
detecting this species and highlights the uncertainty in determining
whether a stream is truly unoccupied by mountain yellow-legged frogs
after negative survey efforts, especially when these streams were
recently known to be occupied. For this reason, we are still
considering Bear Gulch as occupied for this final designation. City
Creek and Dark Canyon were already considered occupied in the proposed
rule, and therefore there is no change in their occupancy status for
the final rule.
(3) Comment: One peer reviewer reported that chytrid fungal disease
was discovered in wild frogs that were recently rediscovered in the
East Fork of City Creek in September 2005 and in the captive frogs
taken from the same creek in 2004, thus changing our perception of the
areas that are known to contain this
[[Page 54346]]
disease. The peer reviewer stated that it was unusual to find living
frogs infected with chytrid because it generally kills infected frogs.
The peer reviewer also stated that this discovery is in contrast to our
statement in the proposed rule that chytrid fungal disease does not
seem to be plaguing remaining mountain yellow-legged frog populations
in southern California.
Another peer reviewer stated that chytrid fungus does not seem to
be a major issue concerning current frog populations because it
presumably already caused an unknown, massive die-off of frog
populations across southern California during the late 1960s and 1970s,
resulting in small remnant populations that currently exist. However,
it may still be eliminating frogs at some specific locations, such as
the North Fork of the San Jacinto River below Mt. San Jacinto State
Park.
Our Response: At the time of writing the proposed rule, we were
unaware that chytrid fungus was detected in mountain yellow-legged
frogs in southern California. We do not have enough information at this
time to determine the magnitude of impacts that chytrid has had or will
have on frog populations in southern California. Nonetheless, because
there is no information demonstrating the relationship between habitat
features or quality and chytrid fungus, the information provided by the
peer reviewer does not change the critical habitat designation.
(4) Comment: One peer reviewer stated the critical habitat
designation should include aquatic refugia as a primary constituent
element (PCE) since we discuss it in the Primary Constituent Elements
section under ``Cover or Shelter.''
Our Response: We agree with the peer reviewer and have included
aquatic refugia as a condition of PCE 1, which includes pools with bank
overhangs, downfall logs or branches, and/or rocks, because it provides
cover from predators. For more information, please see the Primary
Constituent Elements section below.
(5) Comment: One peer reviewer stated the critical habitat
designation should provide more discussion on the role of canopy cover
and habitat suitability and that there is a delicate and unknown
balance between canopy cover and suitability of high-elevation habitat.
In the San Jacinto Mountains, the canopy has become so extensive that
it threatens the existence of the mountain yellow-legged frog. It is
critical that suitable habitat be protected and it may be necessary to
manipulate the canopy to open up the habitat.
Our Response: In general, information on the effects of canopy
cover on habitat suitability is limited. Our discussion on canopy cover
in the Primary Constituent Elements section below was based only on
data values reported from a USGS report on mountain yellow-legged frog
populations in southern California (Backlin et al. 2004). We agree with
the reviewer that canopy cover may affect habitat suitability and have
discussed this in our Special Management section below by stating that
it may be necessary in some of the critical habitat units to reduce
canopy cover to make habitat more suitable for this species. However,
without more specific information, we are unable to address this issue
more thoroughly in this critical habitat designation.
(6) Comment: One peer reviewer approved of our use and application
of upland frog movement data from Sierra Nevada populations to southern
California populations because it is difficult to obtain upland habitat
use information from mountain yellow-legged frog populations in
southern California. Therefore, the interpretations made in the
proposed rule to designate critical habitat are reasonable.
Our Response: We appreciate the concurrence with our methods for
determining the criteria used to identify critical habitat. For more
information, please see the Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
section below.
(7) Comment: Two peer reviewers questioned the methods used to
calculate stream-width and length for ``occupied'' habitat. One of the
reviewers questioned the movement distance (4,905 feet (ft) (1,495
meters (m)) that the Service used in the proposed critical habitat rule
to estimate the length of occupied stream if there is suitable habitat
that extends beyond this distance. The other reviewer questioned why
the Service discounted the possibility that the maximum distance moved
was crucial to the mountain yellow-legged frog's survival and
questioned whether there were enough downstream habitats to provide for
refugia during droughts and for connectivity between streams. The
reviewer suggested redefining areas containing essential features to
capture 11,745 ft (3,580 m) upstream and downstream from occurrence
locations based on data from other studies, as well as 1,378 ft (420 m)
from the centerline of streams for upland movements. The reviewer also
questioned whether there had been efforts made to quantify frog habitat
use and movement during specific breeding, feeding, and overwintering
periods, including off-stream habitats.
Our Response: In general, information on mountain yellow-legged
frog movements in southern California is extremely limited. Our
discussion on mountain yellow-legged frog movements was based on the
maximum distance moved by an individual mountain yellow-legged frog in
the San Bernardino Mountains in southern California (Backlin et al.
2004). We did not include the larger dataset on frog movements in the
Sierra Nevada mountains because of the different habitat
characteristics associated with mountain yellow-legged frogs in the
Sierra Nevada (e.g., lakes and higher elevation). However, we relied on
data from the Sierra Nevada mountains to determine the width of
riparian and upland habitats occupied by mountain yellow-legged frogs,
because we did not have any such data from southern Californian
mountain yellow-legged frogs. Although we recognize that suitable
habitat may extend beyond the distances we used to determine critical
habitat, we did not receive better information on a more appropriate
distance measure to use for southern California mountain yellow-legged
frogs. Finally, we are also unaware of any efforts to quantify mountain
yellow-legged frog habitat use and movement during specific breeding,
feeding, and overwintering periods, including off-stream habitats in
southern California. For more information, please see the Criteria Used
To Identify Critical Habitat section below.
(8) Comment: One peer reviewer stated the proposed rule did not
contain discussion on how the Service determined how much unoccupied
habitat was essential for the conservation of the species. The peer
reviewer suggested that more unoccupied areas may be essential for the
conservation of the species.
Our Response: We believe that we did provide a thorough discussion
regarding the criteria that were used for identifying unoccupied
streams in the proposed critical habitat rule published on September
13, 2005 (70 FR 54106). Furthermore, we did not receive additional
information that identified specific unoccupied areas, and rationale
for those areas, that should be considered as critical habitat during
the comment period for the proposed rule. For more information, please
see the Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat section below.
(9) Comment: Two peer reviewers questioned our use of a 1 to 4 year
range for tadpole growth. One reviewer commented that since this was
based on
[[Page 54347]]
Sierra Nevada mountain yellow-legged frog populations, southern
California frog populations living at much lower elevation would likely
not require up to 4 years. The other reviewer stated that tadpole
growth phase appeared to be around 2 years for southern California
populations based on their experience.
Our Response: At the time of writing the proposed rule, the best
information available on tadpole growth was from Sierra Nevada mountain
yellow-legged frog populations. We agree with the reviewer that this
may have been an overestimate of the time it can take for tadpole
growth. Based on peer reviewer comments, we have revised the discussion
of the amount of time for tadpole growth by citing a period 1-2 years
instead of up to 4 years (see section below titled Primary Constituent
Elements for the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog).
(10) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned whether the values used
for dissolved oxygen as a PCE were too narrow in range.
Our Response: After reevaluating our interpretation of the
available dissolved oxygen data, we agree with the reviewer that the
dissolved oxygen values used as a PCE in the proposed rule may have
represented too narrow a range to accurately describe habitat
suitability for the mountain yellow-legged frog. We also believe that
information on other water quality factors (water chemistry and
temperature) were insufficient to accurately describe the complete
range of values that may be necessary to maintain suitable habitat for
mountain yellow-legged frogs. As a result, we have removed water
quality as a PCE from the final critical habitat rule.
(11) Comment: One peer reviewer stated the PCEs should also include
intermittent stream reaches and tributaries to permanent streams
because they are also used by mountain yellow-legged frogs.
Our Response: Our process for capturing upland areas as critical
habitat does include some parts of intermittent stream reaches and
tributaries to the main stream reach identified as critical habitat.
The peer reviewer did not provide substantial information indicating
the significance of intermittent stream reaches to mountain yellow-
legged frogs. Therefore, we are unable to quantify the importance of
this habitat type and have not expanded the boundaries of critical
habitat to include additional intermittent stream reaches and
tributaries to permanent streams. For more information on how we
designated critical habitat, please see the Criteria Used To Identify
Critical Habitat section below.
(12) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned whether there is any
basis for using 3.1 miles (mi) (5 kilometers (km)) from nearby occupied
streams as a criterion for choosing unoccupied sites.
Our Response: In general, information on mountain yellow-legged
frog dispersal movements in southern California is extremely limited.
Our discussion on mountain yellow-legged frog movements was based on
the best available data from a dispersal study in the Sierra Nevada
Mountains, California (Knapp in litt. 2005). In this study, frogs were
reported to disperse several kilometers and recolonize lakes following
trout removal. Frogs were reported to move several kilometers along
streams and across dry land. The data from this study were used to
develop a dispersal function that was included in a population
viability analysis. The analysis used a dispersal function of 2.5 mi (4
km) and consistently produced frog distributions similar to those
actually found in the field. We recognize that the environment in the
Sierra Nevada mountains is different from the frog habitat in the
southern California mountains. However, since this is the best
information available for this species on dispersal behavior, we used
it as one of the criteria for selecting unoccupied critical habitat
areas. In the proposed rule, we erroneously cited a dispersal distance
of 3.1 mi (5 km). The distance has been changed to 2.5 mi (4 km) in
this final critical habitat rule (see section titled Stream Reaches Not
Currently Known to Be Occupied for a more detailed discussion).
(13) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned why the proposed rule
did not include trout predation, one of the largest threats to frog
populations, in the Special Management Considerations section and
whether there are efforts to remove non-native trout from occupied
mountain yellow-legged frog habitat.
Our Response: We included threats that may require special
management considerations and that have an effect on primary
constituent elements. The threat of trout predation has the potential
to affect the survival of mountain yellow-legged frogs but does not
affect habitat features. We recognize that non-native trout predation
is a major threat to the recovery of the mountain yellow-legged frog
and encourage programs to remove introduced trout from streams where
frog recovery is designated. The critical habitat rule does not
authorize management actions; however, we strongly encourage trout
removal for adequate frog conservation. We discussed one previous trout
removal action in subunit 1C (Little Rock Creek) in the Unit
Descriptions section.
(14) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned whether Riverside County
can actually purchase and conserve all 141 ac of private land that was
excluded from critical habitat based on the lands inclusion within the
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(MSHCP) as stated in the proposed critical habitat rule.
Our Response: No areas containing features essential to the
conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog are within lands
(Additional Reserve Lands) that are to be purchased and conserved by
Riverside County under their Western Riverside County MSHCP. We
mistakenly presented this in the proposed critical habitat rule (70 FR
54106) in our discussion regarding the exclusion of non-Federal lands
that are covered under the MSHCP. We are still excluding these lands
because of conservation measures provided for the mountain yellow-
legged frog from the MSHCP's Additional Survey Needs and Procedures
policy (see Relationship of Critical Habitat to Approved Habitat
Conservation Plans section for a more detailed discussion).
(15) Comment: One peer reviewer stated the two-striped garter snake
(Thamnophis hammondii) and raccoons (Procyon lotor) should be included
as potential predators in the Primary Constituent Elements section
within the discussion on Cover or Shelter.
Our Response: A broad range of terrestrial taxa have been observed
as predators of mountain yellow-legged frogs, including several species
of birds, snakes, and mammals (Jennings et al. 1992; Mathews et al.
2002; Mullally and Cunningham 1956). We have added the two predators
mentioned by the peer reviewer to the list of potential predators from
which mountain yellow-legged frogs would try to seek cover (see Primary
Constituent Elements section within the discussion on Cover or Shelter
for a more detailed discussion).
(16) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the critical habitat
rule should include bedrock just underneath the surface of the water as
another type of sunning post as a primary constituent element.
Our Response: We appreciate the clarification on sunning post
features and have added bedrock just underneath the surface of the
water as another important potential type of sunning post that mountain
yellow-legged frogs may utilize to our description of PCE 1. For more
[[Page 54348]]
information, please see the Primary Constituent Elements section below.
(17) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned whether enforcement
activities by the Service were a part of the Western Riverside County
MSHCP, and if so, then the justification for not including non-Federal
lands within the MSHCP is justified. If not, then the peer reviewer
questioned whether the level of protection under the MSHCP is
consistent with that of the critical habitat proposal.
Our Response: The Service issued a single incidental take permit
pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act as well as entered into an
Implementing Agreement with the 22 Permittees of the MSHCP. The Service
is responsible for overseeing the Permittees' compliance with the
permit and Implementing Agreement. When implemented, we expect the
MSHCP will provide substantial protection of the PCEs and special
management of essential habitat features for the mountain yellow-legged
frog on MSHCP conservation lands. This level of management for the
mountain yellow-legged frog on private lands by the MSHCP is greater
than a critical habitat designation (see section titled Relationship of
Critical Habitat to Approved Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs)--
Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act for a more detailed
discussion). Therefore, we agree with the commenter that excluding non-
Federal lands within the MSHCP from the critical habitat designation is
justified.
(18) Comment: One peer reviewer stated the critical habitat rule
should include fire control activities as a Federal activity that may
adversely affect critical habitat because of threats of water removal
from streams, dropping fire retardant on streams or frogs, disease and
exotic predator transport from clothing or footwear of fire fighters
and water drops, respectively.
Our Response: We have included fire control activities under
Federal activities that may adversely affect critical habitat. For more
information, please see the Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
section below.
General Comments
Comments Related to Procedural and Legal Compliance
(19) Comment: One commenter stated that critical habitat should not
be designated within the Western Riverside County MSHCP plan area
because the mountain yellow-legged frog is one of the listed species
covered under the MSHCP. The plan was approved by the County of
Riverside and 14 cities, and issued a Section 10(a) permit by the
Service in 2004.
Our Response: We agree with the commenter and have excluded from
critical habitat all non-Federal lands containing features essential to
the conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog within the MSHCP
Plan Area. However, we are designating Federal lands managed by the
United States Forest Service (USFS) within the MSHCP Plan Area as
critical habitat because they are not a permittee under the section
10(a)(1)(B) permit for the MSHCP. For more information, please see
Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below.
(20) Comment: One commenter stated that critical habitat should not
be designated on Federal lands in the Angeles and San Bernardino
National Forest because designating critical habitat for species
already on the endangered species list provides little added
conservation benefit to the species. This commenter also stated the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) current involvement in an
ecological restoration project in the San Bernardino Mountains has the
potential to be within the downstream portions of watersheds in which
critical habitat is proposed for the mountain yellow-legged frog,
although none of the critical habitat areas is actually within the
Corps' study boundary.
Our Response: We are obligated under the Act to designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available and after
taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant
impact, of designating an area as critical habitat. The Secretary may
exclude an area if the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion unless the Secretary determines that such exclusion will
result in the extinction of the species.
We examined the USFS's Revised Land and Resource Management Plans
for the Four Southern California Forests, California (Forest Plan) that
was approved in September 2005 and the Service's biological opinion
that was issued on the Forest Plan on September 15, 2005. At issue were
the effects of the Forest Plan and ongoing activities on USFS lands on
federally-listed species, including the mountain yellow-legged frog.
The goal of the Forest Plan is to describe a strategic direction for
the management of the national forests over the next 10 to 15 years.
The Forest Plan does not make any decisions regarding USFS site-
specific project proposals for implementing the land management plans
nor do they compel managers to implement any specific conservation
activities. The Forest Plan also divides the national forests into
several ``Land Use Zones'', including Developed Area Interface, Back
Country, Back Country Motorized Use Restricted, Back Country Non-
Motorized, Critical Biological, Recommended Wilderness, Existing
Wilderness, and Experimental Forest. The land use zones were designed
to describe the type of anticipated and allowable public use or
administrative activities.
During the proposed critical habitat rulemaking process, we
coordinated with staff from both the Angeles and San Bernardino
National Forests to seek their input on the best areas to designate
critical habitat on their lands that will contribute to the recovery of
the mountain yellow-legged frog. Due to the amount of unoccupied
critical habitat areas and the precarious status of existing
populations, we determined that the benefit of including USFS lands as
critical habitat are significant because this will help maintain the
Service's role in reviewing potential future impacts to areas that are
important for the survival and recovery of mountain yellow-legged frog
populations. Our decision to designate critical habitat on USFS lands
was supported in a public comment letter from the Angeles National
Forest regarding critical habitat on their lands. We do not have
information indicating that the benefits of excluding Federal lands
within the National Forests will outweigh the benefits of including
these lands.
As for the Corps' ecological restoration project, we are not aware
of the specifics of this project. Federal projects that may affect
critical habitat require consultation with the Service. However, we
would hope that an ecological restoration project would provide long-
term benefits to the mountain yellow-legged frog and its habitat.
(21) Comment: One commenter stated that they did not support USFS
management practices that may be detrimental to the mountain yellow-
legged frog, such as pesticide use, vegetation removal agents, and
prescribed burning.
Our Response: We appreciate the commenter's concerns regarding
threats to the mountain yellow-legged frog. These threats are addressed
in the Special Management Considerations section as well as in the
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation sections below.
(22) Comment: One commenter stated that they are opposed to the
overzealous land grabbing by the County of
[[Page 54349]]
Riverside for the protection of the mountain yellow-legged frog.
Our Response: This issue is beyond the scope of this critical
habitat rule. The designation of critical habitat does not dictate
decisions regarding land acquisition, use, or management practices.
Comments Related to the Draft Economic Analysis (DEA)
(23) Comment: One commenter stated that attributing costs
associated with protection measures for the mountain yellow-legged frog
(i.e., loss of recreation, fishing, hiking, camping, and rock climbing)
on USFS lands was wrong and misleading because these would have been
done for the conservation of the species, not necessarily because of
critical habitat designation. For example, the North Fork of the San
Jacinto River and City Creek on the San Bernardino National Forest was
already closed to public recreation use in the stream prior to this
critical habitat designation.
Our Response: We recognize that the USFS has already been
conducting conservation measures for the mountain yellow-legged frog
prior to this designation. The DEA identifies those economic activities
believed to most likely threaten the listed species and its habitat
and, where possible, quantifies the economic impact to avoid, mitigate,
or compensate for such threats within the boundaries of the critical
habitat designation. In instances where critical habitat is being
proposed after a species is listed, some future impacts may be
unavoidable, regardless of the final designation and exclusions under
4(b)(2). However, due to the difficulty in making a credible
distinction between listing and critical habitat effects within
critical habitat boundaries, the analysis in the DEA considers all
future conservation-related impacts to be co-extensive with the
designation. Inclusion of co-extensive impacts in the DEA complies with
instruction by the United States Court of Appeals in 2001 for the
Service to conduct a full analysis of all of the economic impacts or
the proposed critical habitat designation, regardless of whether those
impacts are attributable co-extensively to other causes (New Mexico
Cattle Growers Association v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001)).
Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
In preparing the final critical habitat designation for the
mountain-yellow-legged frog, we reviewed and considered comments from
the public and peer reviewers on the proposed designation of critical
habitat published on September 13, 2005 (70 FR 54106) and public
comments on the draft economic analysis published on July 3, 2006 (71
FR 37881). As a result of comments received on the proposed rule and
the DEA, and a reevaluation of the proposed critical habitat
boundaries, we made changes to our proposed designation, as follows:
(1) We added an additional feature (rocks just beneath the surface
of the water for sunning posts) to PCE 1 based on one peer reviewer's
comment.
(2) We added aquatic refugia as another feature to PCE 1 based on
two peer reviewer comments.
(3) After a reevaluation of the existing information on water
quality (i.e., pH, dissolved oxygen, and water temperature) and comment
from a peer reviewer on our use of a narrow range of water quality
parameters to describe water quality as a PCE, we determined that there
was insufficient information on water quality to provide an accurate
range of water quality values that describes suitable frog habitat.
Therefore, we removed water quality as a PCE (see Comment 10
above for a more detailed discussion).
(4) We changed our determination of the occupancy status of Day
Canyon, East Fork of Barton Creek, and Indian Creek at Hall Canyon from
currently occupied to currently unoccupied and not occupied at the time
of listing based on a reevaluation of existing information and
discussions with biologists that have surveyed these sites. Mountain
yellow-legged frogs have not been detected in any of these streams
since the mid-1990s, but not all the stream reaches in Day Canyon and
Indian Creek at Hall Canyon have been surveyed. Without recent
documentation that these streams are known to be occupied, we believe
this change appropriately reflects the species' current status.
(5) We corrected the dispersal distance used in the section titled
Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat from 3.1 mi (5 km) to 2.5 mi
(4 km). This information is based on the best available data on
mountain yellow-legged frog movements from a dispersal study conducted
in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, California (Knapp in litt. 2005) (see
Comment 12 above for a more detailed discussion).
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) The
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found
those physical or biological features (I) Essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) that may require special management
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon
a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of
the species. Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means
to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to
bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at
which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer
necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to,
all activities associated with scientific resources management such as
research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance,
propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 requires consultation on
Federal actions that may affect critical habitat. The designation of
critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such
designation does not allow government or public access to private
lands. Section 7 is a purely protective measure and does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures.
To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat
within the area occupied by the species must first have features that
are essential to the conservation of the species. Critical habitat
designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific
data available, habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs
of the species (i.e., areas on which are found the primary constituent
elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)).
Habitat occupied at the time of listing may be included in critical
habitat only if the essential features thereon may require special
management considerations or protection. Thus, we do not include areas
where existing management is sufficient to conserve the species. (As
discussed below, such areas may also be excluded from critical habitat
pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act). In areas outside the
geographical
[[Page 54350]]
area occupied by the species at the time of listing, when the best
available scientific data do not demonstrate that the conservation
needs of the species require additional areas, we will not designate
critical habitat within those areas. An area currently occupied by the
species but not known to be occupied at the time of listing will
likely, but not always, be essential to the conservation of the species
and, therefore, typically be included in the critical habitat
designation.
The Service's Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271), and Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-554; H.R. 5658) and
the associated Information Quality Guidelines issued by the Service,
provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure
that decisions made by the Service represent the best scientific data
available. They require Service biologists to the extent consistent
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to
use primary and original sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical habitat. When determining which
areas are critical habitat, a primary source of information is
generally the listing package for the species. Additional information
sources include the recovery plan for the species, articles in peer-
reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties,
scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, or other
unpublished materials and expert opinion or personal knowledge. All
information is used in accordance with the provisions of Section 515 of
the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
2001 (P.L. 106-554; H.R. 5658) and the associated Information Quality
Guidelines issued by the Service.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Habitat is often
dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time.
Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not
include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to
be necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons,
critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the
designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery.
Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the
regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy
standard, as determined on the basis of the best available information
at the time of the action. Federally funded or permitted projects
affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat
areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly,
critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation will not control the direction
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or
other species conservation planning efforts if new information
available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Methods
As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to determine areas that contain the features
essential to the conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog. This
includes information from the proposed listing rule (64 FR 71714),
final listing rule (67 FR 44382), proposed critical habitat rule (70 FR
54106), site visits, soil and species map coverages, and data compiled
in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). We also reviewed
available information regarding the ecology, natural history, and
habitat requirements of the species. This material included information
and data in reports submitted during section 7 consultations, research
published in peer-reviewed articles and technical reports by the USGS
and the USFS, and regional GIS coverages.
Primary Constituent Elements
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to designate as critical
habitat, we consider those physical and biological features (PCEs) that
are essential to the conservation of the species, and within areas
occupied by the species at the time of listing, that may require
special management considerations or protection. These include, but are
not limited to space for individual and population growth and for
normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other
nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for
breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) of offspring; and
habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of
the historical geographical and ecological distributions of a species.
The specific primary constituent elements required for the mountain
yellow-legged frog are derived from the biological needs of the
mountain yellow-legged frog as described below and in the proposed
critical habitat designation published in the Federal Register on
September 13, 2005 (70 FR 54106).
Space for Individual and Population Growth and Normal Behavior
Mountain yellow-legged frogs are a highly aquatic, cryptic, diurnal
species that occupy mountain streams which have cool waters and
originate from springs and snowmelt (Jennings and Hayes 1994a, b).
Mountain yellow-legged frogs are most often found in creeks with
permanent water in at least some portion of the reach. Mountain yellow-
legged frogs also utilize streams, rivers, perennial creeks, permanent
plunge pools within intermittent creeks and pools, and their associated
riparian and upland habitat (Mullally 1959, Backlin et al. 2004).
Backlin et al. (2004) reported creeks with occupied mountain yellow-
legged frog populations were generally narrow, averaging from 3 to 10
ft (1 to 3 m) wide, with associated riparian zone widths ranging from
26 to 82 ft (8 to 25 m), with canyon walls typically rising steeply on
either side. They also reported stream reach lengths containing
mountain yellow-legged frog populations varied from approximately 820
ft (250 m) in Dark Canyon, to greater than 16,404 ft (5,000 m) in East
Fork, City Creek. Backlin et al. (2004) also reported that pools were
typically 3 to 32 ft (1 to 10 m) long, 2 to 23 ft (0.5 to 7 m) wide,
0.4 to 180 inches (in) (1 to 180 cm) deep, and typically had some type
of structure in the form bank overhangs, downfall sticks, and/or rocks
that could function as refugia, but there was minimal aquatic
vegetation. Mountain yellow-legged frogs have been noted to inhabit
creeks varying in type from high gradient with rocky courses to low
gradient with marshy margins and sod banks (Mullally 1959). Creeks such
as those with permanent water sources and their associated riparian and
upland habitat (PCE 1) provide breeding sites, foraging grounds, and
shelter for individual and population growth and normal behavior. They
also provide for perennial flows needed for egg-laying and tadpole
growth and survival.
Food, Water, Air, Light, or Other Nutritional or Physiological
Requirements
Mountain yellow-legged frogs appear to be principally
insectivorous, feeding on a wide variety of invertebrates, including
beetles (Coleoptera), ants
[[Page 54351]]
(Formididae), bees (Apoidea), wasps (Hymenoptera), flies (Diptera),
true bugs (Hemiptera), and dragonflies (Odonata) (Long 1970).
Terrestrial insects and adult stages of aquatic insects may be the
preferred food for adult mountain yellow-legged frogs (Bradford 1983);
larger frogs consume more aquatic true bugs likely because of their
more aquatic behavior (Jennings and Hays 1994a). Some predation of
tadpoles by adult mountain yellow-legged frogs appears possible as
evidenced in Sierra Nevada populations (Mathews and Pope 1999).
The riparian zone, with the associated vegetation canopy (PCE 2),
is necessary to maintain the prey base needed for the nutritional
requirements of the mountain yellow-legged frog. Larvae graze on algae
and diatoms in the silt along rocky bottoms in streams (Zeiner et al.
1988). An open or semi-open canopy of riparian vegetation (canopy
overstory not exceeding 85 percent, Backlin et al. 2004) is needed to
ensure that adequate sunlight reaches the stream to allow for basking
behavior and for photosynthesis by benthic algae and diatoms that are
food resources for larval mountain yellow-legged frog.
Cover or Shelter
Mountain yellow-legged frogs are preyed upon by the western
terrestrial garter snake (Thamnophis elegans), two-striped garter
snake, Brewer's blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), Clark's nutcrackers
(Nucifraga columbiana), raccoons, and coyotes (Canis latrans) (Jennings
et al. 1992; Jennings in litt. 2005; Mathews et al. 2002; Mullally and
Cunningham 1956; USFS 2002). Pools with bank overhangs, downfall logs
or branches, and/or rocks (PCEs 1 and 2) provide cover from predators
for mountain yellow-legged frogs.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, and Rearing of Offspring
In southern California, the mountain yellow-legged frog occupies
streams in the chaparral belt (Zweifel 1955), and cool and cold, rocky,
mountain watercourses shaded by trees, rocks, and other shelter, where
the flow comes from springs and snowmelt (Jennings and Hayes 1994b)
(PCEs 1 and 2). White alders (Alnus rhombifolia), willows, sycamore,
cottonwoods, conifers, and maples dominate the mountain yellow-legged
frog's non-aquatic habitat (Jennings and Hayes 1994b; Backlin et al.
2004). Open gravel banks and rocks projecting above or just underneath
the surface of the water may provide sunning posts (Zweifel 1955;
Jennings in litt. 2005). Many of the streams in which mountain yellow-
legged frogs occurred historically and currently occupy have a
relatively steep gradient and large boulders in the stream beds
(Stebbins 1951). Although knowledge pertaining to the specific habitat
requirements of mountain yellow-legged frogs in southern California is
limited, the presence of water year-round is known to be necessary for
both reproduction and for hydration of juveniles and adults (Vredenburg
et al. 2005). Individuals may, however, aestivate during especially dry
periods of late summer (Mullally 1959). In southern California,
mountain yellow-legged frogs historically ranged from 1,214 to 7,546 ft
(370 to 2,300 m) in elevation (Jennings and Hayes 1994a, 1994b).
Primary Constituent Elements for the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog
Pursuant to our regulations, we are required to identify the known
physical and biological features (PCEs) essential to the conservation
of the mountain yellow-legged frog. Areas designated as critical
habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog contain both occupied and
unoccupied streams and riparian areas within the species' historical
geographic range, and contain sufficient PCEs to support at least one
life history function. In identifying PCEs, we used the best available
scientific data available. Although the physical ranges described below
may not capture all of the variability that is inherent in natural
systems, these ranges best represent the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the mountain yellow-legged
frog in the occupied areas designated as critical habitat. In order to
conserve this species, we believe it is necessary to designate critical
habitat in areas currently unoccupied by the species. For more
information, please see the Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat
and Unit Descriptions sections below for further discussion of
unoccupied habitat.
Based on our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and
ecology of the species and the requirements of the habitat to sustain
the essential life history functions of the species, we have determined
that the mountain yellow-legged frog's PCEs are:
(1) Water source(s) found between 1,214 to 7,546 feet (370 to
2,300 meter) in elevation that are permanent. Water sources include,
but are not limited to, streams, rivers, perennial creeks (or
permanent plunge pools within intermittent creeks), pools (i.e., a
body of impounded water that is contained above a natural dam) and
other forms of aquatic habitat. The water source should maintain a
natural flow pattern including periodic natural flooding. Aquatic
habitats that are used by mountain yellow-legged frog for breeding
purposes must maintain water during the entire tadpole growth phase,
which can last for up to 2 years. During periods of drought, or less
than average rainfall, these breeding sites may not hold water long
enough for individuals to complete metamorphosis, but they would
still be considered essential breeding habitat in wetter years.
Further, the aquatic includes:
a. Bank and pool substrates consisting of varying percentages of
soil or silt, sand, gravel cobble, rock, and boulders;
b. Open gravel banks and rocks projecting above or just beneath
the surface of the water for sunning posts;
c. Aquatic refugia, including pools with bank overhangs,
downfall logs or branches, and/or rocks to provide cover from
predators; and
d. Streams or stream reaches between known occupied sites that
can function as corridors for movement between aquatic habitats used
as breeding and/or foraging sites.
(2) Riparian habitat and upland vegetation (e.g., ponderosa
pine, montane hardwood-conifer, montane riparian woodlands, and
chaparral) extending 262 feet (80 meters) from each side of the
centerline of each identified stream and its tributaries, that
provides areas for feeding and movement of mountain yellow-legged
frog, with a canopy overstory not exceeding 85 percent that allows
sunlight to reach the stream and thereby provide basking areas for
the species.
This designation is designed for the conservation of PCEs necessary
to support the life history functions of the mountain yellow-legged
frog. Because not all life history functions require all the PCEs, not
all areas designated as critical habitat will contain all the PCEs.
Each of the areas designated in this rule have been determined to
contain sufficient PCEs to provide for one or more of the life history
functions of the mountain yellow-legged frog. In some cases, the PCEs
exist as a result of ongoing Federal actions. As a result, ongoing
Federal actions at the time of designation will be included in the
baseline in any consultation conducted subsequent to this designation.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
We are designating critical habitat in areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing in
2002, as well as some specific unoccupied areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, but
were historically occupied, because we have determined that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Stream Reaches Occupied at the Time of Listing
We have defined occupied critical habitat as: (a) Those streams
known to
[[Page 54352]]
be occupied by the mountain yellow-legged frog at the time of listing
in 2002; (b) the riparian, upland, and aquatic habitats 262 ft (80 m)
from the centerline of the stream including tributaries; and (c)
aquatic habitats within 4,905 ft (1,495 m) upstream from the upstream-
most occurrence and 4,905 ft (1,495 m) downstream from the downstream-
most occurrence on the main stem of the river or creek known to be
occupied, including any tributary that flows into it (see the following
sections for explanation of these values). We used information from the
proposed and final listing rules, reports prepared by the USGS, the
USFS, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), the CNDDB,
researchers, and consultants to identify the specific locations
occupied by the southern California mountain yellow-legged frog at the
time of listing. All occurrence records dating from 2002 of mountain
yellow-legged frogs were plotted on maps in GIS as points and polygons.
The currently occupied habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog
is highly limited and isolated. Population estimates are all extremely
low, with no stream having an estimated population size exceeding 100
breeding adults, and an overall total estimate of approximately 183
adults surviving in 2003 (including City Creek, East Fork; Backlin et
al. 2004). The mountain yellow-legged frog is at a high risk of
extinction and is highly susceptible to stochastic events (Backlin et
al. 2004). We have determined that all occupied areas contain features
essential to the conservation of the species and are either designated
as critical habitat or are excluded from designation pursuant to
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Stream Reaches Unoccupied at the Time of Listing
The streams not known to be currently occupied that are being
designated as critical habitat were all historically occupied, and the
designation of these areas as critical habitat will decrease the degree
of fragmentation within the current geographic distribution of the
mountain yellow-legged frog. We believe that the designation of these
additional areas not known to be currently occupied by the mountain
yellow-legged frog is essential for the conservation of the species
because:
(1) The current, overall population size of the mountain yellow-
legged frog is extremely small, and it must increase in order to insure
long-term survival of this species in southern California (cf. Backlin
et al. 2004). While the occupied units provide habitat for current
populations, additional units will provide habitat for population
augmentation either through natural means, or by re-introduction. Such
population augmentation in the additional subunits may serve to
decrease the risk of extinction of the species through stochastic
events, such as fires or disease, as the current, isolated populations
are each at high risk of extirpation from such stochastic events
(Backlin et al. 2004), particularly because of their small sizes and
restricted ranges;
(2) Population augmentation either through natural means or by re-
introduction into the additional subunits may increase the viability of
the occupied subunits as well as the existence of the mountain yellow-
legged frog in southern California as a whole (i.e., increase the
likelihood of persistence at the local population level and of this DPS
range-wide);
(3) Additional subunits will serve to decrease the degree of
fragmentation of the current geographic distribution of the mountain
yellow-legged frog within each of the three mountain ranges (i.e.,
increase connectivity between streams that are known to be currently
occupied);
(4) Additional subunits are designated as critical habitat in areas
occupied in the near past and located within the historical range of
the species such that they will serve as corridors between currently
occupied sites. Most of the unoccupied subunits lie within 0.9 to 2.5
mi (1.5 to 4 km) of an occupied site; the only exception is Subunit 2C
(in historically occupied Whitewater River). Although Subunit 2C is
unlikely to serve as a corridor between currently occupied areas, this
subunit is the only representative area of southeastern desert slope
and of the San Gorgonio Mountains, and ensures representation of the
full geographical distribution of the mountain yellow-legged frog not
otherwise represented by the currently occupied sites;
(5) The additional subunits may offer habitat that is superior to
that in the occupied subunits (i.e., the potential viability of frogs
in unoccupied subunits may be higher) due to the fact that the
additional subunits may be faced with fewer and more-easily treated
threats than the occupied units.
Width of Riparian and Upland Habitats Along Occupied Stream Reaches
Once we determined which stream reaches were occupied, we focused
on delineating those riparian and upland habitats used by the mountain
yellow-legged frog. We estimated the width of riparian and upland
habitats occupied by adults based on a study of movement ecology of
mountain yellow-legged frogs in the Sierra Nevada Mountains (Pope and
Matthews 2001). The study, in which a total of 581 adult frogs were
marked, included 5 stream segments and 11 lakes and ponds. The movement
of mountain yellow-legged frogs throughout the entire annual period of
activity (mid-late July to mid-late October) was recorded over two
successive seasons (1997 and 1998). Of these marked frogs, 82 frogs
made overland movements between water bodies that were not connected by
aquatic pathways. Based on these results, 72 frogs traveled a minimum
distance of 216 ft (66 m), 9 frogs traveled a minimum distance of 466
ft (142 m), and 1 frog traveled 1,378 ft (420 m). We used this data to
calculate a weighted mean of 259 ft (79 m) of overland distance
traveled by mountain yellow-legged frogs. Subsequently, we applied the
weighted mean of overland distance (rounded up to 262 ft (80 m)) to
delineate the amount of riparian area and upland habitat that is
occupied by frogs and essential to their conservation. Although this
study took place in the Sierra Nevada mountains in different types of
aquatic habitat (e.g., lakes), it represents the best movement data
available on mountain yellow-legged frogs and some indication of this
species' physical capabilities to move away from aquatic habitats.
We also compared the results of the Pope and Mathews (2001) study
with the preliminary results of an unpublished study that examined
mountain yellow-legged frog movements in the Sierra Nevada Mountains
(Knapp in litt. 2005). This study included observations of movement
between Marmot Lake and Frog Lake (not connected by a stream) of at
least 8,858 ft (2,700 m) by three frogs in 2003 and six frogs in 2004.
In comparison to Knapp's study, the 262 ft (80 m) width appears to be a
conservative estimate of the riparian and upland habitats occupied by
the mountain yellow-legged frog. We did not use results from the Knapp
study because we had a more complete dataset from the Pope and Mathews
study and the findings from the Knapp study are still preliminary.
Length of Occupied Stream Reaches
The next step was to focus on delineating the length of up- and
downstream reaches from known occupied areas to determine the length of
stream reaches that are used by the mountain yellow-legged frog. We
estimated the length of up- and downstream occupied reaches from our
[[Page 54353]]
review of several studies on mountain yellow-legged frog movements
(Pope and Matthews 2001; Knapp in litt. 2005; Backlin et al. 2004; Dr.
V. Vredenburg, University of California-Berkeley, pers. comm. 2006).
Since there are no definitive published studies on instream movements
of mountain yellow-legged frogs, we used portions of the above-
mentioned studies that specifically identified stream movement. In
their study of movement ecology of mountain yellow-legged frogs in the
Sierra Nevada Mountains, Pope and Matthews (2001) reported a tagged
female mountain yellow-legged frog that traveled a minimum of 1,968 ft
(600 m) in a fast-flowing stream. For streams in southern California,
Backlin et al. (2004) reported movement distances between approximately
131 ft (40 m) to 4,902 ft (1,494 m). In the Sierra Nevada Mountains,
Knapp (in litt. 2005) reported movements along a stream connecting two
lakes, a distance of approximately 2,953 ft (900 m), by 12 frogs in
2003 and 46 frogs in 2004. Knapp (in litt. 2005) also reported an
approximately 11,811 ft (3,580 m) movement of three frogs in 2003, and
one frog in 2004, between two lakes that included both dispersal along
a stream and overland movement. Finally, Dr. V. Vredenburg (University
of California-Berkeley, pers. comm. 2006) stated that mountain yellow-
legged frog tadpoles have been located approximately 5,905 ft (1,800 m)
downstream from where they were tagged in the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
The variability of study designs and sample sizes in mountain
yellow-legged frog studies in the Sierra Nevada Mountains have made it
difficult to infer their results to understand habitat requirements and
movement distances of mountain yellow-legged frog populations in
southern California mountains. Instead, we have determined that using
the recorded movement distance of 4,902 ft (1,494 m) in City Creek,
East Fork, in the San Bernardino Mountains in southern California, is a
more appropriate movement distance to measure the length of a stream
that is occupied by mountain yellow-legged frogs from a known
occurrence. We believe the observation from City Creek represents the
best available information to define occupied upstream and downstream
reaches for the following reasons: (1) This movement distance connects
known occurrences along a stream or in populations to those that occur
in tributaries; (2) this movement distance is specific to and
representative of the southern California populations of the mountain
yellow-legged frog; (3) movement distances between 131 ft (40 m) to
4,902 ft (1,494 m) that were identified by Backlin et al. (2004)
represent home range movements and reflect the high site fidelity
displayed by mountain yellow-legged frog and are therefore not
representative of dispersal patterns (Backlin et al. 2004); and (4)
this distance is less than the maximum distance for stream and overland
movements identified by Knapp (in litt. 2005) for adults and by
Vredenburg (pers. comm. 2006) for tadpoles in the Sierra Nevada
mountains, and thus likely represents a conservative estimate of the
upstream and downstream movements by the mountain yellow-legged frog in
southern California.
Stream Reaches Not Currently Known To Be Occupied
We are also designating critical habitat on lands that were
historically occupied by the mountain yellow-legged frog, but are not
known to be currently occupied. These stream reaches were all
historically occupied within the past 50 years and still contain
features essential to the conservation of the species. We selected
these sites based in part on comments and information provided to us by
herpetologists and experts on the mountain yellow-legged frog.
Biologists from management agencies (USGS, CDFG, USFS) also provided
their knowledge of anthropogenic activity level, current habitat
suitability for the species (including survey data), and management
potential. Based on the best available information, we have determined
that without the management and protection of these areas that are not
known to be occupied, conservation of the species will not be possible
in the foreseeable future.
We used the following criteria to select areas historically
occupied, but not known to be currently occupied by the mountain
yellow-legged frog, for inclusion in critical habitat. All of the areas
designated as critical habitat that are currently not known to be
occupied contain one or more of the following criteria:
(1) Streams where the habitat contains sufficient PCEs (e.g.,
characteristics such as perennial water flow, pools, riffles, runs,
riparian and upland habitat, banks with rocky substrate) to support
life history functions;
(2) Streams where the habitat has been characterized as
``suitable'' for mountain yellow-legged frog by USGS, CDFG, and USFS in
their survey reports (i.e., contains habitat which meets additional,
more specific characteristics that allow for a range of the species'
biological needs, such as containing sites for breeding, feeding,
sheltering, and other essential mountain yellow-legged frog behavioral
patterns);
(3) Streams that were known to be occupied by the species within
the past 50 years, where the habitat has not changed appreciably during
that time (thus allowing for the assumption that previous occupancy
still provides good indication of the known suitability of the site for
the species'' biological needs);
(4) Streams that have potential for current occupancy by the
mountain yellow-legged frog because: (a) No conclusive evidence exists
indicating that the species is currently completely absent from a site
due to few, incomplete, or absence of surveys having been conducted
there recently, (b) there is a lack of major anthropogenic disturbance,
or (c) they were known to be occupied within the past 15 years, which
is the approximate life span of a mountain yellow-legged frog (Matthews
and Miaud 2005);
(5) Streams that are in remote locations, which are geographically
distant from areas with heavy anthropogenic activities, such as
vehicular traffic, human recreation, dredging, trout stocking, water
regulation, and other sources of pollution;
(6) Streams that are not currently stocked with nonnative fish;
(7) Streams where threats to the species either no longer exist, or
are few and have potential to be alleviated (e.g., by shifting current
human recreational use patterns, and/or by trout removal) through
voluntary cooperative conservation measures; and
(8) Streams where there is potential for re-occupation by the
species, either by natural means through dispersal from currently
occupied sites, which are located within 2.5 mi (4 km) of a currently
occupied site (Knapp in litt. 2005), or by future re-introduction
efforts.
When determining critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort
to avoid developed areas such as buildings, paved areas, and other
structures that lack PCEs for the mountain yellow-legged frog. The
scale of the maps prepared under the parameters for publication within
the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the removal of such
developed areas. Any such structures and the land under them
inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps
of this final rule have been removed by text in the final rule and are
not designated as critical habitat. Therefore, Federal actions limited
to these areas would not trigger section 7
[[Page 54354]]
consultation, unless they affect the species and/or adjacent critical
habitat.
Units are designated based on sufficient PCEs being present to
support one or more of the mountain yellow-legged frog's life history
functions. Some units contain all PCEs and support multiple life
processes, while some units contain only a portion of the PCEs
necessary to support the frog's particular use of that habitat. Where a
subset of the PCEs is present at the time of designation, this rule
protects those PCEs and thus the conservation function of the habitat.
Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes us to issue permits for
the take of listed species incidental to otherwise lawful activities.
An incidental take permit application must be supported by a habitat
conservation plan (HCP) that identifies conservation measures that the
permittee agrees to implement for the species to minimize and mitigate
the impacts of the requested incidental take. We often exclude non-
Federal public lands and private lands that are covered by an existing
operative HCP and executed implementation agreement (IA) under section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act from designated critical habitat because the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion as discussed
in section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We have excluded non-Federal public
lands and private lands that are covered under the Western Riverside
County MSHCP (see Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section
for a detailed discussion).
A brief discussion of each area designated as critical habitat is
provided in the unit descriptions below. Additional detailed
documentation concerning the essential nature of these areas is
contained in our supporting record for this rulemaking.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the primary
constituent elements, within the areas determined to be occupied at the
time of listing, may require special management considerations or
protection. Threats to those features that define the primary
constituent elements for the mountain yellow-legged frog include the
direct and indirect impacts of some human recreation activities,
watershed management practices, water diversions from streams, fire
management practices, and hazardous materials spills along roadways
adjacent to streams.
Subunits 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 2A, and 3A may require special management
due to threats posed by recreational activities, including camping,
hiking, fishing, and recreational mining (USFS 2002). In areas occupied
by mountain yellow-legged frogs, human use in and along streams can
disrupt eggs, larvae, and adult frogs (Jennings 1995), change the
character of the stream (e.g., sediment), and its bank and associated
vegetation in ways that make sections of the stream less suitable as
habitat for the species (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). For example,
logging activity, recreational mining, or heavy trampling may alter
and/or decrease the availability of habitat features such as bank
overhangs, downed logs or branches, and rocks, or may alter pool
substrate, thereby reducing or eliminating available foraging, resting,
breeding or egg-laying sites, and increasing suspended sediments and
turbidity (Service 2005) (PCE 1). Human activities associated with
heavy recreational use could also erode or denude stream banks or
shores, reduce the extent of riparian vegetation, potentially reduce
the available prey base for frogs, alter the amount of stream shade,
and increase sedimentation within stream channels due to erosion from
exposed soils (Service 2005) (PCEs 1 and 2). Heavy recreational use is
specifically cited as a potential threat in Subunit 1A (Bear Gulch and
Vincent Gulch, the San Gabriel River--East Fork), Subunit 1C (Little
Rock Creek), and Subunit 3A (Fuller Mill Creek and Dark Canyon);
recreational mining is cited as a potential threat in Subunit 1A (San
Gabriel, East Fork) (Jennings 1994, 1995, 1998, 1999; USFS 2002).
However, due to the proximity of the San Bernardino, San Gabriel and
San Jacinto Mountains to large urban centers, resulting in high
recreational use of these areas, there is potential for recreational
impacts to all of the areas being designated as critical habitat.
Subunits 1A, 1C, 2A, and 3A may require special management due to
threats posed by watershed management activities, including forest
thinning or clearing for public safety or fire prevention (e.g., fuel
load management), water diversion, application of herbicides, use of
fire retardants, and inadvertent spills of hazardous chemicals.
Depending on the extent of the management activities and the proximity
to streams, forest thinning or clearing may alter streambed and
riparian characteristics in ways that make sections of the stream less
suitable as habitat for frogs. For example, thinning or clearing
adjacent to streams could increase flooding and sedimentation within
stream channels due to erosion of exposed soils (Jennings 1998) (PCE
1). Alteration or removal of riparian vegetation could reduce the prey-
base available for mountain yellow-legged frogs (PCE 2); however, the
presence of a dense canopy cover or riparian vegetation that decreases
the amount of basking areas (PCE 2) may render the habitat unsuitable
for mountain yellow-legged frogs (USFS 2002). Water diversion, such as
water removal from the drainage system occupied by the species, could
reduce water levels and decrease the quality and extent of suitable
breeding, wintering, and foraging sites, and reduce the prey-base
availability (USFS 2002). Subunit 1C (Little Rock Creek), Subunit 2A
(East Fork City Creek), and Subunit 3A (Dark Canyon and Fuller Mill
Creek) have potentially high canopy cover and/or dense riparian
vegetation within the watershed (USFS 2002).
The USFS prepared the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog Conservation
Assessment and Strategy: Angeles and San Bernardino National Forests
(Strategy) (USFS 2002). This Strategy provides a framework for
conservation actions to assist in the recovery and conservation of the
mountain yellow-legged frog and identifies the following management
actions necessary to reduce impacts to mountain yellow-legged frog
habitat: (1) Recreation. Closing, rerouting, or reconstructing
unauthorized trails; closing parking areas used for unauthorized trail
access; removing campsites and picnic tables adjacent to occupied
creeks; installing signing at trailheads and along access points to
promote understanding of the species' biology and habitat requirements;
(2) High fuel loads. Develop plans for fuels reductions in the
watershed; plans will examine potential riparian treatment of high
canopy or dense vegetation; and (3) Hazardous materials spills. Develop
an action plan for prevention, notification, and containment of spills
before they enter the stream or its tributaries.
Some of the conservation actions outlined in the Strategy have been
implemented. For example, the USFS closed camp sites adjacent to Dark
Canyon/North Fork San Jacinto River in May 2001, and acquired
approximately 60 ac (24 ha) of mountain yellow-legged frog habitat in
the headwaters of Fuller Mill Creek (USFS 2002) to protect a
discontinuous stretch of habitat previously under private ownership.
However, recreational activities that may impact habitat for the
mountain yellow-legged frog continue to occur in or adjacent to other
occupied sites.
Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating three units, divided into 14 subunits, as
critical
[[Page 54355]]
habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog. The critical habitat
subunits described below constitute our best assessment at this time of
(1) Areas determined to be occupied at the time of listing that contain
the primary constituent elements essential for the conservation of the
species and that may require special management considerations or
protection, and (2) those additional areas found to be essential to the
conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog. The three units
designated as critical habitat are: (1) The San Gabriel Mountains Unit,
(2) the San Bernardino Mountains Unit, and (3) The San Jacinto
Mountains Unit. Tables 1 and 2 provide summaries of approximate area
that meets the definition of critical habitat for the mountain yellow-
legged frog, area excluded, and area designated as critical habitat by
subunit (Table 1), and the approximate area designated as critical
habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog by land ownership (Table
2).
We believe that all lands designated as critical habitat are
essential for the conservation and persistence of the mountain yellow-
legged frog for the following reasons:
Table 1.--Approximate Area in Acres (ac) and Hectares (ha) Determined To Meet the Definition of Critical Habitat for the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog
(Definitional Area) and Excluded From the Final Critical Habitat Designation (Excluded Area)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical habitat
Subunit subunit name Definitional area ac (ha) Excluded area ac (ha) Total ac (ha)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1: SAN GABRIEL MOUNTAINS UNIT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1A............................. San Gabriel River, East 2,474 ac (1,001 ha)........... .............................. 2,474 ac (1,001 ha).
Fork \a\.
1B............................. Big Rock Creek, South 625 ac (253 ha)............... .............................. 625 ac (253 ha).
Fork \a\.
1C............................. Little Rock Creek \a\.. 615 ac (249 ha)............... .............................. 615 ac (249 ha).
1D............................. Devil's Canyon \a\..... 279 ac (113 ha)............... .............................. 279 ac (113 ha).
1E............................. Day Canyon \b\......... 635 ac (257 ha)............... .............................. 635 ac (257 ha).
1F............................. San Gabriel River, East 373 ac (151 ha)............... .............................. 373 ac (151 ha).
Fork, Iron Fork \b\.
1G............................. Bear Creek \b\......... 116 ac (47 ha)................ .............................. 116 ac (47 ha).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 2: SAN BERNARDINO MOUNTAINS UNIT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2A............................. City Creek, East and 1,386 ac (561 ha)............. .............................. 1,386 ac (561 ha).
West Forks \b\.
2B............................. Barton Creek, East Fork 193 ac (78 ha)................ .............................. 193 ac (78 ha).
\b\.
2C............................. Whitewater River, North 74 ac (30 ha)................. .............................. 74 ac (30 ha).
Fork \b\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 3: SAN JACINTO MOUNTAINS UNIT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3A............................. San Jacinto River, 1,352 ac (547 ha)............. 433 ac (175 ha)............... 919 ac (372 ha).
North Fork \a\.
3B............................. Indian Creek at Hall 180 ac (73 ha)................ 54 ac (22 ha)................. 126 ac (51 ha).
Canyon \b\.
3C............................. Tahquitz Creek \b\..... 358 ac (145 ha)............... .............................. 358 ac (145 ha).
3D............................. Andreas Creek \b\...... 109 ac (44 ha)................ .............................. 109 ac (44 ha).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................... ....................... 8,770 ac (3,549 ha)........... 487 ac (197 ha)............... 8,283 ac (3,352 ha).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Occupied at the time of listing in 2002 and currently occupied as of 2005.
\b\ Not currently known to be occupied, but historically occupied.
Table 2.--Approximate Area in Acres (ac) and Hectares (ha) for Each Critical Habitat Unit Designated for the
Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog by Landownership
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical habitat
Subunit subunit name Federal ac (ha) State ac (ha) Private ac (ha) Total ac (ha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1: SAN GABRIEL MOUNTAINS UNIT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1A............... San Gabriel River, 2,474 ac (1,001 ................ ................ 2,474 ac (1,001
East Fork. ha). ha).
1B............... Big Rock Creek, South 625 ac (253 ha). ................ ................ 625 ac (253 ha).
Fork.
1C............... Little Rock Creek.... 615 ac (249 ha). ................ ................ 615 ac (249 ha).
1D............... Devil's Canyon....... 279 ac (113 ha). ................ ................ 279 ac (113 ha).
1E............... Day Canyon........... 635 ac (257 ha). ................ ................ 635 ac (257 ha.
1F............... San Gabriel River, 373 ac (151 ha). ................ ................ 373 ac (151 ha).
East Fork, Iron Fork.
1G............... Bear Creek........... 116 ac (47 ha).. ................ ................ 116 ac (47 ha).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 2: SAN BERNARDINO MOUNTAINS UNIT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2A............... City Creek, East and 1267 ac (513 ha) ................ 119 ac (48 ha).. 1,386 ac (561
West Fork. ha).
2B............... Barton Creek, East 193 ac (78 ha).. ................ ................ 193 ac (78 ha).
Fork.
2C............... Whitewater River, 74 ac (30 ha)... ................ ................ 74 ac (30 ha).
North Fork.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 3: SAN JACINTO MOUNTAINS UNIT
3A............... San Jacinto River, 823 ac (333 ha). 96 ac (39 ha)... ................ 919 ac (372 ha).
North Fork.
3B............... Indian Creek at Hall 126 ac (51 ha).. ................ ................ 126 ac (51 ha).
Canyon.
3C............... Tahquitz Creek....... 243 ac (98 ha).. 115 ac (47 ha).. ................ 358 ac (145 ha).
[[Page 54356]]
3D............... Andreas Creek........ 109 ac (44 ha).. ................ ................ 109 ac (44 ha).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........ ..................... 7,952 ac (3,218 211 ac (86 ha).. 119 ac (48 ha).. 8,283 ac (3,352
ha). ha).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The range of the mountain yellow-legged frog in southern
California has been reduced to less than 1 percent of its original area
(i.e., extirpated from 99 percent of its former range as estimated by a
review of historical records by Jennings and Hayes (1994a)), with the
remaining occupied habitat limited and fragmented;
(2) The population estimates for each stream are extremely small,
with no estimate exceeding 100 breeding adults, and an approximate
total of only 183 surviving adults for the entire southern California
range (Backlin et al. 2004);
(3) Existing small populations are at a high risk of extinction due
to stochastic events (Pimm et al. 1988) or deterministic events (Skelly
et al. 1999); and
(4) Existing small populations are susceptible to other threats,
including predation of frogs by non-native trout and human recreation.
Of the 14 subunits being designated as critical habitat, 8 were
historically occupied but were not known to be occupied at the time of
listing (subunits 1E, 1F, 1G, 2B, 2C, 3B, 3C, and 3D). These subunits
were occupied recently (within the past 50 years), and the stream and
riparian habitat within each has not changed appreciably (Jennings
1993, 1994, 1995, 1998, 1999; Jennings and Hayes 1994a, b; Backlin et
al. 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004). Each of these subunits thus contains
habitat with features essential for the conservation of the species.
Because of the necessity of population increase or augmentation for the
continued survival of this species, these areas may serve as important
re-introduction sites, particularly in the San Bernardino and San
Jacinto Mountains, where the number of known occurrences has decreased
to two limited areas in each mountain range. Even then, one of the two
known populations in the San Bernardino Mountains (City Creek)
experienced a recent fire (2003) and subsequent flooding that threatens
extant populations (Backlin et al. 2004).
Presented below are brief descriptions of all units, and
justification for their designation as critical habitat for the
mountain yellow-legged frog.
Critical Habitat Unit 1: San Gabriel Mountains Unit
Unit 1 is comprised solely of USFS lands and lies entirely within
the San Gabriel Mountains of the Angeles and San Bernardino National
Forests in Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California. This
unit is comprised of seven subunits (1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1F, and 1G),
including four subunits (1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D) that were known to be
occupied at the time of listing and are currently occupied and three
subunits (1E, 1F, 1G) that are not known to be currently occupied but
were historically occupied. The populations in Unit 1 represent the
northern- and western-most known occurrences of the mountain yellow-
legged frog.
Subunit 1A: San Gabriel River, East Fork
Subunit 1A is comprised of 2,474 ac (1,001 ha) of Federal land
along approximately 26.5 mi (42.7 km) of several stream reaches in the
upper section of the East Fork of the San Gabriel River, including the
Bear Gulch, Vincent Gulch, Fish Fork, Iron Fork, and Alder Gulch
streams. This currently occupied subunit is located within the remote,
mountainous terrain of the Sheep Mountain Wilderness Area in the
Angeles National Forest in Los Angeles County, California. Mountain
yellow-legged frogs were first recorded in the main stem of the East
Fork of the San Gabriel River as early as 1933, from as far south as
Heaton Flats and as far north as the headwaters at Prairie Fork,
Vincent Gulch, and Bear Gulch, where populations have recently been
recorded. The presence of mountain yellow-legged frogs is tenuous, as
made evident by population estimates in Bear Gulch of 54 adults for
2001-2003 (95 percent confidence interval 33-93), and no mountain
yellow-legged frogs were discovered during 3 survey efforts in 2005
(Backlin and Hitchcock in litt. 2005). In neighboring Vincent Gulch,
mountain yellow-legged frogs were observed as early as 1933 (Backlin et
al. 2004). In 2003, Vincent Gulch supported only a very small
population containing approximately 2 adults and 11 first-year larvae
(Backlin et al. 2004). Jennings (1993) stated that the trail and/or
campgrounds that occur at the mouth of Vincent Gulch should be re-
routed to avoid human impacts to mountain yellow-legged frogs. In
adjacent Prairie Fork, mountain yellow-legged frogs have been observed
since 1982, but were not located during surveys in 1998 and 2000. A
campground is located there and non-native trout are present (Backlin
et al. 2004). Mountain yellow-legged frog populations in this
watershed, including the areas designated as critical habitat in this
subunit, have experienced a number of major climatic events within the
past 40 years, including a devastating flood that occurred throughout
southern California during 1968-69, when mountain yellow-legged frog
populations were seemingly experiencing great reductions in size
(Jennings and Hayes 1994b), as well as a severe fire during 1997 at the
headwaters of the San Gabriel River, East Fork (Jennings 1999).
Subunit 1A contains the following features essential to the
conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog: water sources, such as
streams and pools, for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1) and
riparian habitat and upland vegetation for foraging and movement
activities (PCE 2). Threats to the species and its habitat that may
require special management of the PCEs in this subunit include the
presence of non-native trout, potential water diversion, human
recreation, and recreational mining (USFS 2002). There have been
proposals for water removal from the upper part of the drainage above
Vincent and Bear Gulch for the winter recreation on Blue Ridge, and
there has also been an increased siltation load from recent fires (in
1999) and from instream recreation (Jennings 1999). South of these
headwater streams, most areas of the East Fork of the San Gabriel River
contain non-native trout (Backlin et al. 2004). The main stem of the
San Gabriel River has been stocked with trout (near Heaton Flats) 52
times between 1947 and 1998 (Backlin et al. 2004). The Alder Gulch
tributary to the East Fork of the San Gabriel River has not been
surveyed extensively; however, it contains habitat suitable for the
[[Page 54357]]
mountain yellow-legged frog, which was known to occur here at least
from 1994 to 1998. Rainbow trout were stocked in this stream twice
between 1940 and 1969, and the trout persist today (Backlin et al.
2004). As a result of these identified threats, stream segments in this
subunit may require special management considerations or protection
such as relocation of hiking trails or picnic areas or other access
limitations in or near sensitive areas, additional monitoring of
authorized mining activities, and removal of non-native trout species.
Subunit 1B: Big Rock Creek, South Fork
Subunit 1B is comprised of 625 ac (253 ha) of Federal lands along
approximately 6.1 mi (9.9 km) of Big Rock Creek. This currently
occupied subunit is located within the Angeles National Forest in Los
Angeles County, California. Mountain yellow-legged frogs were recorded
at the uppermost reaches of the tributaries, below which rainbow trout
occur. The number of frogs here is almost 10 times greater than in
Little Rock Creek (Subunit 1C) (Backlin et al. 2004). The adult
breeding population of mountain yellow-legged frogs in the South Fork
of Big Rock Creek between 2000 and 2003 was estimated to be from 27 to
74 (Backlin et al. 2004). Big Rock Creek and Bear Gulch (subunit 1A)
represent the largest adult breeding populations throughout the range
of the species in southern California.
Subunit 1B contains the following features essential to the
conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog: water sources, such as
streams and pools, for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1) and
riparian habitat and upland vegetation for foraging and movement
activities (PCE 2). Threats to the species and its habitat that may
require special management of the PCEs in this subunit include the
presence of non-native trout (USFS 2002; Backlin et al. 2004) and human
recreation. In 2002, severe drought conditions resulted in zero flow in
the creek and only a few shallow pools remained below the area where
mountain yellow-legged frogs occurred. The remaining pools contained an
estimated 20 to 100 fish (Backlin et al. 2004) per pool. By 2003, the
number of trout in the stream reaches below the locations of mountain
yellow-legged frogs had greatly decreased, providing opportunity for
successful trout removal and trout barrier implementation (Backlin et
al. 2004). By late 2003, three frogs were found to occur approximately
0.6 mi (1 km) downstream from where the majority of the mountain
yellow-legged frog population occurred. Only one mountain yellow-legged
frog was found in previous years. It was hypothesized that these three
individuals could establish and persist with few or no trout (Backlin
et al. 2004); however, there is no fish barrier to prevent trout from
re-colonizing the upper reaches in years with heavier water flows, such
as 2005.
The main stem of Big Rock Creek was stocked with trout 51 times
between 1947-1998, and the South Fork of Big Rock Creek was stocked
four times from 1948-1953 (Backlin et al. 2004). Little information
exists on recreational impacts to mountain yellow-legged frog habitat
in this subunit, but the subunit borders a campground and hiking
trails, and there are several roads close by (e.g., Angeles Crest
Highway). Further, due to the proximity of the San Gabriel Mountains to
large urban centers and the resulting high recreational use of these
areas, recreational impacts are likely to occur to some extent within
this subunit. As a result, stream segments in this subunit may require
special management considerations or protection, such as relocation of
hiking trails, public education efforts, other access limitations in or
near sensitive areas, and removal of non-native trout.
Subunit 1C: Little Rock Creek
Subunit 1C is comprised of 615 ac (249 ha) of Federal lands along
approximately 6.1 mi (9.8 km) of Little Rock Creek. This currently
occupied subunit is located within the Angeles National Forest in Los
Angeles County, California. Mountain yellow-legged frogs once ranged
from its headwaters, and throughout the entire length of this stream to
where it empties northwest into the Mojave River. Mountain yellow-
legged frogs were observed as early as 1911 in Little Rock Creek.
However, frogs are threatened in this creek because a reservoir was
constructed in its lower reach where non-native trout were stocked 51
times between 1947 and 1998 (Backlin et al. 2004). Today, the current
population of mountain yellow-legged frogs is estimated to be
approximately 9 individuals, and they are believed to exist only at the
highest elevation headwaters of Little Rock Creek (Backlin et al.
2004), although side tributaries have not been surveyed extensively.
Subunit 1C contains the following features essential to the
conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog: water sources, such as
streams and pools, for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1) and
riparian habitat and upland vegetation for foraging and movement
activities (PCE 2). Threats to the species and its habitat that may
require special management of the PCEs in Little Rock Creek include the
presence of non-native trout, human recreation, and hazardous materials
spills (USFS 2002). Rock climbing and hiking are common activities in
the upper headwaters of Little Rock Creek, near the Angeles Crest
Highway (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). An unofficial trail has been
blazed to a popular rock-climbing area and follows the creek where
mountain yellow-legged frogs occur (USFS 2002). The USGS has
recommended that the trail be diverted away from the stream to avoid
disturbance to the frogs and their habitat and to minimize pollution.
Both the USFS and USGS have identified the need for educational signs
in this area to promote understanding of the mountain yellow-legged
frog biology/ecology and its habitat requirements (USFS 2002; Backlin
et al. 2004). Additional special management that may be required to
minimize the threat of recreational activities includes: Closing,
rerouting or reconstructing unauthorized trails; closing parking areas
used for unauthorized trail access; relocating campsites and picnic
tables adjacent to occupied creeks; and removing non-native trout. The
potential for hazardous materials spills is also a threat to the
habitat within this subunit and may require special management such as
developing an action plan for prevention, notification, and containment
of spills before they enter the stream or its tributaries (USFS 2002).
There have also been requests for water removal for ski operations in
the uppermost reaches, which can potentially dewater the stream during
the winter months when water flows are low (Service 1999, 2002; Stewart
et al. 2000).
Little Rock Creek, with its extant mountain yellow-legged frog
population, is a site chosen by the USGS to conduct a manipulation
experiment to study the effects of trout removal on the establishment
behavior of frogs. Trout are known to be predators of ranid frogs
(Hayes and Jennings 1986, Backlin et al. 2004), and there is evidence
that introduced trout restrict the distribution and abundance of
mountain yellow-legged frogs (Bradford 1989; Bradford et al 1994; Knapp
and Matthews 2000; Knapp et al. 2003; Backlin et al. 2004). The project
area encompasses the uppermost reaches of the creek, where it is
divided into three sections by natural fish barriers. The first barrier
is a natural waterfall, above which the main frog population occurs;
below it are rainbow trout, and few mountain yellow-legged frog
sightings have been
[[Page 54358]]
recorded there regularly (Backlin et al. 2004). Further downstream,
where there are only trout, a second natural barrier was enhanced by
USFS in 2003 to prevent upstream movement by trout. Trout have been
experimentally removed by electro-shocking and dip netting between the
waterfall and the enhanced barrier on an annual basis (2002 to present)
(Backlin et al. 2004). In 2002, 900 trout were removed; in 2003, 90
were removed; in 2004, approximately 250 trout, mostly young of the
year, were removed (T. Hovey, CDFG, pers. comm. 2006). Trout removal
efforts have significantly depleted trout populations, but have not yet
completely removed the trout from that section of the stream.
Subunit 1D: Devil's Canyon
Subunit 1D is comprised of 279 ac (113 ha) of Federal lands along
approximately 3.1 mi (4.9 km) of Devil's Canyon. This currently
occupied subunit is located within the San Gabriel Wilderness in the
Angeles National Forest in Los Angeles County, California. Devil's
Canyon is a rugged area which covers approximately 36,215 ac (14,667
ha) and varies in elevation from 1,600 to 8,200 ft (490 to 2,500 m).
The lower elevations are covered with dense chaparral, which rapidly
changes to pine and fir-covered slopes. Although wilderness permits are
not required, Devil's Canyon has been relatively unstudied with regard
to vertebrate resources. The habitat has been characterized as
excellent for mountain yellow-legged frogs (Jennings 1993), but
difficult access has restricted survey efforts to only once each year
from 2000 to 2005 (A. Backlin, USGS, pers. comm. 2006). An estimated
adult mountain yellow-legged frog breeding population of 20 individuals
exists in Devil's Canyon (Backlin et al. 2004).
Subunit 1D contains the following features essential to the
conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog: Water sources, such as
streams and pools, for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1) and
riparian habitat and upland vegetation for foraging and movement
activities (PCE 2). Threats to the species and its habitat that may
require special management of the PCEs within this subunit include the
presence of non-native trout and human recreation. We do not currently
have documented information on recreational impacts to mountain yellow-
legged frog habitat within this subunit. However, due to the proximity
of the San Gabriel Mountains to large urban centers and the resulting
high recreational use of these areas, we believe that recreation occurs
to some extent within this subunit. As a result, stream segments within
this subunit may require special management considerations or
protection such as relocation of hiking trails or other access
limitations in or near sensitive areas and the removal of non-native
trout.
Subunit 1E: Day Canyon
Subunit 1E is comprised of 635 ac (257 ha) of Federal lands
designated as critical habitat along approximately 6.5 mi (10.4 km) of
Day Canyon and two of its tributaries. This historically occupied, but
not known to be currently occupied, subunit is located in the San
Bernardino National Forest in San Bernardino County, California,
ranging from Cucamonga Peak to a gauging station in Canyon Wash near
the southern border of San Bernardino National Forest. The terrain is
steep and characterized by extensive rock/boulder fields and limited
soil development (USFS 2002). Mountain yellow-legged frogs were first
observed in Day Canyon in 1959 (Los Angeles County Museum 2006), more
recently in 1994, and later in the late 1990s (Myers and Wilcox 1999).
Surveys in portions of Day Canyon in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, and 2004
failed to detect frogs, but found rainbow trout (Backlin et al. 2004).
Although surveyed during drought years, small mountain yellow-legged
frog populations, and incomplete survey efforts of the entire stream
may have contributed to the surveyor's inability to detect frogs.
This subunit is essential for the conservation of the mountain
yellow-legged frog because it has potential for occupancy as it was
historically occupied within the past 15 years, and because habitat
quality during that time has not significantly changed. The subunit
contains the following features essential to the conservation of the
mountain yellow-legged frog: water sources, such as streams and pools,
for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1) and riparian habitat
and upland vegetation for foraging and movement activities (PCE 2).
Subunit 1F: San Gabriel River, East Fork, Iron Fork
Subunit 1F is comprised of 373 ac (151 ha) of Federal lands along
approximately 3.8 mi (6.1 km) of two streams that drain into the San
Gabriel East Fork, the Iron Fork, and the South Fork of Iron Fork. This
historically occupied, but not known to be currently occupied, subunit
is located in the Angeles National Forest in Los Angeles County,
California. This subunit historically contained healthy populations of
dozens of individuals from at least 1947 through 1975, and in 1994
(Ford 1975; Jennings 1994). Since then, the difficult access and steep
terrain restricted survey efforts only to 2001 (Backlin et al. 2002).
The 2001 survey was able to determine that there is suitable habitat
for the mountain yellow-legged frog in this area (A. Backlin, USGS,
pers. comm. 2006).
This subunit is essential for the conservation of the mountain
yellow-legged frog because it may constitute an important pathway
between frog populations in the East Fork of the San Gabriel River
(Subunit 1A) and Big Rock Creek (Subunit 1B), as well as serving as a
refuge for frogs from trout predation due to its inaccessibility and
steepness. Since mountain yellow-legged frogs can be difficult to
detect, especially in low rainfall years, it is possible that frogs
still occur in this area, particularly in the upper reaches where
surveys have not been recently conducted (A. Backlin, USGS, pers. comm.
2006). This subunit also contains the following features essential to
the conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog: water sources,
such as streams and pools, for breeding and non-breeding activities
(PCE 1) and riparian habitat and upland vegetation for foraging and
movement activities (PCE 2). This subunit has been identified as a
potential site for future mountain yellow-legged frog reintroduction
because of its remoteness, high potential for recolonization through
natural means by dispersal from nearby populations, and PCEs to support
populations.
Subunit 1G: Bear Creek
Subunit 1G is comprised of 116 ac (47 ha) of Federal lands along
approximately 1.2 mi (2 km) of the upper reaches of Bear Creek, a
tributary of the West Fork of the San Gabriel River. This historically
occupied, but not known to be currently occupied, subunit is located in
the San Gabriel Wilderness Area of the Angeles National Forest in Los
Angeles County, California. Mountain yellow-legged frogs were first
observed in the Bear Creek area in 1959 (Schoenherr 1976), but two more
recent surveys since have failed to detect frogs (Jennings 1993;
Backlin et al. 2003). It is possible that this subunit harbors unknown
populations since it has not been surveyed very intensively in recent
years and is located less than a mile east of an extant population in
Devil's Canyon (Subunit 1D).
This subunit is essential for the conservation of the mountain
yellow-legged frog because it is relatively close to an extant
population in Devil's Canyon (Subunit 1D) and contains the following
features essential to the
[[Page 54359]]
conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog: water sources, such as
streams and pools, for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1) and
riparian habitat and upland vegetation for foraging and movement
activities (PCE 2). This subunit has been identified as a potential
site for future mountain yellow-legged frog reintroduction because of
its remoteness, high potential for recolonization through natural means
by dispersal from nearby populations, and PCEs to support populations.
Critical Habitat Unit 2: San Bernardino Mountains Unit
Unit 2 is located in the San Bernardino Mountains within the
boundaries the San Bernardino National Forest in San Bernardino County,
California. This unit is comprised of three subunits (2A, 2B, and 2C),
including one subunit (2A) that was known to be occupied at the time of
listing and is currently occupied and two subunits (2B and 2C) that are
not known to be currently occupied but were historically occupied.
Subunit 2A: City Creek, East and West Forks
Subunit 2A is comprised of 1,267 ac (513 ha) of Federal lands and
119 ac (48 ha) of private lands along approximately 15.1 mi (24.3 km)
of both the West and East Forks of City Creek. This currently occupied
subunit is located within the San Bernardino National Forest in San
Bernardino County, California, where recreational pressure is very low.
Between 2002 and 2003, the breeding population of mountain yellow-
legged frog in City Creek, East Fork was estimated to be 50 adults (95%
confidence interval = 22-127; Backlin et al. 2004), at that time,
representing one of the largest of the known populations of mountain
yellow-legged frog in southern California. The City Creek, West Fork
has been surveyed less frequently than City Creek, East Fork, but both
adults and tadpoles have been observed at or near the confluence of the
two streams and below the confluence of the streams (CDFG 1999, 2001;
Myers and Wilcox 1999).
In October 2003, the Old Fire burned the front range of the San
Bernardino National Forest and killed most of the riparian vegetation
in City Creek. During the following December, subsequent run-off and
scouring of the stream channel from winter storms decimated many areas
that contained mountain yellow-legged frog habitat by removing most of
the sediment and any vegetation (alive or dead) from many stretches of
the creek where frogs had previously been recorded (Backlin et al.
2004). In hopes of protecting this population from future flooding
events and further habitat loss, 11 surviving juvenile frogs were
removed from the East Fork and originally taken to the Los Angeles
Zoo's captive rearing facility in 2004 by personnel from several
agencies, including the Service. Only seven of these frogs survived
captivity and were later taken to the San Diego Zoo's Wild Animal Park.
These frogs have since died at the Wild Animal Park. Details on the
causes of their death are currently under investigation. In September
of 2005, mountain yellow-legged frogs demonstrated some resiliency to
the recent major flooding events when wild frog metamorphs were
rediscovered in City Creek, East Fork below the Highway 330 bridge and
above the confluence (Backlin and Hitchcock in litt. 2005).
As a result of the 2003 fire and the 2005 floods, parts of City
Creek, East Fork may not currently contain all of the PCEs since
hydrologists expected that sediments (PCE 1) may have been scoured and
transported downstream. However, the portion of the creek north of
Highway 330 contained many pools (PCE 1) and the riparian habitat (PCE
2) seemed intact, although the banks themselves were rocky and now lack
soil substrate (Dr. E. Pierce, pers. obs. 2004). Therefore, at least in
the northern portion of this creek, at least one or more of the primary
constituent elements still exist. Over time, it is expected that
natural processes will restore the habitat throughout the designated
area (i.e., the bank substrates and vegetation cover) and this subunit
will again support the PCEs.
Subunit 2A currently contains water sources, such as streams and
pools, for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1) and in the
future may contain riparian habitat and upland vegetation for foraging
and movement activities (PCE 2). Subunit 2A is essential to the
conservation of the species because we expect the PCEs to be naturally
restored and because: (1) The habitat previously supported a large
adult population; and (2) this population was one of only two known
occurrences in the San Bernardino Mountains. Threats to the species and
its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs within this
subunit include the presence of non-native trout, potentially high fuel
loads, and the potential for hazardous spills along Highway 330 (USFS
2002). Non-native brown trout were stocked 11 times between 1949 and
1979 (Backlin et al. 2004). Threats also include temporary habitat
alteration resulting from flood and fire events. Stream segments in
this subunit may require special management considerations or
protection such as removal of non-native trout species, restoration of
habitat altered during recent fires and floods, the development of an
action plan for prevention, notification, and containment of spills
before they enter the stream or its tributaries, and management of
riparian vegetation in areas of high canopy cover or dense vegetation.
Subunit 2B: Barton Creek East Fork
Subunit 2B is comprised of 193 ac (78 ha) of Federal lands along
approximately 2 mi (3.1 km) of the East Fork of Barton Creek. This
historically occupied, but not known to be currently occupied, subunit
contains a portion of the East Fork of Barton Creek that drains from
the north-facing slope of the San Bernardino Mountain Wilderness area,
off Shields Peak, and joins with Frog Creek to form the main stem of
Barton Creek in the San Bernardino Mountains within the San Bernardino
National Forest in San Bernardino County, California. Mountain yellow-
legged frogs were first documented in Barton Creek in 1910 (Museum of
Vertebrate Zoology 2006). Frogs were not documented again until 1993 (a
year with significant precipitation), when approximately 50 adults were
observed in this creek (CNDDB 2006).
This subunit is essential for the conservation of the mountain
yellow-legged frog because it has a potential for occupancy due to
having been recently occupied within the past 15 years, has not had a
significant change in habitat quality during that time, and contains
the following features essential to the conservation of the mountain
yellow-legged frog: water sources, such as streams and pools, for
breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1) and riparian habitat and
upland vegetation for foraging and movement activities (PCE 2).
Subunit 2C: Whitewater River, North Fork
Subunit 2C is comprised of 74 ac (30 ha) of Federal lands along
approximately 0.8 mi (1.2 km) of the Whitewater River. This
historically occupied, but not known to be currently occupied, subunit
is located in the San Bernardino Wilderness area in the San Bernardino
National Forest in San Bernardino County, California. Mountain yellow-
legged frogs were first collected on the desert slope between Cabezon
and the Whitewater River in 1908 (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology 2006),
and additional surveys discovered mountain yellow-legged
[[Page 54360]]
frogs in Whitewater River in 1959 (Los Angeles County Museum 2006).
Recent surveys in the lower reaches of the Whitewater River in 2001 and
2003, north of the I-10 highway, were unsuccessful in detecting frogs
once again. However, due to the difficult access, the upper reaches of
the North Fork of the Whitewater River containing PCEs have not been
thoroughly surveyed.
This subunit is essential for the conservation of the mountain
yellow-legged frog because it contains the following features essential
to the conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog: water sources,
such as streams and pools, for breeding and non-breeding activities
(PCE 1) and riparian habitat and upland vegetation for foraging and
movement activities (PCE 2). This subunit has been identified as a
potential site for future mountain yellow-legged frog reintroductions
because of its remoteness and the presence of PCEs to support mountain
yellow-legged frog populations.
Critical Habitat Unit 3: San Jacinto Mountains Unit
Unit 3 is located in the San Jacinto Mountains in the San
Bernardino National Forest, Riverside County, California. This unit is
comprised of four subunits (3A, 3B, 3C, and 3D), including one subunit
(3A) that was known to be occupied at the time of listing and is
currently occupied and three subunits (3B, 3C, 3D) that were
historically occupied but are not known to be currently occupied.
Subunit 3A: San Jacinto River, North Fork
Subunit 3A is comprised of 823 ac (333 ha) of Federal lands and 96
ac (39 ha) of State lands along approximately 9 mi (14.5 km) of several
stream reaches in the upper section of the North Fork of the San
Jacinto River and its tributaries, including Black Mountain Creek,
Fuller Mill Creek, and Dark Canyon, within the San Bernardino National
Forest in Riverside County, California. In 2003, USGS estimated that
there were from 9-13 adult mountain yellow-legged frogs in Fuller Mill
Creek, which accounted for approximately 5-7 percent of the total
estimated adult population (183 individuals) in southern California
(Backlin et al. 2004). USGS also estimated that there were 11 adults,
54 juveniles, and 18 first-year larvae in Dark Canyon, which accounted
for a large proportion (42 percent) of the total estimated juvenile
population in southern California (128 individuals) (Backlin et al.
2004). However, Dark Canyon and its upper reaches have not been
surveyed as extensively as some of the other occupied streams (i.e. it
was surveyed only once in 2003) because of its difficult access
(Backlin et al. 2004). Both Fuller Mill Creek and Dark Canyon represent
the most important sources of reproductive potential for this species
in the San Jacinto Mountains. Adult mountain yellow-legged frogs were
discovered in Black Mountain Creek north of Highway 243 in 1990 (CNDDB
2006). These populations in the San Jacinto Mountains are the
southernmost extant populations of the mountain yellow-legged frog. We
are excluding approximately 433 ac (175 ha) of non-Federal lands along
4.6 mi (7.4 km) of discontinuous stream reaches in the upper section of
the North Fork of the San Jacinto River and its tributaries, including
Black Mountain Creek, Fuller Mill Creek, and Dark Canyon from the final
designation (see Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act for a
detailed discussion).
Subunit 3A contains the following features essential to the
conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog: Water sources, such as
streams and pools, for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1) and
riparian habitat and upland vegetation for foraging and movement
activities (PCE 2). Threats to the species and its habitat that may
require special management of the PCEs in this subunit include the
presence of non-native trout, human recreation, and potentially high
fuel loads (USFS 2002). The North Fork San Jacinto River was stocked
with non-native trout 36 times between 1948 and 1984 (Backlin et al.
2004). Stream segments within this subunit may require special
management considerations or protection such as removal of non-native
trout species; rerouting or reconstruction of hiking trails or some
recreational facilities located adjacent to occupied creeks;
installation of signage at trailheads and along access points to
promote understanding of the species' biology and habitat requirements;
and management of riparian vegetation in areas of high canopy cover or
dense vegetation.
Subunit 3B: Indian Creek at Hall Canyon
Subunit 3B is comprised of 126 ac (51 ha) of Federal lands along
approximately 1.2 mi (1.9 km) of Indian Creek at Hall Canyon. This
historically occupied, but not known to be currently occupied, subunit
occurs within the San Bernardino National Forest in Riverside County,
California. Mountain yellow-legged frogs were first observed in this
area in 1908 near Lake Fulmor (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology 2006), and
since then, frogs were observed in 1927 (California Academy of Sciences
2006), in the 1950s (Los Angeles County Museum 2006), and again in 1995
(CNDDB 2006). Although surveys have not been conducted in this subunit
during the 2000s, frogs may have been difficult to detect because water
levels in streams have been very low due to drought conditions, their
presumed population size is very small, and not all stream lengths were
surveyed during the last survey effort. Approximately 54 ac (22 ha) of
non-Federal lands along 0.5 mi (0.9 km) of Indian Creek at Hall Canyon
has been excluded from the final designation (see Exclusion Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act for a detailed discussion).
This subunit is essential for the conservation of the mountain
yellow-legged frog because it has a potential for occupancy due to
having been recently occupied within the past 15 years, has not had a
significant change in habitat quality during that time, and contains
the following features essential to the conservation of the mountain
yellow-legged frog: Water sources, such as streams and pools, for
breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1) and riparian habitat and
upland vegetation for foraging and movement activities (PCE 2).
Subunit 3C: Tahquitz Creek
Subunit 3C is comprised of 243 ac (98 ha) of Federal lands and 115
ac (47 ha) of State lands along approximately 2.2 mi (5.2 km) of the
upper reaches of Tahquitz Creek and a disjunct portion of the Willow
Creek tributary. This historically occupied, but not known to be
currently occupied, subunit occurs in the San Jacinto Wilderness within
the San Bernardino National Forest and the Mount San Jacinto State Park
in Riverside County, California. Mountain yellow-legged frogs were
documented in this stream as early as 1957, again in 1967, and in 1972
(Los Angeles County Museum 2006). Surveys of this stream have been
infrequent in recent years, due to its extensive length and ruggedness;
the upper and lower reaches, but not the mid-sections, have been
surveyed four times during the 2000s. Brown trout were found during
recent surveys, and records show that the river was stocked with non-
native trout 36 times between 1948 and 1984 (Backlin et al. 2004).
This subunit is essential for the conservation of the mountain
yellow-legged frog because it is relatively close (approximately 2 mi
(3.2 km)) to an extant population in the North Fork of the San Jacinto
River (subunit 3A) and
[[Page 54361]]
contains the following features essential to the conservation of the
mountain yellow-legged frog: Water sources, such as streams and pools,
for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1) and riparian habitat
and upland vegetation for foraging and movement activities (PCE 2).
This subunit has been identified as a potential site for future
mountain yellow-legged frog reintroductions because of its remoteness
and the presence of PCEs to support mountain yellow-legged frog
populations.
Subunit 3D: Andreas Creek
Subunit 3D is comprised of 109 ac (44 ha) of Federal lands along
approximately 1.2 mi (1.9 km) of the upper reaches of Andreas Creek.
This historically occupied, but not known to be currently occupied,
subunit occurs in the San Jacinto Wilderness within the San Bernardino
National Forest in Riverside County, California. Mountain yellow-legged
frogs were documented as early as 1912 (California Academy of Sciences
2006), again in 1941 (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology 2006), and in 1978
(Los Angeles County Museum 2006), and were thought to persist there as
late as 1994 (Jennings and Hayes 1994b).
This subunit is essential for the conservation of the mountain
yellow-legged frog because it is relatively close (approximately 4 mi
(6.4 km)) to an extant population in the North Fork of the San Jacinto
River (subunit 3A) and contains the following features essential to the
conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog: water sources, such as
streams and pools, for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1) and
riparian habitat and upland vegetation for foraging and movement
activities (PCE 2). This subunit has been identified as a potential
site for future mountain yellow-legged frog reintroductions because of
its remoteness and presence of PCEs to support mountain yellow-legged
frog populations.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. In our
regulations at 50 CFR 402.02, we define destruction or adverse
modification as ``a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably
diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and
recovery of a listed species. Such alterations include, but are not
limited to, alterations adversely modifying any of those physical or
biological features that were the basis for determining the habitat to
be critical.'' However, recent decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals have invalidated this definition (see Gifford Pinchot
Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir
2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245
F.3d 434, 442F (5th Cir 2001)). Pursuant to current national policy and
the statutory provisions of the Act, destruction or adverse
modification is determined on the basis of whether, with implementation
of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would
remain functional (or retain the current ability for the primary
constituent elements to be functionally established) to serve the
intended conservation role for the species.
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its
critical habitat, if any is proposed or designated. Regulations
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are
codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with
us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a proposed species or result in destruction or adverse modification
of proposed critical habitat. This is a procedural requirement only.
However, once a proposed species becomes listed, or proposed critical
habitat is designated as final, the full prohibitions of section
7(a)(2) apply to any Federal action. The primary utility of the
conference procedures is to maximize the opportunity for a Federal
agency to adequately consider proposed species and critical habitat and
avoid potential delays in implementing their proposed action as a
result of the section 7(a)(2) compliance process, should those species
be listed or the critical habitat designated.
Under conference procedures, the Service may provide advisory
conservation recommendations to assist the agency in eliminating
conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action. The Service may
conduct either informal or formal conferences. Informal conferences are
typically used if the proposed action is not likely to have any adverse
effects to the proposed species or proposed critical habitat. Formal
conferences are typically used when the Federal agency or the Service
believes the proposed action is likely to cause adverse effects to
proposed species or critical habitat, inclusive of those that may cause
jeopardy or adverse modification.
The results of an informal conference are typically transmitted in
a conference report, while the results of a formal conference are
typically transmitted in a conference opinion. Conference opinions on
proposed critical habitat are typically prepared according to 50 CFR
402.14, as if the proposed critical habitat were designated. We may
adopt the conference opinion as the biological opinion when the
critical habitat is designated, if no substantial new information or
changes in the action alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR
402.10(d)). As noted above, any conservation recommendations in a
conference report or opinion are strictly advisory.
If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency)
must enter into consultation with us. As a result of this consultation,
compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) will be documented
through the Service's issuance of: (1) A concurrence letter for Federal
actions that may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, listed
species or critical habitat; or (2) a biological opinion for Federal
actions that may affect, but are likely to adversely affect, listed
species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to result in jeopardy to a listed species or the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat, we also provide reasonable
and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable.
``Reasonable and prudent alternatives'' are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as
alternative actions identified during consultation that can be
implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the
action, that are consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's
legal authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and
technologically feasible, and that the Director believes would avoid
jeopardy to the listed species or destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from
slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the
project. Costs associated with
[[Page 54362]]
implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly
variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where a new
species is listed or critical habitat is subsequently designated that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action or such discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law. Consequently, some Federal
agencies may request reinitiation of consultation with us on actions
for which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions may
affect subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat or
adversely modify or destroy proposed critical habitat.
Federal activities that may affect the mountain yellow-legged frog
or its designated critical habitat will require section 7 consultation
under the Act. Activities on State, tribal, local or private lands
requiring a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act or a permit under
section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act from the Service) or involving some
other Federal action (such as funding from the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency) will also be subject to the section 7
consultation process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or
critical habitat, and actions on State, Tribal, local or private lands
that are not federally-funded, authorized, or permitted, do not require
section 7 consultations.
On September 15, 2005, we issued a biological opinion on the Forest
Plan for the four southern California national forests. At issue were
the effects of the Forest Plan on federally-listed species, including
the mountain yellow-legged frog. The goal of the Forest Plan is to
describe a strategic direction for the management of the national
forests over the next 10 to 15 years. The Forest Plan also divides the
National Forests into several ``Land Use Zones,'' including Developed
Area Interface, Back Country, Back Country Motorized Use Restricted,
Back Country Non-Motorized, Critical Biological, Recommended
Wilderness, Existing Wilderness, and Experimental Forest. The land use
zones were designed to describe the type of public use or
administrative activities allowable. The Forest Plan does not make any
decisions regarding USFS site-specific project proposals for
implementing the land management plans, nor does it compel managers to
implement any specific activity. Overall, the Forest Plan provides
general guidance that can either benefit or remain neutral to the
mountain yellow-legged frog. Future activities and projects will still
receive site-specific environmental review and section 7 consultation.
Application of the Jeopardy and Adverse Modification Standards for
Actions Involving Effects to the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog and Its
Critical Habitat
Jeopardy Standard
Prior to and following designation of critical habitat, the Service
has applied an analytical framework for the mountain yellow-legged frog
jeopardy analyses that relies heavily on the importance of core area
populations to the survival and recovery of the mountain yellow-legged
frog. The section 7(a)(2) analysis is focused not only on these
populations but also on the habitat conditions necessary to support
them.
The jeopardy analysis usually expresses the survival and recovery
needs of the mountain yellow-legged frog in a qualitative fashion
without making distinctions between what is necessary for survival and
what is necessary for recovery. Generally, if a proposed Federal action
is incompatible with the viability of the affected core area
population(s), inclusive of associated habitat conditions, a jeopardy
finding is considered to be warranted, because of the relationship of
each core area population to the survival and recovery of the species
as a whole.
Adverse Modification Standard
The analytical framework described in the Director's December 9,
2004, memorandum is used to complete section 7(a)(2) analyses for
Federal actions affecting mountain yellow-legged frog critical habitat.
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the
affected critical habitat would remain functional (or retain the
current ability for the primary constituent elements to be functionally
established) to serve the intended conservation role for the species.
Generally, the conservation role of mountain yellow-legged frog
critical habitat units is to support viable core area populations.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat may also jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat
are those that alter the PCEs to an extent that the conservation value
of critical habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog is appreciably
reduced. Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a
Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and therefore result in
consultation for the mountain yellow-legged frog include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Actions that would alter or reduce water flow in streams. Such
activities could include, but are not limited to: Water diversion,
recreational activities, water withdrawal, and hydropower generation.
These activities could eliminate or reduce the habitat features needed
for the growth and reproduction of the mountain yellow-legged frog by
decreasing water flows to levels that would adversely affect the
species' ability to complete its life cycle.
(2) Actions that would significantly increase sediment deposition
within the stream channel. Such activities could include, but are not
limited to: Livestock grazing, road construction, channel alteration,
recreational mining, timber harvest, off-road vehicle use, and fire-
fighting activities. These activities could eliminate or reduce the
habitat features needed for the growth and reproduction of the mountain
yellow-legged frog by increasing the sediment deposition to levels that
would adversely affect the species' ability to complete its life cycle.
(3) Actions that would increase canopy cover. Such activities could
include, but are not limited to: Protection of unnaturally dense
riparian vegetation and construction of bridges. These activities could
eliminate or reduce the habitat features needed for the growth of the
mountain yellow-legged frog by decreasing the amount of basking sites
necessary for the frogs to meet their thermoregulation requirements.
We consider all of the units designated as critical habitat, as
well as those that have been excluded or not included, to contain
features that contribute to the conservation of the mountain yellow-
legged frog. Most units are within the geographic range of the species
and were occupied by the species at the time of listing (based on
observations made within the last 15 years), and are likely to be used
by the mountain yellow-legged frog. Some
[[Page 54363]]
units are outside of the geographical area occupied by the species at
the time the species was listed. Federal agencies already consult with
us on activities in areas currently occupied by the mountain yellow-
legged frog, or if the species may be affected by the action, to ensure
that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of the
mountain yellow-legged frog. If you have questions regarding whether
specific activities may constitute adverse modification of critical
habitat, contact the Field Supervisor of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES).
Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that critical habitat shall be
designated, and revised, on the basis of the best available scientific
data after taking into consideration the economic impact, national
security impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area
from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the
critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that
determination, the Secretary is afforded broad discretion and the
Congressional record is clear that in making a determination under the
section the Secretary has discretion as to which factors and how much
weight will be given to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2), in considering whether to exclude a
particular area from the designation, we must identify the benefits of
including the area in the designation, identify the benefits of
excluding the area from the designation, and determine whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. If an
exclusion is contemplated, then we must determine whether excluding the
area would result in the extinction of the species. In the following
sections, we address a number of general issues that are relevant to
the exclusions we considered.
General Principles of Section 7 Consultations Used in the 4(b)(2)
Balancing Process
In our critical habitat designations, we use the provision outlined
in section 4(b)(2) of the Act to evaluate those specific areas that we
formally designated as critical habitat. We have determined that non-
Federal lands within the planning area of the Western Riverside County
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan are excluded under section
4(b)(2) of the Act. A detailed analysis of our use of these provisions
is provided in the following paragraphs.
The most direct, and potentially largest, regulatory benefit of
critical habitat is that federally authorized, funded, or carried out
activities require consultation under section 7 of the Act to ensure
that they are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. There are two limitations to this regulatory effect. First, it
only applies where there is a Federal nexus--if there is no Federal
nexus, designation itself does not restrict actions that destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat. Second, it only limits destruction
or adverse modification. By its nature, the prohibition on adverse
modification is designed to ensure those areas that contain the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
species or unoccupied areas that are essential to the conservation of
the species are not eroded. Critical habitat designation alone,
however, does not require specific steps toward recovery.
Once consultation under section 7 of the Act is triggered, the
process may conclude informally when the Service concurs in writing
that the proposed Federal action is not likely to adversely affect the
listed species or its critical habitat. However, if the Service
determines through informal consultation that adverse impacts are
likely to occur, then formal consultation would be initiated. Formal
consultation concludes with a biological opinion issued by the Service
on whether the proposed Federal action is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed species or result in destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat, with separate analyses being
made under both the jeopardy and the adverse modification standards.
For critical habitat, a biological opinion that concludes in a
determination of no destruction or adverse modification may contain
discretionary conservation recommendations to minimize adverse effects
to primary constituent elements, but it would not contain any mandatory
reasonable and prudent measures or terms and conditions. Mandatory
reasonable and prudent alternatives to the proposed Federal action
would only be issued when the biological opinion results in a jeopardy
or adverse modification conclusion.
We also note that for 30 years prior to the Ninth Circuit Court's
decision in Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004) (hereinafter Gifford Pinchot),
the Service equated the jeopardy standard with the standard for
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. In that
decision, the Court ruled that the Service could no longer equate the
two standards and that adverse modification evaluations require
consideration of impacts on the recovery of species. Thus, under the
Gifford Pinchot decision, critical habitat designations may provide
greater benefits to the recovery of a species. However, we believe the
conservation achieved through implementing habitat conservation plans
(HCPs) or other habitat management plans is typically greater than
would be achieved through multiple site-by-site, project-by-project,
section 7 consultations involving consideration of critical habitat.
Management plans commit resources to implement long-term management and
protection to particular habitat for at least one and possibly other
listed or sensitive species. Section 7 consultations only commit
Federal agencies to prevent adverse modification to critical habitat
caused by the particular project, and they are not committed to provide
conservation or long-term benefits to areas not affected by the
proposed project. Thus, any HCP or management plan which considers
enhancement or recovery as the management standard will always provide
as much or more benefit than a consultation for critical habitat
designation conducted under the standards required by the Ninth Circuit
in the Gifford Pinchot decision.
Educational Benefits of Critical Habitat
A benefit of including lands in critical habitat is that the
designation of critical habitat serves to educate landowners, State and
local governments, and the public regarding the potential conservation
value of an area. This helps focus and promote conservation efforts by
other parties by clearly delineating areas of high conservation value
for the mountain yellow-legged frog. In general the educational benefit
of a critical habitat designation always exists, although in some cases
it may be redundant with other educational effects. For example, HCPs
have significant public input and may largely duplicate the educational
benefit of a critical habitat designation. This benefit is closely
related to a second, more indirect benefit: That designation of
critical habitat informs State agencies and local governments about
areas that could be conserved under State laws or local ordinances.
However, we believe that there would be little additional
informational benefit gained from the designation of critical
[[Page 54364]]
habitat for the exclusions we are making in this rule because these
areas are described in this rule as having habitat containing the
features essential to the conservation of the species. Consequently, we
believe that the informational benefits are already provided even
though these areas are not designated as critical habitat. Informing
State agencies and local governments about areas that would benefit
from protection and enhancement of habitat for the mountain yellow-
legged frog is already well established among State and local
governments and Federal agencies, as a result of the proposed critical
habitat rule.
Conservation Partnerships on Non-Federal Lands
Most federally listed species in the United States will not recover
without the cooperation of non-federal landowners. More than 60 percent
of the United States is privately owned (National Wilderness Institute
1995) and at least 80 percent of endangered or threatened species occur
either partially or solely on private lands (Crouse et al. 2002). Stein
et al. (1995) found that only about 12 percent of listed species were
found almost exclusively on Federal lands (i.e., 90-100 percent of
their known occurrences restricted to Federal lands) and that 50
percent of federally listed species are not known to occur on Federal
lands at all.
Given the distribution of listed species with respect to land
ownership, conservation of listed species in many parts of the United
States is dependent upon working partnerships with a wide variety of
entities and the voluntary cooperation of many non-federal landowners
(Wilcove and Chen 1998; Crouse et al. 2002; James 2002). Building
partnerships and promoting voluntary cooperation of landowners is
essential to understanding the status of species on non-federal lands
and is necessary to implement recovery actions such as reintroducing
listed species, habitat restoration, and habitat protection.
Many non-Federal landowners derive satisfaction from contributing
to endangered species recovery. The Service promotes these private-
sector efforts through the Four Cs philosophy--conservation through
communication, consultation, and cooperation. This philosophy is
evident in Service programs such as Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs),
Safe Harbors, Candidate Conservation Agreements, Candidate Conservation
Agreements with Assurances, and conservation challenge cost-share. Many
private landowners, however, are wary of the possible consequences of
encouraging endangered species to their property, and there is mounting
evidence that some regulatory actions by the Federal government, while
well-intentioned and required by law, can (under certain circumstances)
have unintended negative consequences for the conservation of species
on private lands (Wilcove et al. 1996; Bean 2002; Conner and Mathews
2002; James 2002; Koch 2002; Brook et al. 2003). Many landowners fear a
decline in their property value due to real or perceived restrictions
on land-use options where threatened or endangered species are found.
Consequently, harboring endangered species is viewed by many landowners
as a liability, resulting in anti-conservation incentives because
maintaining habitats that harbor endangered species represents a risk
to future economic opportunities (Main et al. 1999; Brook et al. 2003).
The purpose of designating critical habitat is to contribute to the
conservation of threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. The outcome of the designation, triggering
regulatory requirements for actions funded, authorized, or carried out
by Federal agencies under section 7 of the Act, can sometimes be
counterproductive to its intended purpose on non-Federal lands.
According to some researchers, the designation of critical habitat on
private lands significantly reduces the likelihood that landowners will
support and carry out conservation actions (Main et al. 1999; Bean
2002; Brook et al. 2003). The magnitude of this negative outcome is
greatly amplified in situations where active management measures (e.g.,
reintroduction, fire management, control of invasive species) are
necessary for species conservation (Bean 2002).
We believe that the judicious use of excluding specific areas of
non-federally owned lands from critical habitat designations can
contribute to species recovery and provide a superior level of
conservation than critical habitat alone. For example, less than 17
percent of Hawaii is federally owned, but the State is home to more
than 24 percent of all federally listed species, most of which will not
recover without State and private landowner cooperation. On the island
of Lanai, Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC, which owns 99 percent of the
island, entered into a conservation agreement with the Service. The
conservation agreement provides conservation benefits to target species
through management actions that remove threats (e.g., axis deer,
mouflon sheep, rats, invasive nonnative plants) from the Lanaihale and
East Lanai Regions. Specific management actions include fire control
measures, nursery propagation of native flora (including the target
species), and planting of such flora. These actions will significantly
improve the habitat for all currently occurring species. Due to the low
likelihood of a Federal nexus on the island, we believe that the
benefits of excluding the lands covered by the Memorandum of Agreement
exceeded the benefits of including them. As stated in the final
critical habitat rule for endangered plants on the Island of Lanai:
On Lanai, simply preventing ``harmful activities'' will not slow
the extinction of listed plant species. Where consistent with the
discretion provided by the Act, the Service believes it is necessary
to implement policies that provide positive incentives to private
landowners to voluntarily conserve natural resources and that remove
or reduce disincentives to conservation. While the impact of
providing these incentives may be modest in economic terms, they can
be significant in terms of conservation benefits that can stem from
the cooperation of the landowner. The continued participation of
Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC, in the existing Lanai Forest and
Watershed Partnership and other voluntary conservation agreements
will greatly enhance the Service's ability to further the recovery
of these endangered plants.
Cooperative conservation is the foundation of the Service's actions
to protect species, and the Service has many tools by which it can
encourage and implement partnerships for conservation. These tools
include conservation grants, funding for Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program, the Coastal Program, and cooperative-conservation challenge
cost-share grants. Our Private Stewardship Grant Program and Landowner
Incentive Program provide assistance to private landowners in their
voluntary efforts to protect threatened, imperiled, and endangered
species, including the development and implementation of Habitat
Conservation Plans.
Conservation agreements with non-Federal landowners (e.g., Habitat
Conservation Plans (HCPs), contractual conservation agreements,
easements, and stakeholder-negotiated State regulations) enhance
species conservation by extending species protections beyond those
available through section 7 consultations. In the past decade we have
encouraged non-Federal landowners to enter into conservation
agreements, based on a view that we can achieve greater species
conservation on non-Federal land through such partnerships than we can
[[Page 54365]]
through coercive methods (61 FR 63854; December 2, 1996).
Benefits of Excluding Lands With HCPs or Other Approved Management
Plans From Critical Habitat
The benefits of excluding lands with HCPs or other approved
management plans from critical habitat designation include relieving
landowners, communities, and counties of any additional regulatory
burden that might be imposed by a critical habitat designation. Most
HCPs and other conservation plans take many years to develop and, upon
completion, are consistent with the recovery objectives for listed
species that are covered within the plan area. In addition, many
conservation plans provide conservation benefits to unlisted sensitive
species. In fact, designating critical habitat in areas covered by a
pending HCP or conservation plan could result in the loss of some
species' benefits if participants abandon the planning process. The
time and cost of regulatory compliance for a critical habitat
designation do not have to be quantified for the designation to be
perceived as additional Federal regulatory burden sufficient to
discourage continued participation in plans targeting listed species'
conservation.
Imposing an additional regulatory review as a result of the
designation of critical habitat may undermine conservation efforts and
partnerships in many areas. Designation of critical habitat within the
boundaries of management plans that provide conservation measures for a
species could be viewed as a disincentive to those entities currently
developing these plans or contemplating them in the future, because one
of the incentives for undertaking conservation is greater ease of
permitting where listed species are affected. Addition of a new
regulatory requirement would remove a significant incentive for
undertaking the time and expense of management planning.
A related benefit of excluding lands within management plans from
critical habitat designation is the unhindered, continued ability to
seek new partnerships with future plan participants including States,
counties, local jurisdictions, conservation organizations, and private
landowners, which together can implement conservation actions that we
would be unable to accomplish otherwise. If lands within approved
management plan areas are designated as critical habitat, it would
likely have a negative effect on our ability to establish new
partnerships to develop these plans, particularly plans that address
landscape-level conservation of species and habitats. By preemptively
excluding these lands, we preserve our current partnerships and
encourage additional conservation actions in the future.
Furthermore, an HCP or NCCP/HCP application must itself be
consulted upon. Such a consultation would review the effects of all
activities covered by the HCP which might adversely impact the species
under a jeopardy standard, including possibly significant habitat
modification (see definition of ``harm'' at 50 CFR 17.3), even without
the critical habitat designation. In addition, Federal actions not
covered by the HCP in areas occupied by listed species would still
require consultation under section 7 of the Act and would be reviewed
for possibly significant habitat modification in accordance with the
definition of harm referenced above.
The information provided in this section applies to all the
discussions below that discuss the benefits of inclusion and exclusion
of critical habitat.
Relationship of Critical Habitat to Approved Habitat Conservation Plans
(HCPs)--Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
Plan (MSHCP) is a large-scale, multi-jurisdictional habitat
conservation plan (HCP) that addresses 146 listed and unlisted
``Covered Species,'' including the mountain yellow-legged frog, within
the 1.26-million ac (510,000 ha) Plan Area in western Riverside County.
Participants in the MSHCP include 14 cities in western Riverside
County; the County of Riverside, including the Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation Agency, Riverside County Transportation
Commission, Riverside County Parks and Open Space District, and
Riverside County Waste Department; California Department of Parks and
Recreation; and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
The MSHCP was designed to establish a multi-species conservation
program that minimizes and mitigates the expected loss of habitat and
the incidental take of Covered Species. On June 22, 2004, the Service
issued a single incidental take permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the
Act to 22 Permittees under the MSHCP for a period of 75 years. The
Service granted the participating jurisdictions ``take authorization''
of listed species in exchange for their contribution to the assembly
and management of the MSHCP Conservation Area.
In forming the 500,000 ac (202,343 ha) MSHCP Conservation Area, the
MSHCP will establish approximately 153,000 ac (61,916 ha) of new
conservation lands (Additional Reserve Lands) to complement the
approximate 347,000 ac (140,426 ha) of existing natural and open space
areas (e.g., State Parks, USFS, and County Park lands known as Public/
Quasi-Public (PQP) Lands). The precise configuration of the 153,000 ac
(61,916 ha) Additional Reserve Lands is not mapped or precisely
identified in the MSHCP but rather is based on textual descriptions
within the boundaries of a 310,000-ac (125,453-ha) Criteria Area that
is interpreted as implementation of the MSHCP proceeds. Subunits 3A and
3B are located entirely within the MSHCP Plan Area and are comprised of
USFS, State Park, County of Riverside, and private lands. The USFS,
State Park, and County of Riverside lands within these subunits are
considered PQP lands under the MSHCP and as such are included within
the overall MSHCP Conservation Area. As Permittees under the MSHCP, the
County of Riverside and the California Department of Parks and
Recreation have committed to manage their existing open-space lands in
concert with the goals of the MSHCP. Thus, the State Park and County of
Riverside lands within Subunits 3A and 3B will be managed consistent
with conservation goals for the mountain yellow-legged frog.
The private lands within these subunits are not designated as PQP
lands or located within the Criteria Area and, thus, are not
specifically identified under the plan for inclusion within the MSHCP
Conservation Area. Nonetheless, for areas potentially important to the
mountain yellow-legged frog that are located outside of the Criteria
Area or are not identified as PQP lands, the MSHCP includes special
surveys and procedures to further address the conservation of this
species in the plan area (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures;
Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP). The plan requires surveys for the mountain
yellow-legged frog as part of the review process for public and private
projects where suitable habitat is present within a ``Mountain Yellow-
Legged Frog Amphibian Survey Area'' (referred to here as Survey Area;
Figure 6-3 of the MSHCP, Volume I). These surveys are required until
the Additional Reserve Lands are assembled and conservation objectives
for the mountain yellow-legged frog are met. If populations of mountain
yellow-legged frog are detected by these surveys and
[[Page 54366]]
the conservation objectives for the species have not been met, the
MSHCP calls for avoidance of impacts to 90 percent of the project
site's suitable habitat with long-term conservation value for this
species.
Conservation objectives for the mountain yellow-legged frog in the
MSHCP include: Conserving primary breeding habitat, secondary wooded
habitat, and Core Areas within the San Jacinto Mountains; conducting
surveys for this species as part of the MSHCP project review process
within the amphibian species survey area; conserving mountain yellow-
legged frog localities identified by these survey efforts; and, within
the MSHCP Conservation Area, maintaining and, if feasible, restoring
ecological processes within occupied habitat and suitable new areas
within the Criteria Area and maintaining and monitoring successful
reproduction of the species (Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP)
Volume I, Section 9, Table 9-2, pp. 9-37 and 9-38).
Conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog under the MSHCP is
also addressed through implementation of the Protection of Species
Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools procedures
(RCIP, Volume I, Section 6.1.2, pp. 6-19--6-25). These procedures
recognize the importance of protecting riparian/riverine areas and
vernal pools to the overall conservation of aquatic and wetland-
dependent species covered by the Plan. The overall purpose of the
procedures is to ensure that the biological functions and values of
riparian/riverine and vernal pool areas throughout the MSHCP Plan Area
are maintained such that the habitat values for the species inside the
MSHCP Conservation Area are also maintained. As projects are proposed
within the Plan Area, an assessment of the potentially significant
effects of those projects on riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools
is performed. The documentation for the assessment includes mapping and
a description of the functions and values of the mapped areas with
respect to the riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools species,
including the mountain yellow-legged frog. This assessment is used to
identify aquatic resources such as riparian/riverine areas and vernal
pools that may be acquired for inclusion in the MSHCP Conservation
Area. If an avoidance alternative is not feasible and mapping
identifies suitable habitat for the species covered by these
procedures, surveys followed by avoidance and minimization measures are
required in accordance with the species-specific objectives for those
species.
We are excluding approximately 487 ac (197 ha) of non-Federal lands
from critical habitat in subunits 3A and 3B within the MSHCP Plan Area
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. These non-Federal lands are comprised
of portions of the Mount San Jacinto State Park owned by the California
Department of Parks and Recreation (approximately 205 ac (83 ha)),
private lands along Fuller Mill Creek (approximately 141 ac (57 ha)),
lands owned by the County of Riverside Regional Parks and Open Space
District at the confluence of Fuller Mill Creek and Dark Canyon
(approximately 87 ac (35 ha)), and lands owned by the University of
California at the James San Jacinto Mountains Reserve (approximately 54
ac (22 ha)) along Indian Creek at Hall Canyon. The State Parks and
County Park lands will be managed consistent with the conservation
goals for the mountain yellow-legged frog under the MSHCP. In addition,
all of these lands are within the MSHCP's Survey Area and will receive
conservation benefits under the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures
policy. Federal lands managed by the USFS are an integral part of the
conservation strategy of the MSHCP. However, USFS is not a permittee
under the section 10(a)(1)(B) permit for the MSHCP, and therefore, we
are designating critical habitat on their lands in subunits 3A and 3B
within the MSHCP Plan Area.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
We expect the MSHCP to provide substantial protection of the PCEs
and special management of essential habitat features for the mountain
yellow-legged frog on MSHCP conservation lands. We expect the MSHCP to
provide a greater level of management for the mountain yellow-legged
frog on private lands than would designation of critical habitat on
private lands. Moreover, inclusion of these non-Federal lands as
critical habitat would not necessitate additional management and
conservation activities that would exceed the approved MSHCP and its
implementing agreement. As a result, we do not anticipate any action on
these lands would destroy or adversely modify the areas designated as
critical habitat. Therefore, we do not expect that including those
areas in the final designation would lead to any changes to actions on
the conservation lands to avoid destroying or adversely modifying that
habitat.
The exclusion of these lands from critical habitat will help
preserve the partnerships that we have developed with the local
jurisdictions and project proponents in the development of the MSHCP,
which provides for mountain yellow-legged frog conservation. The
educational benefits of critical habitat, including informing the
public of areas important for the long-term conservation of the
species, are still accomplished from material provided on our Web site
and through public notice-and-comment procedures required to establish
the MSHCP. Further, many educational benefits of critical habitat
designation will be achieved through the overall designation, and will
occur whether or not this particular location is designated. For these
reasons, we believe that designating critical habitat has little
benefit in areas covered by the MSHCP.
We have reviewed and evaluated benefits of inclusion and exclusion
of critical habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog. Based on this
evaluation, we find that the benefits of excluding land in the planning
area for the MSHCP outweigh the benefits of including that portion of
critical habitat in subunits 3A and 3B as critical habitat.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species
We do not believe that the exclusion of 487 ac (197 ha) will result
in the extinction of the mountain yellow-legged frog because the MSHCP
provides for the conservation of this species and its habitat on
currently known occupied areas, as well as areas that may be found to
be occupied in the future. Importantly, as we stated in our biological
opinion, while some loss of modeled habitat for the mountain yellow-
legged frog is anticipated due to implementation of the Plan, we do not
anticipate any individual frogs will be taken as a result of our permit
issuance for the MSHCP.
Economic Analysis
Section 4(b)(2)of the Act requires us to designate critical habitat
on the basis of the best scientific information available and to
consider the economic and other relevant impacts of designating a
particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas from critical
habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such exclusion
outweigh the benefits of specifying areas as critical habitat. We
cannot exclude areas from critical habitat when exclusion will result
in the extinction of the species concerned.
Following the publication of the proposed critical habitat
designation, we conducted an economic analysis to estimate the
potential economic effect of the designation. The draft analysis was
[[Page 54367]]
made available for public review on July 3, 2006 (71 FR 37881). We
accepted comments on the draft analysis until July 24, 2006.
The primary purpose of the economic analysis is to estimate the
potential economic impacts associated with the designation of critical
habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog. This information is
intended to assist the Secretary in making decisions about whether the
benefits of excluding particular areas from the designation outweigh
the benefits of including those areas in the designation. This economic
analysis considers the economic efficiency effects that may result from
the designation, including habitat protections that may be co-extensive
with the listing of the species. It also addresses distribution of
impacts, including an assessment of the potential effects on small
entities and the energy industry. This information can be used by the
Secretary to assess whether the effects of the designation might unduly
burden a particular group or economic sector.
The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic
effects of actions relating to the conservation of the mountain yellow-
legged frog, including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of
the Act, and including those attributable to designating critical
habitat. It further considers the economic effects of protective
measures taken as a result of other Federal, State, and local laws that
aid habitat conservation for the mountain yellow-legged frog in areas
containing features essential to the conservation of this species. The
analysis considers both economic efficiency and distributional effects.
In the case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects generally
reflect the ``opportunity costs'' associated with the commitment of
resources to comply with habitat protection measures (e.g., lost
economic opportunities associated with restrictions on land use). This
analysis also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be
distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional impacts
of habitat conservation and the potential effects of conservation
activities on small entities and the energy industry. This information
can be used by decision-makers to assess whether the effects of the
designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector.
Finally, this analysis looks retrospectively at costs that have been
incurred since the date the species was listed as an endangered species
and considers those costs that may occur in the 20 years following the
designation of critical habitat.
Mountain yellow-legged frog conservation activities are likely to
primarily impact recreation, including trout fishing, hiking, camping,
and rock climbing in Angeles and San Bernardino National Forests. In
particular, significant uncertainty exists regarding the potential
impact to trout fishing. As a result, the analysis applied two
methodologies to bound the range of potential costs. The lower-bound
estimate assumed that anglers' overall welfare is unaffected, because
numerous substitute fishing sites exist. The upper-bound estimate
assumed that fishing trips currently taken to streams in essential
habitat are lost and not substituted elsewhere. The actual impact will
fall between these two bounds. Because the probability distribution of
impacts between these bounds is constant, and there is no evidence that
suggested the distribution was skewed toward either bound, the average
of the two estimates represented the best estimate of trout fishing
impacts.
The estimated total future impacts, including costs resulting from
modifications to fishing and other types of activity, range from $11.4
million to $12.9 million (undiscounted) over 20 years. Discounted
future costs are estimated to be $7.5 million to $8.9 million over this
same time period ($704,000 to $842,000 annually) using a real rate of 7
percent, or $9.3 million to $10.8 million ($626,000 to $725,000
annually) using a real rate of 3 percent. In summary, most of the
economic impacts were associated with three subunits: Big Rock Creek,
South Fork (Subunit 1B), San Jacinto River, North Fork (Subunit 3A),
and Little Rock Creek (Subunit 1C).
A copy of the final economic analysis with supporting documents is
included in our administrative record and may be obtained by contacting
the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES) or for
downloading from the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/MYLF_Docs.htm
.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a
significant rule in that it may raise novel legal and policy issues.
However, because the draft economic analysis indicates the potential
economic impact associated with a designation of all habitat with
features essential to the conservation of this species would total no
more than $704,000 to $842,000 annually, applying a 7 percent discount
rate, we do not anticipate that this final rule will have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or affect the economy in
a material way. Due to the time line for publication in the Federal
Register, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did not formally
review the proposed rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (e.g., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. In our proposed rule,
we withheld our determination of whether this designation would result
in a significant effect as defined under SBREFA until we completed our
draft economic analysis of the proposed designation so that we would
have the factual basis for our determination.
According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small
entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents, as well as small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small
businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than
500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result.
In general, the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a
typical small business firm's business operations.
To determine if the rule could significantly affect a substantial
number of small entities, we considered the
[[Page 54368]]
number of small entities affected within particular types of economic
activities (e.g., recreational fishing, hiking, rock climbing, and
residential development). We considered each industry or category
individually to determine if certification is appropriate. In
estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also
considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement; some
kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so
will not be affected by the designation of critical habitat.
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted,
funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies; non-Federal
activities are not affected by the designation.
Federal agencies must consult with us if their activities may
affect designated critical habitat. Consultations to avoid the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be
incorporated into the existing consultation process. Our analysis
determined that costs involving conservation measures for the mountain
yellow-legged frog would be incurred for activities involving: (1)
Recreational trout fishing activities; (2) recreational hiking
activities; (3) recreational rock climbing activities; (4) residential
development activity; (5) fire management activities; and (6) other
activities on Federal lands. Of these six categories, impacts of frog
conservation are not anticipated to affect small entities in three of
these categories: residential development, fire management, and other
activities on Federal lands. As stated in our economic analysis,
residential development is unlikely to be impacted by frog conservation
activities for several reasons, including the unsuitability of large-
scale development of these private lands due to their location in
mountainous areas and easy incorporation into building designs of a 50-
foot buffer around streams to protect mountain yellow-legged frog
habitat. Furthermore, since neither Federal nor State governments are
defined as small entities by the Small Business Administration (SBA),
the economic impacts borne by the USFS and the California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG) resulting from implementation of mountain yellow-
legged frog conservation activities or modifications to activities on
Federal lands, including installation of signs and relocation of hiking
trails, fire suppression efforts, monitoring recreational mining
activity, development of hazardous spills management plans, and
surveying and monitoring activities, are not relevant to the screening
analysis. Accordingly, the small business analysis focuses on economic
impacts to recreational trout fishing and rock climbing activities.
The economic analysis considers two scenarios to estimate the
economic impacts on recreational trout fishing activities. Under
Scenario 1, future costs are limited to compliance costs associated
with installing fish barriers and removing nonnative trout. The
directly regulated entities under Scenario 1 include the USFS and CDFG,
both of which are large government agencies. As a result, the directly
affected entities are not subject to this screening analysis. Under
Scenario 2, economic impacts are also estimated for recreational trout
anglers whose activities may be interrupted by mountain yellow-legged
frog conservation activities resulting in a decrease in the number of
trout fishing trips. Scenario 2 concludes that fishing trips may
decrease by as much as 6,800 to 8,200 trips per year. The welfare value
lost to an angler is $53.28 per trip. Importantly, this per-trip impact
represents the nonmarket value to anglers of a fishing experience, not
changes in cash flow to local businesses.
If fewer recreational fishing trips occur to areas within critical
habitat, local establishments providing services to anglers may be
indirectly affected by mountain yellow-legged frog conservation
activities. Decreased visitation may reduce the amount of money spent
in the region across a variety of industries, including food and
beverage stores, food service and drinking places, accommodations,
transportation and rental services. To determine the potential regional
economic impacts of decreases in recreational fishing trips, this
analysis uses regional economic modeling to quantify the dollar value
of goods and services produced and employment generated by consumer
expenditures. Regional economic modeling accounts for the
interconnectedness of industries within a geographic area that not only
supply goods and services to consumers, but also to each other. Thus,
spending in one economic sector tends to have a larger impact on the
regional economy as a whole. This concept is commonly referred to as
the ``multiplier'' effect.
In particular, this analysis utilizes a software package called
IMPLAN to estimate the total economic effects of the reduction in
economic activity in recreational fishing-related industries in the two
counties associated with mountain yellow-legged frog conservation
activities, Los Angeles and Riverside Counties. Commonly used by State
and Federal agencies for policy planning and evaluation purposes,
IMPLAN translates estimates of initial trip expenditures (e.g., food,
lodging, and gas) into changes in demand for inputs to affected
industries. Changes in output and employment are calculated for all
industries and then aggregated to determine the regional economic
impact of reduced recreational fishing-related expenditures potentially
associated with frog conservation activities.
Based on the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation for California, average expenditures per
fishing trip are approximately $38 (2005), with the bulk of these
expenditures occurring in the food service and gasoline industries.
This per-trip estimate of expenditures is combined with the number of
fishing trips potentially lost due to frog conservation activities
(7,100 to 14,300 trips per year) to estimate total expenditures of
$271,000 to $543,000 due to recreational trout fishing in proposed
critical habitat areas. According to IMPLAN, these recreational
fishing-related expenditures contribute between $471,000 and $943,000
per year to the regional economy. When compared to the total output of
the industry sectors directly impacted by these expenditures (e.g.,
groceries, restaurants, gasoline stations, and lodging) in the regional
economy of Los Angeles and Riverside counties (or $29.4 billion), the
potential loss generated by a decrease in recreational trout fishing
trips is less than one hundredth of a percent. Therefore based on these
results, this analysis determines no significant effect on recreational
fishing-related industries due to frog conservation activities in Los
Angeles and Riverside counties.
The economic analysis also estimates welfare losses to rock
climbers as the result of a temporary one-year closure of Williamson
Rock, adjacent to Little Rock Creek (Subunit 1C) in Los Angeles County.
The analysis concludes that a one-year closure will result in the loss
of approximately 10,600 to 14,600 rock climbing trips in 2006. The
welfare value lost to a climber is $95.20 per trip. Importantly, this
per-trip impact represents the nonmarket value to climbers of a
climbing experience, not changes in cash flow to local businesses.
As for recreational fishing trips, if fewer rock climbing trips
occur to areas within proposed critical habitat, local establishments
providing services to rock climbers may be indirectly affected by frog
conservation activities. Decreased visitation may reduce the amount of
money spent in the region across a variety of industries, including
food and beverage stores, food service
[[Page 54369]]
and drinking places, and gas and transportation services.
To determine the potential regional economic impacts of decreases
in rock climbing trips, this analysis uses IMPLAN to quantify the
dollar value of goods and services produced and employment generated by
consumer expenditures.
Ideally, this analysis would develop and use a per-trip estimate of
expenditures for rock climbing based on the existing economics
literature. However, no such data is available for rock climbing
activities. In the absence of this information, and in order to
understand the magnitude of the potential impacts, this analysis uses
the average expenditures of approximately $26.23 per trip reported by
the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation for California for fishing, hunting and wildlife-associated
recreation. This per-trip estimate of expenditures is then combined
with the number of rock climbing trips potentially lost due to frog
conservation activities (a one-year loss of 10,600 to 14,600 trips per
year) to estimate total expenditures of $278,000 to $382,000 due to
rock climbing in proposed critical habitat areas. According to IMPLAN,
these rock climbing-related expenditures contribute between $480,000
and $660,000 per year to the regional economy. When compared to the
total output of the industry sectors directly impacted by these
expenditures (e.g., groceries, restaurants and gasoline stations) in
the regional economy of Los Angeles County (or $21.6 billion), the
potential loss generated by a decrease in rock climbing trips is less
than one hundredth of a percent. Therefore based on these results, this
analysis determines no significant effect on rock climbing-related
industries due to frog conservation activities in Los Angeles County.
It is important to note that the estimates of lost fishing and
climbing trips assume that the trips are not substituted to another
location within these counties (e.g., anglers do not visit another lake
or stream in the county where trout continue to be stocked). In
addition, the analysis assumes that recreators do not undertake
substitute activities (e.g., rock climbers do not go hiking or biking
instead of taking trips to Williamson's Rock). If recreators visit
substitute sites or choose alternative activities, the regional impacts
predicted in this section may be smaller or would not occur.
In general, two different mechanisms in section 7 consultations
could lead to additional regulatory requirements for the approximately
four small businesses, on average, that may be required to consult with
us each year regarding their project's impact on the mountain yellow-
legged frog and its habitat. First, if we conclude, in a biological
opinion, that a proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a species or adversely modify its critical habitat, we can
offer ``reasonable and prudent alternatives.'' Reasonable and prudent
alternatives are alternative actions that can be implemented in a
manner consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal
authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and technologically
feasible, and that would avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of
listed species or result in adverse modification of critical habitat. A
Federal agency and an applicant may elect to implement a reasonable and
prudent alternative associated with a biological opinion that has found
jeopardy or adverse modification of critical habitat. An agency or
applicant could alternatively choose to seek an exemption from the
requirements of the Act or proceed without implementing the reasonable
and prudent alternative. However, unless an exemption were obtained,
the Federal agency or applicant would be at risk of violating section
7(a)(2) of the Act if it chose to proceed without implementing the
reasonable and prudent alternatives.
Second, if we find that a proposed action is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed animal or plant species,
we may identify reasonable and prudent measures designed to minimize
the amount or extent of take and require the Federal agency or
applicant to implement such measures through non-discretionary terms
and conditions. We may also identify discretionary conservation
recommendations designed to minimize or avoid the adverse effects of a
proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, help implement
recovery plans, or to develop information that could contribute to the
recovery of the species.
Based on our experience with consultations under section 7 of the
Act for all listed species, virtually all projects--including those
that, in their initial proposed form, would result in jeopardy or
adverse modification determinations in section 7 consultations--can be
implemented successfully with, at most, the adoption of reasonable and
prudent alternatives. These measures, by definition, must be
economically feasible and within the scope of authority of the Federal
agency involved in the consultation. We can only describe the general
kinds of actions that may be identified in future reasonable and
prudent alternatives. These are based on our understanding of the needs
of the species and the threats it faces, as described in the final
listing rule (July 2, 2002; 67 FR 44382) and this critical habitat
designation. Within the final critical habitat units, the types of
Federal actions or authorized activities that we have identified as
potential concerns are:
(1) Regulation of activities affecting waters of the United States
by the Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act;
(2) Regulation of water flows, damming, diversion, and
channelization implemented or licensed by Federal agencies;
(3) Regulation of timber harvest, grazing, mining, and recreation
by the USFS;
(4) Road construction and maintenance, right-of-way designation,
and regulation of agricultural activities.
It is likely that a developer or other project proponent could
modify a project or take measures to protect the mountain yellow-legged
frog. The kinds of actions that may be included if future reasonable
and prudent alternatives become necessary include conservation set-
asides, management of competing nonnative species, restoration of
degraded habitat, and regular monitoring. These are based on our
understanding of the needs of the species and the threats it faces, as
described in the final listing rule and proposed critical habitat
designation, and in this final rule. These measures are not likely to
result in a significant economic impact to project proponents.
In summary, we have considered whether this rule would result in a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.
For the above reasons and based on currently available information, we
certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Federal involvement, and thus
section 7 consultations, would be limited to a subset of the area
designated. The most likely Federal involvement could include Corps
permits, permits we may issue under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act;
Federal Highway Administration funding for road improvements;
hydropower licenses issued by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; and
regulation of timber harvest, grazing, mining, and recreation by the
USFS. A regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
[[Page 54370]]
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C 801 et
seq.)
Under SBREFA, this rule is not a major rule. Our detailed
assessment of the economic effects of this designation is described in
the economic analysis. Based on the effects identified in the economic
analysis, we believe that this rule will not have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more, will not cause a major increase in
costs or prices for consumers, and will not have significant adverse
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with
foreign-based enterprises. Refer to the final economic analysis (see
ADDRESSES) for a discussion of the effects of this determination.
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This final rule to
designated critical habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog is not
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use.
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, Tribal
governments, or the private sector and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding'' and the State, local, or Tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. (At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work
programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants;
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption
Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services;
and Child Support Enforcement.) ``Federal private sector mandate''
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the
private sector, except (i) A condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) A
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities who receive Federal
funding, assistance, permits or otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat
rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that
non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive
Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program,
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would critical
habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above
on to State governments.
(b) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal mandate
of $100 million or greater in any year, that is, it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. The designation of critical habitat imposes no obligations on
State or local governments. As such, Small Government Agency Plan is
not required.
Executive Order 12630--Takings
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of
proposing critical habitat for the southern California DPS of the
mountain yellow-legged frog in a takings implications assessment. The
takings implications assessment concludes that this designation of
critical habitat for the southern California DPS of the mountain
yellow-legged frog does not pose significant takings implications.
Federalism
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. In keeping with DOI and Department of Commerce policy, we
requested information from, and coordinated development of, this final
critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource agencies
in California. The designation of critical habitat in areas currently
occupied by the mountain yellow-legged frog may impose nominal
additional regulatory restrictions to those currently in place and,
therefore, may have little incremental impact on State and local
governments and their activities. The designation may have some benefit
to these governments in that the areas that contain the features
essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly defined,
and the primary constituent elements of the habitat necessary to the
conservation of the species are specifically identified. While making
this definition and identification does not alter where and what
federally sponsored activities may occur, it may assist these local
governments in long-range planning (rather than waiting for case-by-
case section 7 consultations to occur).
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order. We are designating critical habitat in accordance with
the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. This final rule uses
standard property descriptions and identifies the primary constituent
elements within the designated areas to assist the public in
understanding the habitat needs of the mountain yellow-legged frog.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule
will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or
local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency
may not
[[Page 54371]]
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
It is our position that, outside the Tenth Circuit, we do not need
to prepare environmental analyses as defined by the NEPA in connection
with designating critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this
determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244). This assertion was upheld in the courts of the Ninth Circuit
(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 1995), cert.
denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996).)
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department
of Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have determined that
there are no tribal lands occupied at the time of listing that contain
the features essential for the conservation of the mountain yellow-
legged frog and no tribal lands that are unoccupied areas that are
essential for the conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog.
Therefore, critical habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog has not
been designated on Tribal lands.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is
available upon request from the Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Author(s)
The primary authors of this package are staff of the Carlsbad Fish
and Wildlife Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
0
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.11(h), revise the entry for ``Frog, mountain yellow-
legged (southern California DPS)'' under ``AMPHIBIANS'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate population
----------------------------------------------------------- Historic range where endangered or Status When Critical Special
Common name Scientific name threatened listed habitat rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Amphibians
* * * * * * *
Frog, mountain yellow-legged Rana muscosa......... U.S.A. (California, U.S.A., southern E 728 17.95(d) NA
(southern California DPS). Nevada). California.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. In Sec. 17.95(d), add an entry for ``Mountain yellow-legged frog
(Rana muscosa), southern California DPS'' in the same alphabetical
order in which this species appears in the table at 50 CFR 17.11(h), to
read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(d) Amphibians.
* * * * *
Mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa), Southern California DPS
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Los Angeles, San
Bernardino, and Riverside Counties, California, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for the
mountain yellow-legged frog are:
(i) Water source(s) found between 1,214 to 7,546 ft (370 to 2,300
m) in elevation that are permanent. Water sources include, but are not
limited to, streams, rivers, perennial creeks (or permanent plunge
pools within intermittent creeks), pools (i.e., a body of impounded
water that is contained above a natural dam), and other forms of
aquatic habitat. The water source should maintain a natural flow
pattern including periodic natural flooding. Aquatic habitats that are
used by mountain yellow-legged frog for breeding purposes must maintain
water during the entire tadpole growth phase, which can be up to 2
years duration. During periods of drought, or less than average
rainfall, these breeding sites may not hold water long enough for
individuals to complete metamorphosis, but they would still be
considered essential breeding habitat in wetter years. Further, the
aquatic habitat includes:
(A) Bank and pool substrates consisting of varying percentages of
soil or silt, sand, gravel cobble, rock, and boulders;
(B) Open gravel banks and rocks projecting above or just beneath
the surface of the water for sunning posts;
(C) Aquatic refugia, including pools with bank overhangs, downfall
logs or branches, and/or rocks to provide cover from predators; and
(D) Streams or stream reaches between known occupied sites that can
function as corridors for adults and frogs for movement between aquatic
habitats used as breeding and/or foraging sites.
(ii) Riparian habitat and upland vegetation (e.g., ponderosa pine,
montane hardwood-conifer, montane riparian woodlands, and chaparral)
extending 262 feet (80 m) from each side of the centerline of each
identified stream and its tributaries, that provides areas for feeding
and movement of mountain yellow-legged frog, with a
[[Page 54372]]
canopy overstory not exceeding 85 percent that allows sunlight to reach
the stream and thereby provides basking areas for the species.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures existing
on the effective date of this rule and not containing one or more of
the primary constituent elements, such as buildings, aqueducts,
airports, and roads, and the land on which such structures are located.
(4) Critical Habitat Map Units. Data layers defining map units were
created on a base of USGS 7.5' quadrangles, and critical habitat units
were then mapped using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates.
Note: Index map of critical habitat units for the southern California
DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog (Map 1) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 54373]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14SE06.000
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 54374]]
(5) Unit 1: San Gabriel Mountains Unit, Los Angeles and San
Bernardino Counties, California. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps
Crystal Lake, Cucamonga Peak, Mount San Antonio Valyermo, and Waterman
Mountain, California.
(i) Subunit 1A: San Gabriel River, East Fork Angeles National
Forest, Los Angeles County, California.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM North American Datum of 1927
(NAD27) coordinates (E, N): 434100, 3803300; 434400, 3803300; 434400,
3803100; 434300, 3803100; 434300, 3802900; 434200, 3802900; 434200,
3802800; 434100, 3802800; 434100, 3802600; 434000, 3802600; 434000,
3802500; 433800, 3802500; 433800, 3802200; 433700, 3802200; 433700,
3801900; 433600, 3801900; 433600, 3801800; 433800, 3801800; 433800,
3801900; 434200, 3801900; 434200, 3802000; 434400, 3802000; 434400,
3802100; 434500, 3802100; 434500, 3802300; 434600, 3802300; 434600,
3802500; 434700, 3802500; 434700, 3802800; 434800, 3802800; 434800,
3802900; 434900, 3802900; 434900, 3803000; 435100, 3803000; 435100,
3802700; 435000, 3802700; 435000, 3802600; 434900, 3802600; 434900,
3802200; 434800, 3802200; 434800, 3802100; 434700, 3802100; 434700,
3801900; 434600, 3801900; 434600, 3801800; 434400, 3801800; 434400,
3801700; 434000, 3801700; 434000, 3801600; 433400, 3801600; 433400,
3801500; 433300, 3801500; 433300, 3801400; 433400, 3801400; 433400,
3801300; 433500, 3801300; 433500, 3800400; 433900, 3800400; 433900,
3800500; 434000, 3800500; 434000, 3800600; 434200, 3800600; 434200,
3800500; 434300, 3800500; 434300, 3800600; 434500, 3800600; 434500,
3800900; 434600, 3800900; 434600, 3801200; 434700, 3801200; 434700,
3801500; 434800, 3801500; 434800, 3801600; 434900, 3801600; 434900,
3801800; 435000, 3801800; 435000, 3801900; 435100, 3801900; 435100,
3802000; 435200, 3802000; 435200, 3802100; 435300, 3802100; 435300,
3802200; 435400, 3802200; 435400, 3802300; 435500, 3802300; 435500,
3802400; 435800, 3802400; 435800, 3802200; 435700, 3802200; 435700,
3802100; 435600, 3802100; 435600, 3802000; 435500, 3802000; 435500,
3801900; 435400, 3801900; 435400, 3801800; 435300, 3801800; 435300,
3801700; 435200, 3801700; 435200, 3801600; 435100, 3801600; 435100,
3801500; 435000, 3801500; 435000, 3801100; 434900, 3801100; 434900,
3800900; 435000, 3800900; 435000, 3800800; 435100, 3800800; 435100,
3800700; 435200, 3800700; 435200, 3800400; 435500, 3800400; 435500,
3800600; 435600, 3800600; 435600, 3800800; 435700, 3800800; 435700,
3800900; 435900, 3800900; 435900, 3801200; 436000, 3801200; 436000,
3801300; 436100, 3801300; 436100, 3801600; 436400, 3801600; 436400,
3801700; 436800, 3801700; 436800, 3801400; 436300, 3801400; 436300,
3801100; 436200, 3801100; 436200, 3801000; 436100, 3801000; 436100,
3800900; 436200, 3800900; 436200, 3800700; 436100, 3800700; 436100,
3800600; 435800, 3800600; 435800, 3800300; 435900, 3800300; 435900,
3800200; 436100, 3800200; 436100, 3800100; 436300, 3800100; 436300,
3800000; 436200, 3800000; 436200, 3799800; 436100, 3799800; 436100,
3799900; 435900, 3799900; 435900, 3800000; 435800, 3800000; 435800,
3800100; 435100, 3800100; 435100, 3800200; 435000, 3800200; 435000,
3800300; 434900, 3800300; 434900, 3800600; 434800, 3800600; 434800,
3800400; 434600, 3800400; 434600, 3800300; 434100, 3800300; 434100,
3800100; 433200, 3800100; 433200, 3800000; 433300, 3800000; 433300,
3799800; 433400, 3799800; 433400, 3799200; 433600, 3799200; 433600,
3798800; 433500, 3798800; 433500, 3798700; 433400, 3798700; 433400,
3798600; 433300, 3798600; 433300, 3798500; 433200, 3798500; 433200,
3797600; 433100, 3797600; 433100, 3797400; 433000, 3797400; 433000,
3797300; 432800, 3797300; 432800, 3797200; 432900, 3797200; 432900,
3797000; 432800, 3797000; 432800, 3796400; 433000, 3796400; 433000,
3796500; 433100, 3796500; 433100, 3796600; 433200, 3796600; 433200,
3796700; 433400, 3796700; 433400, 3796600; 433600, 3796600; 433600,
3796700; 433700, 3796700; 433700, 3796800; 433800, 3796800; 433800,
3796900; 434200, 3796900; 434200, 3797000; 434500, 3797000; 434500,
3796900; 434600, 3796900; 434600, 3796700; 434000, 3796700; 434000,
3796500; 433800, 3796500; 433800, 3796400; 434000, 3796400; 434000,
3796300; 434100, 3796300; 434100, 3796200; 434300, 3796200; 434300,
3796100; 434400, 3796100; 434400, 3796000; 434600, 3796000; 434600,
3795600; 434500, 3795600; 434500, 3795800; 434300, 3795800; 434300,
3795900; 434100, 3795900; 434100, 3796000; 433900, 3796000; 433900,
3796100; 433600, 3796100; 433600, 3796200; 433500, 3796200; 433500,
3796300; 433200, 3796300; 433200, 3796200; 433000, 3796200; 433000,
3796100; 432900, 3796100; 432900, 3796000; 432800, 3796000; 432800,
3795900; 433000, 3795900; 433000, 3795800; 433200, 3795800; 433200,
3795700; 433300, 3795700; 433300, 3795600; 433600, 3795600; 433600,
3795500; 433800, 3795500; 433800, 3795400; 433900, 3795400; 433900,
3795300; 434000, 3795300; 434000, 3795200; 434100, 3795200; 434100,
3795100; 434200, 3795100; 434200, 3795000; 434100, 3795000; 434100,
3794900; 434000, 3794900; 434000, 3795000; 433800, 3795000; 433800,
3795100; 433700, 3795100; 433700, 3795200; 433600, 3795200; 433600,
3795300; 433400, 3795300; 433400, 3795400; 433100, 3795400; 433100,
3795500; 433000, 3795500; 433000, 3795600; 432800, 3795600; 432800,
3795700; 432500, 3795700; 432500, 3795500; 432400, 3795500; 432400,
3795400; 432500, 3795400; 432500, 3795300; 432700, 3795300; 432700,
3795200; 432800, 3795200; 432800, 3795100; 433100, 3795100; 433100,
3795000; 433200, 3795000; 433200, 3794800; 433400, 3794800; 433400,
3794700; 433600, 3794700; 433600, 3794600; 433500, 3794600; 433500,
3794400; 433400, 3794400; 433400, 3794500; 433200, 3794500; 433200,
3794600; 433000, 3794600; 433000, 3794800; 432900, 3794800; 432900,
3794900; 432600, 3794900; 432600, 3795000; 432500, 3795000; 432500,
3795100; 432300, 3795100; 432300, 3795200; 432000, 3795200; 432000,
3795100; 432100, 3795100; 432100, 3795000; 432000, 3795000; 432000,
3794900; 431900, 3794900; 431900, 3794800; 431800, 3794800; 431800,
3794500; 431600, 3794500; 431600, 3794400; 431500, 3794400; 431500,
3794100; 431600, 3794100; 431600, 3794000; 431700, 3794000; 431700,
3793600; 431600, 3793600; 431600, 3793400; 431400, 3793400; 431400,
3793900; 431300, 3793900; 431300, 3794600; 431400, 3794600; 431400,
3794700; 431500, 3794700; 431500, 3795000; 431600, 3795000; 431600,
3795300; 431100, 3795300; 431100, 3795100; 430600, 3795100; 430600,
3795200; 430200, 3795200; 430200, 3795400; 430100, 3795400; 430100,
3795500; 430200, 3795500; 430200, 3795600; 430400, 3795600; 430400,
3795500; 430700, 3795500; 430700, 3795400; 430800, 3795400; 430800,
3795300; 430900, 3795300; 430900, 3795600; 431100, 3795600; 431100,
3795900; 431000, 3795900; 431000, 3796600; 431100, 3796600; 431100,
3796900; 431000, 3796900; 431000, 3797000; 431100, 3797000; 431100,
3797200; 431200, 3797200; 431200, 3797000; 431300, 3797000; 431300,
3796500; 431200, 3796500; 431200, 3796100; 431300, 3796100; 431300,
3795700; 431400, 3795700; 431400,
[[Page 54375]]
3795600; 431600, 3795600; 431600, 3795500; 431800, 3795500; 431800,
3795300; 431900, 3795300; 431900, 3795400; 432000, 3795400; 432000,
3795500; 432100, 3795500; 432100, 3795600; 432200, 3795600; 432200,
3795700; 432300, 3795700; 432300, 3796000; 432500, 3796000; 432500,
3796100; 432400, 3796100; 432400, 3796300; 432500, 3796300; 432500,
3796400; 432600, 3796400; 432600, 3796600; 432500, 3796600; 432500,
3796900; 432600, 3796900; 432600, 3797100; 432500, 3797100; 432500,
3797400; 432600, 3797400; 432600, 3797500; 432800, 3797500; 432800,
3797700; 432700, 3797700; 432700, 3797800; 432300, 3797800; 432300,
3797900; 432200, 3797900; 432200, 3798000; 432100, 3798000; 432100,
3798100; 432000, 3798100; 432000, 3798200; 431700, 3798200; 431700,
3798300; 431600, 3798300; 431600, 3798400; 431400, 3798400; 431400,
3798500; 431300, 3798500; 431300, 3798600; 431200, 3798600; 431200,
3798900; 431400, 3798900; 431400, 3798800; 431500, 3798800; 431500,
3798700; 431600, 3798700; 431600, 3798600; 431800, 3798600; 431800,
3798500; 431900, 3798500; 431900, 3798400; 432100, 3798400; 432100,
3798300; 432200, 3798300; 432200, 3798200; 432300, 3798200; 432300,
3798100; 432400, 3798100; 432400, 3798000; 432800, 3798000; 432800,
3797900; 432900, 3797900; 432900, 3798200; 433000, 3798200; 433000,
3798700; 433100, 3798700; 433100, 3798900; 433300, 3798900; 433300,
3799100; 433200, 3799100; 433200, 3799300; 433100, 3799300; 433100,
3799900; 432900, 3799900; 432900, 3800300; 433000, 3800300; 433000,
3800400; 432900, 3800400; 432900, 3800500; 432600, 3800500; 432600,
3800600; 432400, 3800600; 432400, 3800700; 432200, 3800700; 432200,
3800800; 431600, 3800800; 431600, 3801000; 431700, 3801000; 431700,
3801100; 432000, 3801100; 432000, 3801000; 432400, 3801000; 432400,
3800900; 432600, 3800900; 432600, 3800800; 432700, 3800800; 432700,
3800700; 433100, 3800700; 433100, 3800600; 433200, 3800600; 433200,
3800800; 433300, 3800800; 433300, 3801200; 433100, 3801200; 433100,
3801300; 433000, 3801300; 433000, 3801600; 433100, 3801600; 433100,
3802000; 433000, 3802000; 433000, 3802100; 432800, 3802100; 432800,
3802200; 432600, 3802200; 432600, 3802300; 432400, 3802300; 432400,
3802400; 432200, 3802400; 432200, 3802500; 431900, 3802500; 431900,
3802700; 432200, 3802700; 432200, 3803000; 432400, 3803000; 432400,
3802900; 432500, 3802900; 432500, 3802800; 432600, 3802800; 432600,
3802700; 432700, 3802700; 432700, 3802500; 432800, 3802500; 432800,
3802400; 433000, 3802400; 433000, 3802300; 433200, 3802300; 433200,
3802100; 433300, 3802100; 433300, 3802000; 433400, 3802000; 433400,
3802100; 433500, 3802100; 433500, 3802500; 433600, 3802500; 433600,
3802700; 433800, 3802700; 433800, 3802800; 433900, 3802800; 433900,
3802900; 434000, 3802900; 434000, 3803100; 434100, 3803100; returning
to 434100, 3803300.
(B) Map depicting subunit 1A is located at paragraph (5)(vi)(B) of
this section.
(ii) Subunit 1B: Big Rock Creek, South Fork, Angeles National
Forest, Los Angeles County, California.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N):
424400, 3805700; 424600, 3805700; 424600, 3805400; 424500, 3805400;
424500, 3805300; 424300, 3805300; 424300, 3805200; 424400, 3805200;
424400, 3805000; 424300, 3805000; 424300, 3804900; 424100, 3804900;
424100, 3804800; 424000, 3804800; 424000, 3804700; 423900, 3804700;
423900, 3804500; 423800, 3804500; 423800, 3804400; 423700, 3804400;
423700, 3804300; 424000, 3804300; 424000, 3804100; 424100, 3804100;
424100, 3804000; 424200, 3804000; 424200, 3803900; 424300, 3803900;
424300, 3803800; 425200, 3803800; 425200, 3803700; 425700, 3803700;
425700, 3803400; 425400, 3803400; 425400, 3803500; 424400, 3803500;
424400, 3803000; 424500, 3803000; 424500, 3802900; 425100, 3802900;
425100, 3802800; 425300, 3802800; 425300, 3802600; 424500, 3802600;
424500, 3802700; 424300, 3802700; 424300, 3802800; 424200, 3802800;
424200, 3803000; 424100, 3803000; 424100, 3803700; 423900, 3803700;
423900, 3803800; 423800, 3803800; 423800, 3804000; 423700, 3804000;
423700, 3803700; 423500, 3803700; 423500, 3803600; 423400, 3803600;
423400, 3803400; 423300, 3803400; 423300, 3803200; 423500, 3803200;
423500, 3803000; 423600, 3803000; 423600, 3802600; 423700, 3802600;
423700, 3802500; 423800, 3802500; 423800, 3802400; 424000, 3802400;
424000, 3802300; 423500, 3802300; 423500, 3802400; 423400, 3802400;
423400, 3802800; 423300, 3802800; 423300, 3802900; 423200, 3802900;
423200, 3803000; 423100, 3803000; 423100, 3803100; 423000, 3803100;
423000, 3803000; 422900, 3803000; 422900, 3802800; 422800, 3802800;
422800, 3802700; 422700, 3802700; 422700, 3802800; 422600, 3802800;
422600, 3803100; 422700, 3803100; 422700, 3803200; 422800, 3803200;
422800, 3803300; 422900, 3803300; 422900, 3803400; 423000, 3803400;
423000, 3803500; 423100, 3803500; 423100, 3803600; 423200, 3803600;
423200, 3803900; 423400, 3803900; 423400, 3804500; 423500, 3804500;
423500, 3804600; 423600, 3804600; 423600, 3804700; 423700, 3804700;
423700, 3804900; 423800, 3804900; 423800, 3805000; 423900, 3805000;
423900, 3805100; 424000, 3805100; 424000, 3805400; 424100, 3805400;
424100, 3805500; 424200, 3805500; 424200, 3805600; 424400, 3805600;
returning to 424400, 3805700.
(B) Map depicting subunit 1B is located at paragraph (5)(vi)(B) of
this entry.
(iii) Subunit 1C: Little Rock Creek, Angeles National Forest, Los
Angeles County, California.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N):
419500, 3803800; 420000, 3803800; 420000, 3803600; 419700, 3803600;
419700, 3803500; 419600, 3803500; 419600, 3803400; 419500, 3803400;
419500, 3803300; 419600, 3803300; 419600, 3803200; 419700, 3803200;
419700, 3802900; 420000, 3802900; 420000, 3803000; 420200, 3803000;
420200, 3803100; 420400, 3803100; 420400, 3803200; 420500, 3803200;
420500, 3803300; 420600, 3803300; 420600, 3803400; 420900, 3803400;
420900, 3803200; 420800, 3803200; 420800, 3803100; 420700, 3803100;
420700, 3803000; 420600, 3803000; 420600, 3802900; 420500, 3802900;
420500, 3802800; 420100, 3802800; 420100, 3802700; 419900, 3802700;
419900, 3802600; 419800, 3802600; 419800, 3802400; 419700, 3802400;
419700, 3802300; 419500, 3802300; 419500, 3802400; 419400, 3802400;
419400, 3802300; 419300, 3802300; 419300, 3802100; 419200, 3802100;
419200, 3802000; 419100, 3802000; 419100, 3801900; 419000, 3801900;
419000, 3801800; 418800, 3801800; 418800, 3801900; 418500, 3801900;
418500, 3801800; 417900, 3801800; 417900, 3801900; 417800, 3801900;
417800, 3802000; 417700, 3802000; 417700, 3802100; 417600, 3802100;
417600, 3802300; 417500, 3802300; 417500, 3802400; 417300, 3802400;
417300, 3802300; 417200, 3802300; 417200, 3802200; 417000, 3802200;
417000, 3801400; 416900, 3801400; 416900, 3801300; 416800, 3801300;
416800, 3801200; 416700, 3801200; 416700, 3801100; 416600, 3801100;
416600, 3801200; 416500, 3801200; 416500, 3801400; 416700, 3801400;
416700, 3802100; 416500, 3802100; 416500, 3802000; 416200, 3802000;
[[Page 54376]]
416200, 3802100; 416100, 3802100; 416100, 3802200; 416000, 3802200;
416000, 3802500; 416300, 3802500; 416300, 3802300; 416500, 3802300;
416500, 3802400; 416900, 3802400; 416900, 3802500; 417100, 3802500;
417100, 3802600; 417800, 3802600; 417800, 3802400; 417900, 3802400;
417900, 3802300; 418000, 3802300; 418000, 3802100; 418300, 3802100;
418300, 3802400; 418600, 3802400; 418600, 3802200; 419000, 3802200;
419000, 3802400; 419100, 3802400; 419100, 3802500; 419200, 3802500;
419200, 3802700; 419400, 3802700; 419400, 3803100; 419300, 3803100;
419300, 3803600; 419400, 3803600; 419400, 3803700; 419500, 3803700;
returning to 419500, 3803800.
(B) Map depicting subunit 1C is located at paragraph (5)(vi)(B) of
this entry.
(iv) Subunit 1D: Devil's Canyon, Angeles National Forest, Los
Angeles County, California.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N):
414500, 3799300; 414700, 3799300; 414700, 3798600; 414600, 3798600;
414600, 3798500; 414500, 3798500; 414500, 3798400; 414300, 3798400;
414300, 3798300; 413900, 3798300; 413900, 3798200; 413600, 3798200;
413600, 3798100; 413400, 3798100; 413400, 3798000; 413000, 3798000;
413000, 3797800; 412600, 3797800; 412600, 3797700; 412500, 3797700;
412500, 3797600; 412300, 3797600; 412300, 3797700; 412100, 3797700;
412100, 3797800; 411800, 3797800; 411800, 3797700; 411400, 3797700;
411400, 3797800; 411300, 3797800; 411300, 3798100; 411500, 3798100;
411500, 3798000; 411800, 3798000; 411800, 3798100; 412200, 3798100;
412200, 3798000; 412300, 3798000; 412300, 3797900; 412400, 3797900;
412400, 3798000; 412700, 3798000; 412700, 3798100; 412800, 3798100;
412800, 3798200; 413100, 3798200; 413100, 3798300; 413400, 3798300;
413400, 3798400; 413700, 3798400; 413700, 3798500; 414100, 3798500;
414100, 3798600; 414200, 3798600; 414200, 3798700; 414400, 3798700;
414400, 3798800; 414500, 3798800; returning to 414500, 3799300.
(B) Map depicting subunit 1D is located at paragraph (5)(vi)(B) of
this entry.
(v) Subunit 1F: San Gabriel River, East Fork, Iron Fork, Los
Angeles County, California.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N):
429100, 3798400; 429400, 3798400; 429400, 3798000; 429500, 3798000;
429500, 3797400; 429700, 3797400; 429700, 3797100; 429600, 3797100;
429600, 3797000; 429700, 3797000; 429700, 3796800; 429800, 3796800;
429800, 3796700; 429900, 3796700; 429900, 3796500; 430000, 3796500;
430000, 3796000; 430100, 3796000; 430100, 3795800; 430200, 3795800;
430200, 3795500; 430100, 3795500; 430100, 3795400; 430000, 3795400;
430000, 3795600; 429600, 3795600; 429600, 3795500; 429300, 3795500;
429300, 3795600; 429000, 3795600; 429000, 3795700; 428700, 3795700;
428700, 3795800; 428600, 3795800; 428600, 3795700; 428300, 3795700;
428300, 3795800; 428000, 3795800; 428000, 3796100; 428700, 3796100;
428700, 3796000; 428900, 3796000; 428900, 3795900; 429400, 3795900;
429400, 3795800; 429800, 3795800; 429800, 3796000; 429700, 3796000;
429700, 3796400; 429600, 3796400; 429600, 3796600; 429500, 3796600;
429500, 3796800; 429400, 3796800; 429400, 3797200; 429300, 3797200;
429300, 3797300; 429200, 3797300; 429200, 3798000; 429000, 3798000;
429000, 3798300; 429100, 3798300; returning to 429100, 3798400.
(B) Map depicting subunit 1F is located at paragraph (5)(vi)(B) of
this entry.
(vi) Subunit 1G: Bear Creek, Angeles National Forest, Los Angeles
County, California.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N):
417500, 3797700; 417800, 3797700; 417800, 3797500; 417900, 3797500;
417900, 3797300; 418000, 3797300; 418000, 3796800; 417900, 3796800;
417900, 3796700; 418000, 3796700; 418000, 3796600; 418200, 3796600;
418200, 3796500; 418300, 3796500; 418300, 3796300; 417900, 3796300;
417900, 3796400; 417800, 3796400; 417800, 3796500; 417700, 3796500;
417700, 3797200; 417600, 3797200; 417600, 3797500; 417500, 3797500;
returning to 417500, 3797700.
(B) Map of Unit 1, with subunits 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1F, and 1G (Map
2), follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 54377]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14SE06.001
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 54378]]
(vii) Subunit 1E: Day Canyon, San Bernardino National Forest, San
Bernardino County, California.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N):
446400, 3786900; 446700, 3786900; 446700, 3786800; 446900, 3786800;
446900, 3786700; 447100, 3786700; 447100, 3786600; 447200, 3786600;
447200, 3786500; 447300, 3786500; 447300, 3786400; 447400, 3786400;
447400, 3786200; 447500, 3786200; 447500, 3786100; 447600, 3786100;
447600, 3786000; 447700, 3786000; 447700, 3785900; 447900, 3785900;
447900, 3785800; 448100, 3785800; 448100, 3785700; 448400, 3785700;
448400, 3785600; 448600, 3785600; 448600, 3785500; 448800, 3785500;
448800, 3785400; 448900, 3785400; 448900, 3785000; 449000, 3785000;
449000, 3784900; 449200, 3784900; 449200, 3784800; 449300, 3784800;
449300, 3784600; 449400, 3784600; 449400, 3784300; 449500, 3784300;
449500, 3784400; 449700, 3784400; 449700, 3785100; 449800, 3785100;
449800, 3785800; 450000, 3785800; 450000, 3784800; 449900, 3784800;
449900, 3784700; 450000, 3784700; 450000, 3784500; 449900, 3784500;
449900, 3783800; 450000, 3783800; 450000, 3783700; 450300, 3783700;
450300, 3783800; 450400, 3783800; 450400, 3783900; 450500, 3783900;
450500, 3784700; 450600, 3784700; 450600, 3784800; 450700, 3784800;
450700, 3784900; 450800, 3784900; 450800, 3785100; 450900, 3785100;
450900, 3785200; 451000, 3785200; 451000, 3785100; 451100, 3785100;
451100, 3784800; 451000, 3784800; 451000, 3784700; 450900, 3784700;
450900, 3784600; 450800, 3784600; 450800, 3783900; 450700, 3783900;
450700, 3783700; 450600, 3783700; 450600, 3783600; 450500, 3783600;
450500, 3783500; 450300, 3783500; 450300, 3783100; 450400, 3783100;
450400, 3783000; 450500, 3783000; 450500, 3782800; 450200, 3782800;
450200, 3782900; 450100, 3782900; 450100, 3783100; 450000, 3783100;
450000, 3783200; 449900, 3783200; 449900, 3783500; 449800, 3783500;
449800, 3783600; 449700, 3783600; 449700, 3783700; 449600, 3783700;
449600, 3783900; 449700, 3783900; 449700, 3784100; 449200, 3784100;
449200, 3784300; 449100, 3784300; 449100, 3784600; 449000, 3784600;
449000, 3784700; 448800, 3784700; 448800, 3784800; 448700, 3784800;
448700, 3785200; 448600, 3785200; 448600, 3785300; 448400, 3785300;
448400, 3785400; 448300, 3785400; 448300, 3785500; 447900, 3785500;
447900, 3785600; 447800, 3785600; 447800, 3785700; 447500, 3785700;
447500, 3785800; 447400, 3785800; 447400, 3785900; 447300, 3785900;
447300, 3786000; 447200, 3786000; 447200, 3786200; 447100, 3786200;
447100, 3786300; 447000, 3786300; 447000, 3786400; 446900, 3786400;
446900, 3786500; 446700, 3786500; 446700, 3786600; 446500, 3786600;
446500, 3786700; 446400, 3786700; returning to 446400, 3786900.
(B) Map of subunit 1E (Map 3) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 54379]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14SE06.002
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 54380]]
(6) Unit 2: San Bernardino Mountains, San Bernardino National
Forest, San Bernardino County, California. From USGS 1:24,000
quadrangle maps Big Bear Lake, Catclaw Flat and Harrison Mountain,
California.
(i) Subunit 2A: City Creek, East and West Forks, San Bernardino
National Forest, San Bernardino County, California.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N):
483800, 3785100; 483900, 3785100; 483900, 3785200; 484000, 3785200;
484000, 3785400; 484100, 3785400; 484100, 3785600; 484200, 3785600;
484200, 3785700; 484300, 3785700; 484300, 3785800; 484400, 3785800;
484400, 3785900; 484600, 3785900; 484600, 3785600; 484500, 3785600;
484500, 3785500; 484400, 3785500; 484400, 3785400; 484300, 3785400;
484300, 3785200; 484200, 3785200; 484200, 3785000; 484100, 3785000;
484100, 3784900; 484000, 3784900; 484000, 3784800; 483900, 3784800;
483900, 3784700; 483800, 3784700; 483800, 3784400; 483900, 3784400;
483900, 3784000; 483700, 3784000; 483700, 3783900; 483900, 3783900;
483900, 3783800; 484000, 3783800; 484000, 3783400; 483900, 3783400;
483900, 3783300; 483700, 3783300; 483700, 3782900; 483900, 3782900;
483900, 3783100; 484000, 3783100; 484000, 3783200; 484300, 3783200;
484300, 3783100; 484400, 3783100; 484400, 3783400; 484500, 3783400;
484500, 3783500; 484400, 3783500; 484400, 3783900; 484500, 3783900;
484500, 3784000; 484700, 3784000; 484700, 3784100; 484800, 3784100;
484800, 3784700; 484900, 3784700; 484900, 3785000; 485000, 3785000;
485000, 3785200; 485100, 3785200; 485100, 3785300; 485200, 3785300;
485200, 3785400; 485400, 3785400; 485400, 3785800; 485700, 3785800;
485700, 3785700; 485800, 3785700; 485800, 3785600; 485600, 3785600;
485600, 3785200; 485400, 3785200; 485400, 3785100; 485300, 3785100;
485300, 3785000; 485200, 3785000; 485200, 3784600; 485100, 3784600;
485100, 3784200; 485000, 3784200; 485000, 3783900; 484900, 3783900;
484900, 3783800; 484700, 3783800; 484700, 3783300; 484800, 3783300;
484800, 3783100; 484700, 3783100; 484700, 3783000; 484600, 3783000;
484600, 3782900; 484500, 3782900; 484500, 3782800; 484200, 3782800;
484200, 3782900; 484100, 3782900; 484100, 3782700; 483900, 3782700;
483900, 3782600; 483800, 3782600; 483800, 3782400; 483700, 3782400;
483700, 3782200; 484000, 3782200; 484000, 3782000; 484400, 3782000;
484400, 3782100; 484700, 3782100; 484700, 3782000; 485000, 3782000;
485000, 3781900; 485200, 3781900; 485200, 3781800; 485400, 3781800;
485400, 3781700; 485200, 3781700; 485200, 3781600; 485000, 3781600;
485000, 3781700; 484800, 3781700; 484800, 3781800; 484300, 3781800;
484300, 3781700; 483900, 3781700; 483900, 3781800; 483800, 3781800;
483800, 3782000; 483600, 3782000; 483600, 3781800; 483400, 3781800;
483400, 3781200; 483600, 3781200; 483600, 3780900; 483500, 3780900;
483500, 3780500; 484200, 3780500; 484200, 3780600; 484300, 3780600;
484300, 3780500; 484800, 3780500; 484800, 3780400; 484900, 3780400;
484900, 3780300; 485000, 3780300; 485000, 3780100; 484700, 3780100;
484700, 3780200; 484600, 3780200; 484600, 3780300; 483700, 3780300;
483700, 3780200; 483500, 3780200; 483500, 3780100; 483400, 3780100;
483400, 3780000; 483300, 3780000; 483300, 3779900; 483400, 3779900;
483400, 3779500; 483300, 3779500; 483300, 3779000; 483100, 3779000;
483100, 3778800; 482800, 3778800; 482800, 3778900; 482700, 3778900;
482700, 3779000; 482900, 3779000; 482900, 3779200; 483100, 3779200;
483100, 3779300; 483000, 3779300; 483000, 3779700; 483100, 3779700;
483100, 3780100; 483200, 3780100; 483200, 3780300; 483300, 3780300;
483300, 3780400; 483200, 3780400; 483200, 3780700; 483300, 3780700;
483300, 3781100; 482900, 3781100; 482900, 3781200; 482800, 3781200;
482800, 3781800; 482700, 3781800; 482700, 3781900; 482800, 3781900;
482800, 3782600; 482900, 3782600; 482900, 3782800; 483000, 3782800;
483000, 3782900; 483100, 3782900; 483100, 3783000; 483000, 3783000;
483000, 3783100; 482900, 3783100; 482900, 3783200; 482300, 3783200;
482300, 3783500; 482600, 3783500; 482600, 3783600; 482700, 3783600;
482700, 3783500; 483000, 3783500; 483000, 3783400; 483100, 3783400;
483100, 3783300; 483300, 3783300; 483300, 3783200; 483500, 3783200;
483500, 3783500; 483700, 3783500; 483700, 3783700; 483300, 3783700;
483300, 3784100; 483100, 3784100; 483100, 3784400; 483300, 3784400;
483300, 3784300; 483500, 3784300; 483500, 3784200; 483600, 3784200;
483600, 3784400; 483500, 3784400; 483500, 3784700; 483400, 3784700;
483400, 3784900; 483500, 3784900; 483500, 3785100; 483600, 3785100;
483600, 3785300; 483800, 3785300; returning to 483800, 3785100;
excluding land bounded by 483700, 3785100; 483800, 3785100; 483800,
3785000; 483700, 3785000; 483700, 3785100; land bounded by 483100,
3782700; 483600, 3782700; 483600, 3782600; 483500, 3782600; 483500,
3782500; 483400, 3782500; 483400, 3782400; 483300, 3782400; 483300,
3782300; 483200, 3782300; 483200, 3782100; 483100, 3782100; 483100,
3782700; and land bounded by 483000, 3781800; 483100, 3781800; 483100,
3781500; 483000, 3781500; 483000, 3781800.
(B) Map of subunit 2A (Map 4) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 54381]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14SE06.003
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 54382]]
(ii) Subunit 2B: Barton Creek, East Fork, San Bernardino National
Forest, San Bernardino County, California.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N):
510000, 3781300; 510100, 3781300; 510100, 3781200; 510200, 3781200;
510200, 3781100; 510400, 3781100; 510400, 3780700; 510500, 3780700;
510500, 3780400; 510600, 3780400; 510600, 3780200; 510500, 3780200;
510500, 3780100; 510600, 3780100; 510600, 3779800; 510700, 3779800;
510700, 3779600; 510800, 3779600; 510800, 3779400; 510700, 3779400;
510700, 3779300; 510800, 3779300; 510800, 3779000; 510900, 3779000;
510900, 3778500; 510600, 3778500; 510600, 3779100; 510500, 3779100;
510500, 3779600; 510400, 3779600; 510400, 3779900; 510300, 3779900;
510300, 3780400; 510200, 3780400; 510200, 3780700; 510100, 3780700;
510100, 3781000; 510000, 3781000; returning to 510000, 3781300.
(B) Map depicting subunit 2B is located at paragraph (6)(iii)(B) of
this entry.
(iii) Subunit 2C: Whitewater River, North Fork, San Bernardino
National Forest, San Bernardino County, California.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N):
523300, 3769200; 523400, 3769200; 523400, 3769100; 523600, 3769100;
523600, 3769000; 523800, 3769000; 523800, 3768900; 523900, 3768900;
523900, 3768800; 524200, 3768800; 524200, 3768500; 523900, 3768500;
523900, 3768600; 523700, 3768600; 523700, 3768700; 523600, 3768700;
523600, 3768800; 523400, 3768800; 523400, 3768900; 523200, 3768900;
523200, 3769100; 523300, 3769100; returning to 523300, 3769200.
(B) Map of subunits 2B and 2C (Map 5) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 54383]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14SE06.004
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 54384]]
(7) Unit 3: San Jacinto Mountains, San Bernardino National Forest,
Riverside County, California. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Lake
Fulmor, Palm Springs and San Jacinto Peak, California
(i) Subunit 3A: San Jacinto River, North Fork, San Bernardino
National Forest, Riverside County, California.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N):
526400, 3743000; 526600, 3743000; 526600, 3742700; 526400, 3742700;
526400, 3742600; 526300, 3742600; 526300, 3742500; 526200, 3742500;
526200, 3742400; 526600, 3742400; 526600, 3742300; 526900, 3742300;
526900, 3742200; 527000, 3742200; 527000, 3742000; 526800, 3742000;
526800, 3742100; 526300, 3742100; 526300, 3742200; 526100, 3742200;
526100, 3742800; 526200, 3742800; 526200, 3742900; 526400, 3742900;
returning to 526400, 3743000; land bounded by: 525000, 3742100; 525200,
3742100; 525200, 3742000; 525400, 3742000; 525400, 3741900; 525300,
3741900; 525300, 3741800; 525100, 3741800; 525100, 3741700; 525000,
3741700; 525000, 3741600; 524900, 3741600; 524900, 3741800; 524800,
3741800; 524800, 3741900; 524900, 3741900; 524900, 3742000; 525000,
3742000; returning to 525000, 3742100; land bounded by: 522600,
3741900; 522800, 3741900; 522800, 3741800; 522900, 3741800; 522900,
3741600; 522800, 3741600; 522800, 3741400; 522600, 3741400; 522600,
3741300; 522500, 3741300; 522500, 3741200; 522400, 3741200; 522400,
3741100; 522300, 3741100; 522300, 3740700; 522200, 3740700; 522200,
3740500; 522100, 3740500; 522100, 3740000; 522000, 3740000; 522000,
3739500; 521900, 3739500; 521900, 3739200; 521800, 3739200; 521800,
3739000; 522000, 3739000; 522000, 3739100; 522600, 3739100; 522600,
3739200; 523000, 3739200; 523000, 3739300; 523100, 3739300; 523100,
3739400; 523200, 3739400; 523200, 3739000; 522900, 3739000; 522900,
3738900; 522600, 3738900; 522600, 3738800; 521800, 3738800; 521800,
3738700; 521700, 3738700; 521700, 3738600; 521400, 3738600; 521400,
3738800; 521500, 3738800; 521500, 3738900; 521600, 3738900; 521600,
3739500; 521700, 3739500; 521700, 3739700; 521800, 3739700; 521800,
3740300; 521900, 3740300; 521900, 3740700; 522000, 3740700; 522000,
3740900; 522100, 3740900; 522100, 3741300; 522200, 3741300; 522200,
3741400; 522400, 3741400; 522400, 3741600; 522600, 3741600; returning
to 522600, 3741900; land bounded by: 525800, 3741200; 525900, 3741200;
525900, 3740900; 525800, 3740900; 525800, 3740800; 525600, 3740800;
525600, 3740700; 525500, 3740700; 525500, 3740600; 525400, 3740600;
525400, 3740400; 525300, 3740400; 525300, 3740300; 525200, 3740300;
525200, 3740200; 525100, 3740200; 525100, 3740100; 525000, 3740100;
525000, 3740000; 525600, 3740000; 525600, 3740100; 525800, 3740100;
525800, 3740000; 525900, 3740000; 525900, 3739700; 525800, 3739700;
525800, 3739800; 525500, 3739800; 525500, 3739700; 525700, 3739700;
525700, 3739600; 525800, 3739600; 525800, 3739500; 525900, 3739500;
525900, 3739400; 526000, 3739400; 526000, 3739000; 525900, 3739000;
525900, 3739100; 525800, 3739100; 525800, 3739200; 525700, 3739200;
525700, 3739300; 525600, 3739300; 525600, 3739400; 525100, 3739400;
525100, 3739500; 524800, 3739500; 524800, 3739600; 524600, 3739600;
524600, 3739500; 524500, 3739500; 524500, 3739400; 524200, 3739400;
524200, 3739300; 524100, 3739300; 524100, 3739600; 524200, 3739600;
524200, 3739700; 524400, 3739700; 524400, 3739800; 524500, 3739800;
524500, 3740000; 524600, 3740000; 524600, 3740100; 524700, 3740100;
524700, 3740200; 524800, 3740200; 524800, 3740300; 524900, 3740300;
524900, 3740400; 525000, 3740400; 525000, 3740500; 525100, 3740500;
525100, 3740600; 525200, 3740600; 525200, 3740700; 525300, 3740700;
525300, 3740800; 525400, 3740800; 525400, 3740900; 525500, 3740900;
525500, 3741000; 525600, 3741000; 525600, 3741100; 525800, 3741100;
returning to 525800, 3741200; and land bounded by 523900, 3741000;
524200, 3741000; 524200, 3740800; 524100, 3740800; 524100, 3740700;
524000, 3740700; 524000, 3740600; 523900, 3740600; 523900, 3740500;
523800, 3740500; 523800, 3740400; 523600, 3740400; 523600, 3740300;
523500, 3740300; 523500, 3740100; 523400, 3740100; 523400, 3739500;
523200, 3739500; 523200, 3739600; 523100, 3739600; 523100, 3740000;
523200, 3740000; 523200, 3740300; 523300, 3740300; 523300, 3740500;
523400, 3740500; 523400, 3740600; 523600, 3740600; 523600, 3740700;
523800, 3740700; 523800, 3740900; 523900, 3740900; returning to 523900,
3741000.
(B) Map depicting subunit 3A is located at paragraph (7)(iv)(B) of
this entry.
(ii) Subunit 3B: Indian Creek at Hall Canyon, San Bernardino
National Forest, Riverside County, California.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N):
521600, 3742800; 521800, 3742800; 521800, 3742500; 521700, 3742500;
521700, 3741700; 521600, 3741700; 521600, 3741500; 521500, 3741500;
521500, 3741400; 521400, 3741400; 521400, 3741200; 521300, 3741200;
521300, 3741100; 520900, 3741100; 520900, 3741200; 521000, 3741200;
521000, 3741300; 521100, 3741300; 521100, 3741400; 521200, 3741400;
521200, 3741600; 521300, 3741600; 521300, 3741700; 521400, 3741700;
521400, 3742300; 521500, 3742300; 521500, 3742700; 521600, 3742700;
returning to 521600, 3742800.
(B) Map depicting subunit 3B is located at paragraph (7)(iv)(B) of
this entry.
(iii) Subunit 3C: Tahquitz Creek, San Bernardino National Forest,
Riverside County, California.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N):
529600, 3739000; 529900, 3739000; 529900, 3738900; 531000, 3738900;
531000, 3738800; 531100, 3738800; 531100, 3738700; 531200, 3738700;
531200, 3738600; 531300, 3738600; 531300, 3738500; 531400, 3738500;
531400, 3738400; 531500, 3738400; 531500, 3738200; 531200, 3738200;
531200, 3738300; 531100, 3738300; 531100, 3738400; 531000, 3738400;
531000, 3738500; 530900, 3738500; 530900, 3738600; 530200, 3738600;
530200, 3738700; 529600, 3738700; returning to 529600, 3739000; and
land bounded by 532100, 3737000; 532400, 3737000; 532400, 3736900;
532600, 3736900; 532600, 3736600; 532300, 3736600; 532300, 3736700;
532200, 3736700; 532200, 3736500; 531800, 3736500; 531800, 3736300;
531700, 3736300; 531700, 3736200; 531600, 3736200; 531600, 3736100;
531500, 3736100; 531500, 3736000; 531400, 3736000; 531400, 3735700;
531300, 3735700; 531300, 3735500; 531200, 3735500; 531200, 3735300;
531100, 3735300; 531100, 3735100; 531000, 3735100; 531000, 3735000;
530900, 3735000; 530900, 3734900; 530600, 3734900; 530600, 3735200;
530800, 3735200; 530800, 3735300; 530900, 3735300; 530900, 3735500;
531000, 3735500; 531000, 3735800; 531100, 3735800; 531100, 3735900;
531200, 3735900; 531200, 3736200; 531300, 3736200; 531300, 3736300;
531400, 3736300; 531400, 3736400; 531500, 3736400; 531500, 3736600;
531600, 3736600; 531600, 3736700; 531700, 3736700; 531700, 3736800;
532000, 3736800; 532000, 3736900; 532100, 3736900; returning to 532100,
3737000.
(B) Map depicting subunit 3C is located at paragraph (7)(iv)(B) of
this entry.
(iv) Subunit 3D: Andreas Creek, San Bernardino National Forest,
Riverside County, California.
[[Page 54385]]
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N):
534300, 3735900; 534700, 3735900; 534700, 3735800; 535000, 3735800;
535000, 3735700; 535100, 3735700; 535100, 3735600; 535300, 3735600;
535300, 3735500; 535400, 3735500; 535400, 3735400; 535500, 3735400;
535500, 3735300; 535700, 3735300; 535700, 3735000; 535500, 3735000;
535500, 3735100; 535300, 3735100; 535300, 3735200; 535200, 3735200;
535200, 3735300; 535100, 3735300; 535100, 3735400; 534900, 3735400;
534900, 3735500; 534800, 3735500; 534800, 3735600; 534300, 3735600;
returning to 534300, 3735900.
(B) Map of Unit 3, with Subunits 3A, 3B, 3C, and 3D (Map 6),
follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 54386]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14SE06.005
* * * * *
Dated: September 1, 2006.
David M. Verhey,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 06-7578 Filed 9-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C