54344 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 courtordered 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. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 yellowlegged 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 yellowlegged 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
54346 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 yellowlegged 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 yellowlegged frog habitat use and movement 

during specific breeding, feeding, and 

overwintering periods, including offstream 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 YellowLegged 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 yellowlegged 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 yellowlegged frogs may utilize to our 

description of PCE 1. For more 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
54348 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 nonFederal 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 yellowlegged 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 yellowlegged 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 yellowlegged 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 coextensive 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-yellowlegged 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 yellowlegged 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
54350 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 yellowlegged 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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), twostriped 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 yellowlegged 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 yellowlegged 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 yellowlegged 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 yellowlegged 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 hardwoodconifer, 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
54352 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

be occupied by the mountain yellowlegged 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 reintroduction 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 yellowlegged 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 abovementioned 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 fastflowing 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 CaliforniaBerkeley, 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 yellowlegged 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 yellowlegged 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 yellowlegged 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
54354 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 yellowlegged 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 yellowlegged 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 yellowlegged 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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) 

Subunit Critical habitat subunit name Definitional area 

ac (ha) 

Excluded area 

ac (ha) 

Total 

ac (ha) 

Unit 1: SAN GABRIEL MOUNTAINS UNIT 

1A ............................. San Gabriel River, East Fork a .................... 2,474 ac (1,001 ha) .... ..................................... 2,474 ac (1,001 ha). 

1B ............................. Big Rock Creek, South Fork a ..................... 625 ac (253 ha) .......... ..................................... 625 ac (253 ha). 

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 Fork, Iron Fork b ... 373 ac (151 ha) ........... ..................................... 373 ac (151 ha). 

1G ............................. Bear Creek b ................................................ 116 ac (47 ha) ............ ..................................... 116 ac (47 ha). 

Unit 2: SAN BERNARDINO MOUNTAINS UNIT 

2A ............................. City Creek, East and West Forks b ............. 1,386 ac (561 ha) ....... ..................................... 1,386 ac (561 ha). 

2B ............................. Barton Creek, East Fork b ........................... 193 ac (78 ha) ............ ..................................... 193 ac (78 ha). 

2C ............................. Whitewater River, North Fork b .................... 74 ac (30 ha) .............. ..................................... 74 ac (30 ha). 

Unit 3: SAN JACINTO MOUNTAINS UNIT 

3A ............................. San Jacinto River, North Fork a ................... 1,352 ac (547 ha) ....... 433 ac (175 ha) .......... 919 ac (372 ha). 

3B ............................. Indian Creek at Hall Canyon b ..................... 180 ac (73 ha) ............ 54 ac (22 ha) .............. 126 ac (51 ha). 

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). 

aOccupied 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

Subunit Critical habitat subunit name Federal 

ac (ha) 

State 

ac (ha) 

Private 

ac (ha) 

Total 

ac (ha) 

Unit 1: SAN GABRIEL MOUNTAINS UNIT 

1A ................. San Gabriel River, East Fork ................ 2,474 ac (1,001 ha) ................................ ................................ 2,474 ac (1,001 

ha). 

1B ................. Big Rock Creek, South Fork ................. 625 ac (253 ha) ..... ................................ ................................ 625 ac (253 ha). 

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, East Fork, Iron Fork 373 ac (151 ha) ..... ................................ ................................ 373 ac (151 ha). 

1G ................. Bear Creek ............................................ 116 ac (47 ha) ....... ................................ ................................ 116 ac (47 ha). 

Unit 2: SAN BERNARDINO MOUNTAINS UNIT 

2A ................. City Creek, East and West Fork ........... 1267 ac (513 ha) ... ................................ 119 ac (48 ha) ....... 1,386 ac (561 ha). 

2B ................. Barton Creek, East Fork ....................... 193 ac (78 ha) ....... ................................ ................................ 193 ac (78 ha). 

2C ................. Whitewater River, North Fork ............... 74 ac (30 ha) ......... ................................ ................................ 74 ac (30 ha). 

Unit 3: SAN JACINTO MOUNTAINS UNIT 

3A ................. San Jacinto River, North Fork .............. 823 ac (333 ha) ..... 96 ac (39 ha) ......... ................................ 919 ac (372 ha). 

3B ................. Indian Creek at Hall Canyon ................. 126 ac (51 ha) ....... ................................ ................................ 126 ac (51 ha). 

3C ................. Tahquitz Creek ...................................... 243 ac (98 ha) ....... 115 ac (47 ha) ....... ................................ 358 ac (145 ha). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
54356 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2.—APPROXIMATE AREA IN ACRES (AC) AND HECTARES (HA) FOR EACH CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT DESIGNATED FOR

THE MOUNTAIN YELLOW-LEGGED FROG BY LANDOWNERSHIP—Continued 

Subunit Critical habitat subunit name Federal 

ac (ha) 

State 

ac (ha) 

Private 

ac (ha) 

Total 

ac (ha) 

3D ................. Andreas Creek ...................................... 109 ac (44 ha) ....... ................................ ................................ 109 ac (44 ha). 

Total ...... ................................................................ 7,952 ac (3,218 ha) 211 ac (86 ha) ....... 119 ac (48 ha) ....... 8,283 ac (3,352 

ha). 

(1) The range of the mountain yellowlegged 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 reintroduction 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 westernmost 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 yellowlegged 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 yellowlegged 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 nonnative 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 yellowlegged 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 yellowlegged 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 nonnative 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 yellowlegged 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
54358 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 nonnative 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 yellowlegged 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 yellowlegged 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 yellowlegged frog because it is relatively close 

to an extant population in Devil’s 

Canyon (Subunit 1D) and contains the 

following features essential to the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 54359 

conservation of the mountain yellowlegged 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 nonnative 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 yellowlegged 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 yellowlegged 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
54360 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 yellowlegged frog because it contains the 

following features essential to the 

conservation of the mountain yellowlegged 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 nonFederal 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 yellowlegged 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 yellowlegged 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 yellowlegged 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 yellowlegged 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 yellowlegged 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
54362 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 yellowlegged 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 yellowlegged 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 yellowlegged 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
54364 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 NonFederal 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 wellintentioned and required by law, can 

(under certain circumstances) have 

unintended negative consequences for 

the conservation of species on private 

lands (Wilcove et al. 1996; 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 cooperativeconservation 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 nonFederal 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 nonFederal 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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, multijurisdictional 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 yellowlegged 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 YellowLegged 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
54366 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 yellowlegged 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 nonFederal 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 yellowlegged 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 yellowlegged 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 yellowlegged 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 upperbound 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
54368 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 WildlifeAssociated 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 pertrip 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. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
54370 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 nonFederal entities who receive Federal 

funding, assistance, permits or 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action may be indirectly impacted by 

the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply; nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above 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 yellowlegged 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 yellowlegged 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 yellowlegged 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 

■ 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] 

■ 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. 

■ 2. In § 17.11(h), revise the entry for 

‘‘Frog, mountain yellow-legged 

(southern California DPS)’’ under 

‘‘AMPHIBIANS’’ to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate population 

where endangered or 

threatened 

Status When 

listed 

Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rule Common name Scientific name 

* * * * * * * 

AMPHIBIANS

* * * * * * * 

Frog, mountain yellowlegged (southern 

California DPS).

Rana muscosa .......... U.S.A. (California, 

Nevada).

U.S.A., southern California.E 728 17.95(d) NA 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. In § 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: 

§ 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
54372 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 yellowlegged frog (Map 1) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 54373 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3ER14SE06.000</GPH>
54374 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(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, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
54376 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 54377 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3ER14SE06.001</GPH>
54378 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 54379 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3ER14SE06.002</GPH>
54380 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 54381 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3ER14SE06.003</GPH>
54382 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 54383 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3ER14SE06.004</GPH>
54384 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(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. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
54386 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 178 / Thursday, September 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3ER14SE06.005</GPH>