[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 178 (Thursday, September 14, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54344-54386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7578]



[[Page 54343]]

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

Part II





 Department of the Interior





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



 Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical 
Habitat for the Southern California Distinct Population Segment of the 
Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana muscosa); Final Rule

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

[[Page 54344]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AU30


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for the Southern California Distinct Population 
Segment of the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana muscosa)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are 
designating critical habitat for the southern California distinct 
population segment of the mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa) 
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In 
total, approximately 8,283 acres (ac) (3,352 hectares (ha)) fall within 
the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The critical 
habitat is located in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside 
Counties, California.

DATES: This rule becomes effective on October 16, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation used in the preparation of this final rule, will be 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours, at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley 
Road, Carlsbad, California 92011 (telephone 760/431-9440). The final 
rule, economic analysis, and maps are available via the Internet at 
http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad 
Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California 
92011, (telephone 760/431-9440; facsimile 760/431-9624).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Role of Critical Habitat in Actual Practice of Administering and 
Implementing the Act

    Attention to and protection of habitat is paramount to successful 
conservation actions. The role that designation of critical habitat 
plays in protecting habitat of listed species, however, is often 
misunderstood. As discussed in more detail below in the discussion of 
exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1513 et seq.), 
there are significant limitations on the regulatory effect of 
designation under ESA section 7(a)(2) of the Act. In brief, (1) 
Designation provides additional protection to habitat only where there 
is a federal nexus; (2) the protection is relevant only when, in the 
absence of designation, destruction or adverse modification of the 
critical habitat would in fact take place (in other words, other 
statutory or regulatory protections, policies, or other factors 
relevant to agency decision-making would not prevent the destruction or 
adverse modification); and (3) designation of critical habitat triggers 
the prohibition of destruction or adverse modification of that habitat, 
but it does not require specific actions to restore or improve habitat.
    Currently, 475 species, or 36 percent of the 1,310 listed species 
in the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the Service, have designated 
critical habitat. We address the habitat needs of all 1,310 listed 
species through conservation mechanisms such as listing, section 7 
consultations, the section 4 recovery planning process, the section 9 
protective prohibitions of unauthorized take, section 6 funding to the 
States, the section 10 incidental take permit process, and cooperative, 
nonregulatory efforts with private landowners. We believe that it is 
these measures that may make the difference between extinction and 
survival for many species.
    In considering exclusions of areas originally proposed for 
designation, we evaluated the benefits of designation in light of 
Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 
In that case, the Ninth Circuit invalidated the Service's regulation 
defining ``destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.'' 
In response, on December 9, 2004, the Director issued guidance to be 
considered in making section 7 adverse modification determinations. 
This critical habitat designation does not use the invalidated 
regulation in our consideration of the benefits of including areas in 
this final designation. The Service will carefully manage future 
consultations that analyze impacts to designated critical habitat, 
particularly those that appear to be resulting in an adverse 
modification determination. Such consultations will be reviewed by the 
Regional Office prior to finalizing to ensure that an adequate analysis 
has been conducted that is informed by the Director's guidance.
    On the other hand, to the extent that designation of critical 
habitat provides protection, that protection can come at significant 
social and economic cost. In addition, the mere administrative process 
of designation of critical habitat is expensive, time-consuming, and 
controversial. The current statutory framework of critical habitat, 
combined with past judicial interpretations of the statute, make 
critical habitat the subject of excessive litigation. As a result, 
critical habitat designations are driven by litigation and courts 
rather than biology, and made at a time and under a time frame that 
limits our ability to obtain and evaluate the scientific and other 
information required to make the designation most meaningful.
    In light of these circumstances, the Service believes that 
additional agency discretion would allow our focus to return to those 
actions that provide the greatest benefit to the species most in need 
of protection.

Procedural and Resource Difficulties in Designating Critical Habitat

    We have been inundated with lawsuits for our failure to designate 
critical habitat, and we face a growing number of lawsuits challenging 
critical habitat determinations once they are made. These lawsuits have 
subjected the Service to an ever-increasing series of court orders and 
court-approved settlement agreements, compliance with which now 
consumes nearly the entire listing program budget. This leaves the 
Service with little ability to prioritize its activities to direct 
scarce listing resources to the listing program actions with the most 
biologically urgent species conservation needs.
    The consequence of the critical habitat litigation activity is that 
limited listing funds are used to defend active lawsuits, to respond to 
Notices of Intent (NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, and to 
comply with the growing number of adverse court orders. As a result, 
listing petition responses, the Service's own proposals to list 
critically imperiled species, and final listing determinations on 
existing proposals are all significantly delayed.
    The accelerated schedules of court-ordered designations have left 
the Service with limited ability to provide for public participation or 
to ensure a defect-free rulemaking process before making decisions on 
listing and critical habitat proposals, due to the risks associated 
with noncompliance with judicially imposed deadlines. This in turn 
fosters a second round of litigation in which those who fear adverse 
impacts from critical habitat designations challenge those 
designations. The cycle of litigation appears endless, and is very 
expensive, thus diverting resources from conservation actions that may 
provide relatively more benefit to imperiled species.

[[Page 54345]]

    The costs resulting from the designation include legal costs, the 
cost of preparation and publication of the designation, the analysis of 
the economic effects and the cost of requesting and responding to 
public comment, and in some cases the costs of compliance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 
These costs, which are not required for many other conservation 
actions, directly reduce the funds available for direct and tangible 
conservation actions.

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the designation of critical habitat in this rule. For more information 
on the southern California distinct population segment (DPS) of the 
mountain yellow-legged frog, hereafter referred to as the mountain 
yellow-legged frog, refer to the final listing rule published in the 
Federal Register on July 2, 2002 (67 FR 44382) and the proposed 
critical habitat designation published in the Federal Register on 
September 13, 2005 (70 FR 54106).

Previous Federal Actions

    Previous Federal actions for the mountain yellow-legged frog can be 
found in our proposal to designate critical habitat for the mountain 
yellow-legged frog published in the Federal Register on September 13, 
2005 (70 FR 54106). That information is incorporated by reference into 
this final rule.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We requested written comments from the public on the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog in 
the proposed rule published on September 13, 2005 (70 FR 54106). We 
also requested written comments from the public on the draft economic 
analysis (DEA) of the proposed designation in a notice of availability 
published on July 3, 2006 (71 FR 37881). We contacted appropriate 
Federal, State, and local agencies; scientific organizations; and other 
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposed rule and 
the DEA.
    During the comment period that opened on September 13, 2005, and 
closed on November 14, 2005, we received 11 comments directly 
addressing the proposed critical habitat designation. Of these 
comments, five were from peer reviewers, two from Federal agencies, and 
four from organizations or individuals. During the comment period that 
opened on July 3, 2006, and closed on July 24, 2006, we received no 
comments directly addressing the proposed critical habitat designation 
and one comment directly addressing the DEA. Of all comments received 
during both comment periods, five commenters supported the designation 
of critical habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog and two opposed 
the designation. Five letters included comments or information, but did 
not express support or opposition to the proposed critical habitat 
designation. Comments received were grouped into two general issues 
specifically relating to the proposed critical habitat designation for 
the mountain yellow-legged frog and are addressed in the following 
summary and/or incorporated into the final rule as appropriate. We did 
not receive any requests for a public hearing.
    We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers and the 
public for substantive issues and new information regarding critical 
habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog, and we address them in the 
following summary.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34270), we solicited expert opinions from five knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with 
the species, the geographic region in which the species occurs, and 
conservation biology principles. We received responses from all five 
peer reviewers. The peer reviewers generally agreed with our methods 
and conclusions and provided additional information, clarifications, 
and suggestions to improve the final critical habitat rule. Four of the 
five reviewers supported the designation and emphasized the importance 
of including unoccupied areas. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in 
the following summary and incorporated into the final rule as 
appropriate.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    (1) Comment: Several peer reviewers supported our proposed 
designation. In addition, several of the peer reviewers strongly 
supported our inclusion of unoccupied areas and encouraged inclusion of 
additional unoccupied areas due to the small number of sites that 
support known populations, the presence of suitable habitat in 
unoccupied sites with historical occurrence records, and the 
uncertainty in determining streams as unoccupied because of the 
difficulty in detecting this cryptic species.
    Our Response: We appreciate the peer reviewers' comments and 
concerns for including unoccupied areas. We believe that designating 
critical habitat in streams not known to be currently occupied, but 
historically occupied, will assist in the conservation of the mountain 
yellow-legged frog by identifying possible reintroduction sites or 
facilitating natural recovery by expansion of very small populations. 
The peer reviewers did not provide us with site-specific information on 
other areas that should also be included in the critical habitat 
designation, and we did not include additional unoccupied habitat in 
the final designation.
    (2) Comment: One peer reviewer cited new information from the 2005 
mountain yellow-legged frog survey efforts conducted by the United 
States Geological Survey (USGS). The peer reviewer reported the 
rediscovery of mountain yellow-legged frog metamorphs in East Fork of 
City Creek in the San Bernardino Mountains in September of 2005. This 
rediscovery was surprising since all of the surviving frogs were 
thought to have been collected and moved to a captive-rearing facility 
after the 2003 fire and flood events. The peer reviewer also reported 
the rediscovery of young tadpoles in Dark Canyon in the San Jacinto 
Mountains in August of 2005 after more than five years of survey 
efforts that did not detect this species. The peer reviewer also stated 
that no mountain yellow-legged frogs were detected in Bear Gulch in the 
San Gabriel Mountains during three survey efforts in 2005, despite this 
population being one of the two largest remaining populations in 
southern California as of 2003.
    Our Response: The recent rediscovery of mountain yellow-legged 
frogs in City Creek and in Dark Canyon highlights the difficulty in 
detecting this species and highlights the uncertainty in determining 
whether a stream is truly unoccupied by mountain yellow-legged frogs 
after negative survey efforts, especially when these streams were 
recently known to be occupied. For this reason, we are still 
considering Bear Gulch as occupied for this final designation. City 
Creek and Dark Canyon were already considered occupied in the proposed 
rule, and therefore there is no change in their occupancy status for 
the final rule.
    (3) Comment: One peer reviewer reported that chytrid fungal disease 
was discovered in wild frogs that were recently rediscovered in the 
East Fork of City Creek in September 2005 and in the captive frogs 
taken from the same creek in 2004, thus changing our perception of the 
areas that are known to contain this

[[Page 54346]]

disease. The peer reviewer stated that it was unusual to find living 
frogs infected with chytrid because it generally kills infected frogs. 
The peer reviewer also stated that this discovery is in contrast to our 
statement in the proposed rule that chytrid fungal disease does not 
seem to be plaguing remaining mountain yellow-legged frog populations 
in southern California.
    Another peer reviewer stated that chytrid fungus does not seem to 
be a major issue concerning current frog populations because it 
presumably already caused an unknown, massive die-off of frog 
populations across southern California during the late 1960s and 1970s, 
resulting in small remnant populations that currently exist. However, 
it may still be eliminating frogs at some specific locations, such as 
the North Fork of the San Jacinto River below Mt. San Jacinto State 
Park.
    Our Response: At the time of writing the proposed rule, we were 
unaware that chytrid fungus was detected in mountain yellow-legged 
frogs in southern California. We do not have enough information at this 
time to determine the magnitude of impacts that chytrid has had or will 
have on frog populations in southern California. Nonetheless, because 
there is no information demonstrating the relationship between habitat 
features or quality and chytrid fungus, the information provided by the 
peer reviewer does not change the critical habitat designation.
    (4) Comment: One peer reviewer stated the critical habitat 
designation should include aquatic refugia as a primary constituent 
element (PCE) since we discuss it in the Primary Constituent Elements 
section under ``Cover or Shelter.''
    Our Response: We agree with the peer reviewer and have included 
aquatic refugia as a condition of PCE 1, which includes pools with bank 
overhangs, downfall logs or branches, and/or rocks, because it provides 
cover from predators. For more information, please see the Primary 
Constituent Elements section below.
    (5) Comment: One peer reviewer stated the critical habitat 
designation should provide more discussion on the role of canopy cover 
and habitat suitability and that there is a delicate and unknown 
balance between canopy cover and suitability of high-elevation habitat. 
In the San Jacinto Mountains, the canopy has become so extensive that 
it threatens the existence of the mountain yellow-legged frog. It is 
critical that suitable habitat be protected and it may be necessary to 
manipulate the canopy to open up the habitat.
    Our Response: In general, information on the effects of canopy 
cover on habitat suitability is limited. Our discussion on canopy cover 
in the Primary Constituent Elements section below was based only on 
data values reported from a USGS report on mountain yellow-legged frog 
populations in southern California (Backlin et al. 2004). We agree with 
the reviewer that canopy cover may affect habitat suitability and have 
discussed this in our Special Management section below by stating that 
it may be necessary in some of the critical habitat units to reduce 
canopy cover to make habitat more suitable for this species. However, 
without more specific information, we are unable to address this issue 
more thoroughly in this critical habitat designation.
    (6) Comment: One peer reviewer approved of our use and application 
of upland frog movement data from Sierra Nevada populations to southern 
California populations because it is difficult to obtain upland habitat 
use information from mountain yellow-legged frog populations in 
southern California. Therefore, the interpretations made in the 
proposed rule to designate critical habitat are reasonable.
    Our Response: We appreciate the concurrence with our methods for 
determining the criteria used to identify critical habitat. For more 
information, please see the Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat 
section below.
    (7) Comment: Two peer reviewers questioned the methods used to 
calculate stream-width and length for ``occupied'' habitat. One of the 
reviewers questioned the movement distance (4,905 feet (ft) (1,495 
meters (m)) that the Service used in the proposed critical habitat rule 
to estimate the length of occupied stream if there is suitable habitat 
that extends beyond this distance. The other reviewer questioned why 
the Service discounted the possibility that the maximum distance moved 
was crucial to the mountain yellow-legged frog's survival and 
questioned whether there were enough downstream habitats to provide for 
refugia during droughts and for connectivity between streams. The 
reviewer suggested redefining areas containing essential features to 
capture 11,745 ft (3,580 m) upstream and downstream from occurrence 
locations based on data from other studies, as well as 1,378 ft (420 m) 
from the centerline of streams for upland movements. The reviewer also 
questioned whether there had been efforts made to quantify frog habitat 
use and movement during specific breeding, feeding, and overwintering 
periods, including off-stream habitats.
    Our Response: In general, information on mountain yellow-legged 
frog movements in southern California is extremely limited. Our 
discussion on mountain yellow-legged frog movements was based on the 
maximum distance moved by an individual mountain yellow-legged frog in 
the San Bernardino Mountains in southern California (Backlin et al. 
2004). We did not include the larger dataset on frog movements in the 
Sierra Nevada mountains because of the different habitat 
characteristics associated with mountain yellow-legged frogs in the 
Sierra Nevada (e.g., lakes and higher elevation). However, we relied on 
data from the Sierra Nevada mountains to determine the width of 
riparian and upland habitats occupied by mountain yellow-legged frogs, 
because we did not have any such data from southern Californian 
mountain yellow-legged frogs. Although we recognize that suitable 
habitat may extend beyond the distances we used to determine critical 
habitat, we did not receive better information on a more appropriate 
distance measure to use for southern California mountain yellow-legged 
frogs. Finally, we are also unaware of any efforts to quantify mountain 
yellow-legged frog habitat use and movement during specific breeding, 
feeding, and overwintering periods, including off-stream habitats in 
southern California. For more information, please see the Criteria Used 
To Identify Critical Habitat section below.
    (8) Comment: One peer reviewer stated the proposed rule did not 
contain discussion on how the Service determined how much unoccupied 
habitat was essential for the conservation of the species. The peer 
reviewer suggested that more unoccupied areas may be essential for the 
conservation of the species.
    Our Response: We believe that we did provide a thorough discussion 
regarding the criteria that were used for identifying unoccupied 
streams in the proposed critical habitat rule published on September 
13, 2005 (70 FR 54106). Furthermore, we did not receive additional 
information that identified specific unoccupied areas, and rationale 
for those areas, that should be considered as critical habitat during 
the comment period for the proposed rule. For more information, please 
see the Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat section below.
    (9) Comment: Two peer reviewers questioned our use of a 1 to 4 year 
range for tadpole growth. One reviewer commented that since this was 
based on

[[Page 54347]]

Sierra Nevada mountain yellow-legged frog populations, southern 
California frog populations living at much lower elevation would likely 
not require up to 4 years. The other reviewer stated that tadpole 
growth phase appeared to be around 2 years for southern California 
populations based on their experience.
    Our Response: At the time of writing the proposed rule, the best 
information available on tadpole growth was from Sierra Nevada mountain 
yellow-legged frog populations. We agree with the reviewer that this 
may have been an overestimate of the time it can take for tadpole 
growth. Based on peer reviewer comments, we have revised the discussion 
of the amount of time for tadpole growth by citing a period 1-2 years 
instead of up to 4 years (see section below titled Primary Constituent 
Elements for the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog).
    (10) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned whether the values used 
for dissolved oxygen as a PCE were too narrow in range.
    Our Response: After reevaluating our interpretation of the 
available dissolved oxygen data, we agree with the reviewer that the 
dissolved oxygen values used as a PCE in the proposed rule may have 
represented too narrow a range to accurately describe habitat 
suitability for the mountain yellow-legged frog. We also believe that 
information on other water quality factors (water chemistry and 
temperature) were insufficient to accurately describe the complete 
range of values that may be necessary to maintain suitable habitat for 
mountain yellow-legged frogs. As a result, we have removed water 
quality as a PCE from the final critical habitat rule.
    (11) Comment: One peer reviewer stated the PCEs should also include 
intermittent stream reaches and tributaries to permanent streams 
because they are also used by mountain yellow-legged frogs.
    Our Response: Our process for capturing upland areas as critical 
habitat does include some parts of intermittent stream reaches and 
tributaries to the main stream reach identified as critical habitat. 
The peer reviewer did not provide substantial information indicating 
the significance of intermittent stream reaches to mountain yellow-
legged frogs. Therefore, we are unable to quantify the importance of 
this habitat type and have not expanded the boundaries of critical 
habitat to include additional intermittent stream reaches and 
tributaries to permanent streams. For more information on how we 
designated critical habitat, please see the Criteria Used To Identify 
Critical Habitat section below.
    (12) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned whether there is any 
basis for using 3.1 miles (mi) (5 kilometers (km)) from nearby occupied 
streams as a criterion for choosing unoccupied sites.
    Our Response: In general, information on mountain yellow-legged 
frog dispersal movements in southern California is extremely limited. 
Our discussion on mountain yellow-legged frog movements was based on 
the best available data from a dispersal study in the Sierra Nevada 
Mountains, California (Knapp in litt. 2005). In this study, frogs were 
reported to disperse several kilometers and recolonize lakes following 
trout removal. Frogs were reported to move several kilometers along 
streams and across dry land. The data from this study were used to 
develop a dispersal function that was included in a population 
viability analysis. The analysis used a dispersal function of 2.5 mi (4 
km) and consistently produced frog distributions similar to those 
actually found in the field. We recognize that the environment in the 
Sierra Nevada mountains is different from the frog habitat in the 
southern California mountains. However, since this is the best 
information available for this species on dispersal behavior, we used 
it as one of the criteria for selecting unoccupied critical habitat 
areas. In the proposed rule, we erroneously cited a dispersal distance 
of 3.1 mi (5 km). The distance has been changed to 2.5 mi (4 km) in 
this final critical habitat rule (see section titled Stream Reaches Not 
Currently Known to Be Occupied for a more detailed discussion).
    (13) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned why the proposed rule 
did not include trout predation, one of the largest threats to frog 
populations, in the Special Management Considerations section and 
whether there are efforts to remove non-native trout from occupied 
mountain yellow-legged frog habitat.
    Our Response: We included threats that may require special 
management considerations and that have an effect on primary 
constituent elements. The threat of trout predation has the potential 
to affect the survival of mountain yellow-legged frogs but does not 
affect habitat features. We recognize that non-native trout predation 
is a major threat to the recovery of the mountain yellow-legged frog 
and encourage programs to remove introduced trout from streams where 
frog recovery is designated. The critical habitat rule does not 
authorize management actions; however, we strongly encourage trout 
removal for adequate frog conservation. We discussed one previous trout 
removal action in subunit 1C (Little Rock Creek) in the Unit 
Descriptions section.
    (14) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned whether Riverside County 
can actually purchase and conserve all 141 ac of private land that was 
excluded from critical habitat based on the lands inclusion within the 
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan 
(MSHCP) as stated in the proposed critical habitat rule.
    Our Response: No areas containing features essential to the 
conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog are within lands 
(Additional Reserve Lands) that are to be purchased and conserved by 
Riverside County under their Western Riverside County MSHCP. We 
mistakenly presented this in the proposed critical habitat rule (70 FR 
54106) in our discussion regarding the exclusion of non-Federal lands 
that are covered under the MSHCP. We are still excluding these lands 
because of conservation measures provided for the mountain yellow-
legged frog from the MSHCP's Additional Survey Needs and Procedures 
policy (see Relationship of Critical Habitat to Approved Habitat 
Conservation Plans section for a more detailed discussion).
    (15) Comment: One peer reviewer stated the two-striped garter snake 
(Thamnophis hammondii) and raccoons (Procyon lotor) should be included 
as potential predators in the Primary Constituent Elements section 
within the discussion on Cover or Shelter.
    Our Response: A broad range of terrestrial taxa have been observed 
as predators of mountain yellow-legged frogs, including several species 
of birds, snakes, and mammals (Jennings et al. 1992; Mathews et al. 
2002; Mullally and Cunningham 1956). We have added the two predators 
mentioned by the peer reviewer to the list of potential predators from 
which mountain yellow-legged frogs would try to seek cover (see Primary 
Constituent Elements section within the discussion on Cover or Shelter 
for a more detailed discussion).
    (16) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the critical habitat 
rule should include bedrock just underneath the surface of the water as 
another type of sunning post as a primary constituent element.
    Our Response: We appreciate the clarification on sunning post 
features and have added bedrock just underneath the surface of the 
water as another important potential type of sunning post that mountain 
yellow-legged frogs may utilize to our description of PCE 1. For more

[[Page 54348]]

information, please see the Primary Constituent Elements section below.
    (17) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned whether enforcement 
activities by the Service were a part of the Western Riverside County 
MSHCP, and if so, then the justification for not including non-Federal 
lands within the MSHCP is justified. If not, then the peer reviewer 
questioned whether the level of protection under the MSHCP is 
consistent with that of the critical habitat proposal.
    Our Response: The Service issued a single incidental take permit 
pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act as well as entered into an 
Implementing Agreement with the 22 Permittees of the MSHCP. The Service 
is responsible for overseeing the Permittees' compliance with the 
permit and Implementing Agreement. When implemented, we expect the 
MSHCP will provide substantial protection of the PCEs and special 
management of essential habitat features for the mountain yellow-legged 
frog on MSHCP conservation lands. This level of management for the 
mountain yellow-legged frog on private lands by the MSHCP is greater 
than a critical habitat designation (see section titled Relationship of 
Critical Habitat to Approved Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs)--
Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act for a more detailed 
discussion). Therefore, we agree with the commenter that excluding non-
Federal lands within the MSHCP from the critical habitat designation is 
justified.
    (18) Comment: One peer reviewer stated the critical habitat rule 
should include fire control activities as a Federal activity that may 
adversely affect critical habitat because of threats of water removal 
from streams, dropping fire retardant on streams or frogs, disease and 
exotic predator transport from clothing or footwear of fire fighters 
and water drops, respectively.
    Our Response: We have included fire control activities under 
Federal activities that may adversely affect critical habitat. For more 
information, please see the Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 
section below.

General Comments

Comments Related to Procedural and Legal Compliance
    (19) Comment: One commenter stated that critical habitat should not 
be designated within the Western Riverside County MSHCP plan area 
because the mountain yellow-legged frog is one of the listed species 
covered under the MSHCP. The plan was approved by the County of 
Riverside and 14 cities, and issued a Section 10(a) permit by the 
Service in 2004.
    Our Response: We agree with the commenter and have excluded from 
critical habitat all non-Federal lands containing features essential to 
the conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog within the MSHCP 
Plan Area. However, we are designating Federal lands managed by the 
United States Forest Service (USFS) within the MSHCP Plan Area as 
critical habitat because they are not a permittee under the section 
10(a)(1)(B) permit for the MSHCP. For more information, please see 
Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below.
    (20) Comment: One commenter stated that critical habitat should not 
be designated on Federal lands in the Angeles and San Bernardino 
National Forest because designating critical habitat for species 
already on the endangered species list provides little added 
conservation benefit to the species. This commenter also stated the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) current involvement in an 
ecological restoration project in the San Bernardino Mountains has the 
potential to be within the downstream portions of watersheds in which 
critical habitat is proposed for the mountain yellow-legged frog, 
although none of the critical habitat areas is actually within the 
Corps' study boundary.
    Our Response: We are obligated under the Act to designate critical 
habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available and after 
taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant 
impact, of designating an area as critical habitat. The Secretary may 
exclude an area if the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
inclusion unless the Secretary determines that such exclusion will 
result in the extinction of the species.
    We examined the USFS's Revised Land and Resource Management Plans 
for the Four Southern California Forests, California (Forest Plan) that 
was approved in September 2005 and the Service's biological opinion 
that was issued on the Forest Plan on September 15, 2005. At issue were 
the effects of the Forest Plan and ongoing activities on USFS lands on 
federally-listed species, including the mountain yellow-legged frog. 
The goal of the Forest Plan is to describe a strategic direction for 
the management of the national forests over the next 10 to 15 years. 
The Forest Plan does not make any decisions regarding USFS site-
specific project proposals for implementing the land management plans 
nor do they compel managers to implement any specific conservation 
activities. The Forest Plan also divides the national forests into 
several ``Land Use Zones'', including Developed Area Interface, Back 
Country, Back Country Motorized Use Restricted, Back Country Non-
Motorized, Critical Biological, Recommended Wilderness, Existing 
Wilderness, and Experimental Forest. The land use zones were designed 
to describe the type of anticipated and allowable public use or 
administrative activities.
    During the proposed critical habitat rulemaking process, we 
coordinated with staff from both the Angeles and San Bernardino 
National Forests to seek their input on the best areas to designate 
critical habitat on their lands that will contribute to the recovery of 
the mountain yellow-legged frog. Due to the amount of unoccupied 
critical habitat areas and the precarious status of existing 
populations, we determined that the benefit of including USFS lands as 
critical habitat are significant because this will help maintain the 
Service's role in reviewing potential future impacts to areas that are 
important for the survival and recovery of mountain yellow-legged frog 
populations. Our decision to designate critical habitat on USFS lands 
was supported in a public comment letter from the Angeles National 
Forest regarding critical habitat on their lands. We do not have 
information indicating that the benefits of excluding Federal lands 
within the National Forests will outweigh the benefits of including 
these lands.
    As for the Corps' ecological restoration project, we are not aware 
of the specifics of this project. Federal projects that may affect 
critical habitat require consultation with the Service. However, we 
would hope that an ecological restoration project would provide long-
term benefits to the mountain yellow-legged frog and its habitat.
    (21) Comment: One commenter stated that they did not support USFS 
management practices that may be detrimental to the mountain yellow-
legged frog, such as pesticide use, vegetation removal agents, and 
prescribed burning.
    Our Response: We appreciate the commenter's concerns regarding 
threats to the mountain yellow-legged frog. These threats are addressed 
in the Special Management Considerations section as well as in the 
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation sections below.
    (22) Comment: One commenter stated that they are opposed to the 
overzealous land grabbing by the County of

[[Page 54349]]

Riverside for the protection of the mountain yellow-legged frog.
    Our Response: This issue is beyond the scope of this critical 
habitat rule. The designation of critical habitat does not dictate 
decisions regarding land acquisition, use, or management practices.
Comments Related to the Draft Economic Analysis (DEA)
    (23) Comment: One commenter stated that attributing costs 
associated with protection measures for the mountain yellow-legged frog 
(i.e., loss of recreation, fishing, hiking, camping, and rock climbing) 
on USFS lands was wrong and misleading because these would have been 
done for the conservation of the species, not necessarily because of 
critical habitat designation. For example, the North Fork of the San 
Jacinto River and City Creek on the San Bernardino National Forest was 
already closed to public recreation use in the stream prior to this 
critical habitat designation.
    Our Response: We recognize that the USFS has already been 
conducting conservation measures for the mountain yellow-legged frog 
prior to this designation. The DEA identifies those economic activities 
believed to most likely threaten the listed species and its habitat 
and, where possible, quantifies the economic impact to avoid, mitigate, 
or compensate for such threats within the boundaries of the critical 
habitat designation. In instances where critical habitat is being 
proposed after a species is listed, some future impacts may be 
unavoidable, regardless of the final designation and exclusions under 
4(b)(2). However, due to the difficulty in making a credible 
distinction between listing and critical habitat effects within 
critical habitat boundaries, the analysis in the DEA considers all 
future conservation-related impacts to be co-extensive with the 
designation. Inclusion of co-extensive impacts in the DEA complies with 
instruction by the United States Court of Appeals in 2001 for the 
Service to conduct a full analysis of all of the economic impacts or 
the proposed critical habitat designation, regardless of whether those 
impacts are attributable co-extensively to other causes (New Mexico 
Cattle Growers Association v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 
248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001)).

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

    In preparing the final critical habitat designation for the 
mountain-yellow-legged frog, we reviewed and considered comments from 
the public and peer reviewers on the proposed designation of critical 
habitat published on September 13, 2005 (70 FR 54106) and public 
comments on the draft economic analysis published on July 3, 2006 (71 
FR 37881). As a result of comments received on the proposed rule and 
the DEA, and a reevaluation of the proposed critical habitat 
boundaries, we made changes to our proposed designation, as follows:
    (1) We added an additional feature (rocks just beneath the surface 
of the water for sunning posts) to PCE 1 based on one peer reviewer's 
comment.
    (2) We added aquatic refugia as another feature to PCE 1 based on 
two peer reviewer comments.
    (3) After a reevaluation of the existing information on water 
quality (i.e., pH, dissolved oxygen, and water temperature) and comment 
from a peer reviewer on our use of a narrow range of water quality 
parameters to describe water quality as a PCE, we determined that there 
was insufficient information on water quality to provide an accurate 
range of water quality values that describes suitable frog habitat. 
Therefore, we removed water quality as a PCE (see Comment <greek-i>10 
above for a more detailed discussion).
    (4) We changed our determination of the occupancy status of Day 
Canyon, East Fork of Barton Creek, and Indian Creek at Hall Canyon from 
currently occupied to currently unoccupied and not occupied at the time 
of listing based on a reevaluation of existing information and 
discussions with biologists that have surveyed these sites. Mountain 
yellow-legged frogs have not been detected in any of these streams 
since the mid-1990s, but not all the stream reaches in Day Canyon and 
Indian Creek at Hall Canyon have been surveyed. Without recent 
documentation that these streams are known to be occupied, we believe 
this change appropriately reflects the species' current status.
    (5) We corrected the dispersal distance used in the section titled 
Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat from 3.1 mi (5 km) to 2.5 mi 
(4 km). This information is based on the best available data on 
mountain yellow-legged frog movements from a dispersal study conducted 
in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, California (Knapp in litt. 2005) (see 
Comment <greek-i>12 above for a more detailed discussion).

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) The 
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at 
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found 
those physical or biological features (I) Essential to the conservation 
of the species and (II) that may require special management 
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon 
a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of 
the species. Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means 
to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to 
bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at 
which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer 
necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, 
all activities associated with scientific resources management such as 
research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, 
propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the 
extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem 
cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or 
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 requires consultation on 
Federal actions that may affect critical habitat. The designation of 
critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, 
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such 
designation does not allow government or public access to private 
lands. Section 7 is a purely protective measure and does not require 
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures.
    To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat 
within the area occupied by the species must first have features that 
are essential to the conservation of the species. Critical habitat 
designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific 
data available, habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs 
of the species (i.e., areas on which are found the primary constituent 
elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)).
    Habitat occupied at the time of listing may be included in critical 
habitat only if the essential features thereon may require special 
management considerations or protection. Thus, we do not include areas 
where existing management is sufficient to conserve the species. (As 
discussed below, such areas may also be excluded from critical habitat 
pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act). In areas outside the 
geographical

[[Page 54350]]

area occupied by the species at the time of listing, when the best 
available scientific data do not demonstrate that the conservation 
needs of the species require additional areas, we will not designate 
critical habitat within those areas. An area currently occupied by the 
species but not known to be occupied at the time of listing will 
likely, but not always, be essential to the conservation of the species 
and, therefore, typically be included in the critical habitat 
designation.
    The Service's Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered 
Species Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34271), and Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-554; H.R. 5658) and 
the associated Information Quality Guidelines issued by the Service, 
provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure 
that decisions made by the Service represent the best scientific data 
available. They require Service biologists to the extent consistent 
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to 
use primary and original sources of information as the basis for 
recommendations to designate critical habitat. When determining which 
areas are critical habitat, a primary source of information is 
generally the listing package for the species. Additional information 
sources include the recovery plan for the species, articles in peer-
reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, 
scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, or other 
unpublished materials and expert opinion or personal knowledge. All 
information is used in accordance with the provisions of Section 515 of 
the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 
2001 (P.L. 106-554; H.R. 5658) and the associated Information Quality 
Guidelines issued by the Service.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Habitat is often 
dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. 
Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not 
include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to 
be necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, 
critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the 
designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery.
    Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the 
regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy 
standard, as determined on the basis of the best available information 
at the time of the action. Federally funded or permitted projects 
affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat 
areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, 
critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available 
information at the time of designation will not control the direction 
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or 
other species conservation planning efforts if new information 
available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Methods

    As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available to determine areas that contain the features 
essential to the conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog. This 
includes information from the proposed listing rule (64 FR 71714), 
final listing rule (67 FR 44382), proposed critical habitat rule (70 FR 
54106), site visits, soil and species map coverages, and data compiled 
in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). We also reviewed 
available information regarding the ecology, natural history, and 
habitat requirements of the species. This material included information 
and data in reports submitted during section 7 consultations, research 
published in peer-reviewed articles and technical reports by the USGS 
and the USFS, and regional GIS coverages.

Primary Constituent Elements

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to designate as critical 
habitat, we consider those physical and biological features (PCEs) that 
are essential to the conservation of the species, and within areas 
occupied by the species at the time of listing, that may require 
special management considerations or protection. These include, but are 
not limited to space for individual and population growth and for 
normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other 
nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for 
breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) of offspring; and 
habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of 
the historical geographical and ecological distributions of a species.
    The specific primary constituent elements required for the mountain 
yellow-legged frog are derived from the biological needs of the 
mountain yellow-legged frog as described below and in the proposed 
critical habitat designation published in the Federal Register on 
September 13, 2005 (70 FR 54106).

Space for Individual and Population Growth and Normal Behavior

    Mountain yellow-legged frogs are a highly aquatic, cryptic, diurnal 
species that occupy mountain streams which have cool waters and 
originate from springs and snowmelt (Jennings and Hayes 1994a, b). 
Mountain yellow-legged frogs are most often found in creeks with 
permanent water in at least some portion of the reach. Mountain yellow-
legged frogs also utilize streams, rivers, perennial creeks, permanent 
plunge pools within intermittent creeks and pools, and their associated 
riparian and upland habitat (Mullally 1959, Backlin et al. 2004). 
Backlin et al. (2004) reported creeks with occupied mountain yellow-
legged frog populations were generally narrow, averaging from 3 to 10 
ft (1 to 3 m) wide, with associated riparian zone widths ranging from 
26 to 82 ft (8 to 25 m), with canyon walls typically rising steeply on 
either side. They also reported stream reach lengths containing 
mountain yellow-legged frog populations varied from approximately 820 
ft (250 m) in Dark Canyon, to greater than 16,404 ft (5,000 m) in East 
Fork, City Creek. Backlin et al. (2004) also reported that pools were 
typically 3 to 32 ft (1 to 10 m) long, 2 to 23 ft (0.5 to 7 m) wide, 
0.4 to 180 inches (in) (1 to 180 cm) deep, and typically had some type 
of structure in the form bank overhangs, downfall sticks, and/or rocks 
that could function as refugia, but there was minimal aquatic 
vegetation. Mountain yellow-legged frogs have been noted to inhabit 
creeks varying in type from high gradient with rocky courses to low 
gradient with marshy margins and sod banks (Mullally 1959). Creeks such 
as those with permanent water sources and their associated riparian and 
upland habitat (PCE 1) provide breeding sites, foraging grounds, and 
shelter for individual and population growth and normal behavior. They 
also provide for perennial flows needed for egg-laying and tadpole 
growth and survival.

Food, Water, Air, Light, or Other Nutritional or Physiological 
Requirements

    Mountain yellow-legged frogs appear to be principally 
insectivorous, feeding on a wide variety of invertebrates, including 
beetles (Coleoptera), ants

[[Page 54351]]

(Formididae), bees (Apoidea), wasps (Hymenoptera), flies (Diptera), 
true bugs (Hemiptera), and dragonflies (Odonata) (Long 1970). 
Terrestrial insects and adult stages of aquatic insects may be the 
preferred food for adult mountain yellow-legged frogs (Bradford 1983); 
larger frogs consume more aquatic true bugs likely because of their 
more aquatic behavior (Jennings and Hays 1994a). Some predation of 
tadpoles by adult mountain yellow-legged frogs appears possible as 
evidenced in Sierra Nevada populations (Mathews and Pope 1999).
    The riparian zone, with the associated vegetation canopy (PCE 2), 
is necessary to maintain the prey base needed for the nutritional 
requirements of the mountain yellow-legged frog. Larvae graze on algae 
and diatoms in the silt along rocky bottoms in streams (Zeiner et al. 
1988). An open or semi-open canopy of riparian vegetation (canopy 
overstory not exceeding 85 percent, Backlin et al. 2004) is needed to 
ensure that adequate sunlight reaches the stream to allow for basking 
behavior and for photosynthesis by benthic algae and diatoms that are 
food resources for larval mountain yellow-legged frog.

Cover or Shelter

    Mountain yellow-legged frogs are preyed upon by the western 
terrestrial garter snake (Thamnophis elegans), two-striped garter 
snake, Brewer's blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), Clark's nutcrackers 
(Nucifraga columbiana), raccoons, and coyotes (Canis latrans) (Jennings 
et al. 1992; Jennings in litt. 2005; Mathews et al. 2002; Mullally and 
Cunningham 1956; USFS 2002). Pools with bank overhangs, downfall logs 
or branches, and/or rocks (PCEs 1 and 2) provide cover from predators 
for mountain yellow-legged frogs.

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, and Rearing of Offspring

    In southern California, the mountain yellow-legged frog occupies 
streams in the chaparral belt (Zweifel 1955), and cool and cold, rocky, 
mountain watercourses shaded by trees, rocks, and other shelter, where 
the flow comes from springs and snowmelt (Jennings and Hayes 1994b) 
(PCEs 1 and 2). White alders (Alnus rhombifolia), willows, sycamore, 
cottonwoods, conifers, and maples dominate the mountain yellow-legged 
frog's non-aquatic habitat (Jennings and Hayes 1994b; Backlin et al. 
2004). Open gravel banks and rocks projecting above or just underneath 
the surface of the water may provide sunning posts (Zweifel 1955; 
Jennings in litt. 2005). Many of the streams in which mountain yellow-
legged frogs occurred historically and currently occupy have a 
relatively steep gradient and large boulders in the stream beds 
(Stebbins 1951). Although knowledge pertaining to the specific habitat 
requirements of mountain yellow-legged frogs in southern California is 
limited, the presence of water year-round is known to be necessary for 
both reproduction and for hydration of juveniles and adults (Vredenburg 
et al. 2005). Individuals may, however, aestivate during especially dry 
periods of late summer (Mullally 1959). In southern California, 
mountain yellow-legged frogs historically ranged from 1,214 to 7,546 ft 
(370 to 2,300 m) in elevation (Jennings and Hayes 1994a, 1994b).

Primary Constituent Elements for the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog

    Pursuant to our regulations, we are required to identify the known 
physical and biological features (PCEs) essential to the conservation 
of the mountain yellow-legged frog. Areas designated as critical 
habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog contain both occupied and 
unoccupied streams and riparian areas within the species' historical 
geographic range, and contain sufficient PCEs to support at least one 
life history function. In identifying PCEs, we used the best available 
scientific data available. Although the physical ranges described below 
may not capture all of the variability that is inherent in natural 
systems, these ranges best represent the physical and biological 
features essential to the conservation of the mountain yellow-legged 
frog in the occupied areas designated as critical habitat. In order to 
conserve this species, we believe it is necessary to designate critical 
habitat in areas currently unoccupied by the species. For more 
information, please see the Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat 
and Unit Descriptions sections below for further discussion of 
unoccupied habitat.
    Based on our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and 
ecology of the species and the requirements of the habitat to sustain 
the essential life history functions of the species, we have determined 
that the mountain yellow-legged frog's PCEs are:

    (1) Water source(s) found between 1,214 to 7,546 feet (370 to 
2,300 meter) in elevation that are permanent. Water sources include, 
but are not limited to, streams, rivers, perennial creeks (or 
permanent plunge pools within intermittent creeks), pools (i.e., a 
body of impounded water that is contained above a natural dam) and 
other forms of aquatic habitat. The water source should maintain a 
natural flow pattern including periodic natural flooding. Aquatic 
habitats that are used by mountain yellow-legged frog for breeding 
purposes must maintain water during the entire tadpole growth phase, 
which can last for up to 2 years. During periods of drought, or less 
than average rainfall, these breeding sites may not hold water long 
enough for individuals to complete metamorphosis, but they would 
still be considered essential breeding habitat in wetter years. 
Further, the aquatic includes:
    a. Bank and pool substrates consisting of varying percentages of 
soil or silt, sand, gravel cobble, rock, and boulders;
    b. Open gravel banks and rocks projecting above or just beneath 
the surface of the water for sunning posts;
    c. Aquatic refugia, including pools with bank overhangs, 
downfall logs or branches, and/or rocks to provide cover from 
predators; and
    d. Streams or stream reaches between known occupied sites that 
can function as corridors for movement between aquatic habitats used 
as breeding and/or foraging sites.
    (2) Riparian habitat and upland vegetation (e.g., ponderosa 
pine, montane hardwood-conifer, montane riparian woodlands, and 
chaparral) extending 262 feet (80 meters) from each side of the 
centerline of each identified stream and its tributaries, that 
provides areas for feeding and movement of mountain yellow-legged 
frog, with a canopy overstory not exceeding 85 percent that allows 
sunlight to reach the stream and thereby provide basking areas for 
the species.

    This designation is designed for the conservation of PCEs necessary 
to support the life history functions of the mountain yellow-legged 
frog. Because not all life history functions require all the PCEs, not 
all areas designated as critical habitat will contain all the PCEs.
    Each of the areas designated in this rule have been determined to 
contain sufficient PCEs to provide for one or more of the life history 
functions of the mountain yellow-legged frog. In some cases, the PCEs 
exist as a result of ongoing Federal actions. As a result, ongoing 
Federal actions at the time of designation will be included in the 
baseline in any consultation conducted subsequent to this designation.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    We are designating critical habitat in areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing in 
2002, as well as some specific unoccupied areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, but 
were historically occupied, because we have determined that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.

Stream Reaches Occupied at the Time of Listing

    We have defined occupied critical habitat as: (a) Those streams 
known to

[[Page 54352]]

be occupied by the mountain yellow-legged frog at the time of listing 
in 2002; (b) the riparian, upland, and aquatic habitats 262 ft (80 m) 
from the centerline of the stream including tributaries; and (c) 
aquatic habitats within 4,905 ft (1,495 m) upstream from the upstream-
most occurrence and 4,905 ft (1,495 m) downstream from the downstream-
most occurrence on the main stem of the river or creek known to be 
occupied, including any tributary that flows into it (see the following 
sections for explanation of these values). We used information from the 
proposed and final listing rules, reports prepared by the USGS, the 
USFS, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), the CNDDB, 
researchers, and consultants to identify the specific locations 
occupied by the southern California mountain yellow-legged frog at the 
time of listing. All occurrence records dating from 2002 of mountain 
yellow-legged frogs were plotted on maps in GIS as points and polygons.
    The currently occupied habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog 
is highly limited and isolated. Population estimates are all extremely 
low, with no stream having an estimated population size exceeding 100 
breeding adults, and an overall total estimate of approximately 183 
adults surviving in 2003 (including City Creek, East Fork; Backlin et 
al. 2004). The mountain yellow-legged frog is at a high risk of 
extinction and is highly susceptible to stochastic events (Backlin et 
al. 2004). We have determined that all occupied areas contain features 
essential to the conservation of the species and are either designated 
as critical habitat or are excluded from designation pursuant to 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

Stream Reaches Unoccupied at the Time of Listing

    The streams not known to be currently occupied that are being 
designated as critical habitat were all historically occupied, and the 
designation of these areas as critical habitat will decrease the degree 
of fragmentation within the current geographic distribution of the 
mountain yellow-legged frog. We believe that the designation of these 
additional areas not known to be currently occupied by the mountain 
yellow-legged frog is essential for the conservation of the species 
because:
    (1) The current, overall population size of the mountain yellow-
legged frog is extremely small, and it must increase in order to insure 
long-term survival of this species in southern California (cf. Backlin 
et al. 2004). While the occupied units provide habitat for current 
populations, additional units will provide habitat for population 
augmentation either through natural means, or by re-introduction. Such 
population augmentation in the additional subunits may serve to 
decrease the risk of extinction of the species through stochastic 
events, such as fires or disease, as the current, isolated populations 
are each at high risk of extirpation from such stochastic events 
(Backlin et al. 2004), particularly because of their small sizes and 
restricted ranges;
    (2) Population augmentation either through natural means or by re-
introduction into the additional subunits may increase the viability of 
the occupied subunits as well as the existence of the mountain yellow-
legged frog in southern California as a whole (i.e., increase the 
likelihood of persistence at the local population level and of this DPS 
range-wide);
    (3) Additional subunits will serve to decrease the degree of 
fragmentation of the current geographic distribution of the mountain 
yellow-legged frog within each of the three mountain ranges (i.e., 
increase connectivity between streams that are known to be currently 
occupied);
    (4) Additional subunits are designated as critical habitat in areas 
occupied in the near past and located within the historical range of 
the species such that they will serve as corridors between currently 
occupied sites. Most of the unoccupied subunits lie within 0.9 to 2.5 
mi (1.5 to 4 km) of an occupied site; the only exception is Subunit 2C 
(in historically occupied Whitewater River). Although Subunit 2C is 
unlikely to serve as a corridor between currently occupied areas, this 
subunit is the only representative area of southeastern desert slope 
and of the San Gorgonio Mountains, and ensures representation of the 
full geographical distribution of the mountain yellow-legged frog not 
otherwise represented by the currently occupied sites;
    (5) The additional subunits may offer habitat that is superior to 
that in the occupied subunits (i.e., the potential viability of frogs 
in unoccupied subunits may be higher) due to the fact that the 
additional subunits may be faced with fewer and more-easily treated 
threats than the occupied units.

Width of Riparian and Upland Habitats Along Occupied Stream Reaches

    Once we determined which stream reaches were occupied, we focused 
on delineating those riparian and upland habitats used by the mountain 
yellow-legged frog. We estimated the width of riparian and upland 
habitats occupied by adults based on a study of movement ecology of 
mountain yellow-legged frogs in the Sierra Nevada Mountains (Pope and 
Matthews 2001). The study, in which a total of 581 adult frogs were 
marked, included 5 stream segments and 11 lakes and ponds. The movement 
of mountain yellow-legged frogs throughout the entire annual period of 
activity (mid-late July to mid-late October) was recorded over two 
successive seasons (1997 and 1998). Of these marked frogs, 82 frogs 
made overland movements between water bodies that were not connected by 
aquatic pathways. Based on these results, 72 frogs traveled a minimum 
distance of 216 ft (66 m), 9 frogs traveled a minimum distance of 466 
ft (142 m), and 1 frog traveled 1,378 ft (420 m). We used this data to 
calculate a weighted mean of 259 ft (79 m) of overland distance 
traveled by mountain yellow-legged frogs. Subsequently, we applied the 
weighted mean of overland distance (rounded up to 262 ft (80 m)) to 
delineate the amount of riparian area and upland habitat that is 
occupied by frogs and essential to their conservation. Although this 
study took place in the Sierra Nevada mountains in different types of 
aquatic habitat (e.g., lakes), it represents the best movement data 
available on mountain yellow-legged frogs and some indication of this 
species' physical capabilities to move away from aquatic habitats.
    We also compared the results of the Pope and Mathews (2001) study 
with the preliminary results of an unpublished study that examined 
mountain yellow-legged frog movements in the Sierra Nevada Mountains 
(Knapp in litt. 2005). This study included observations of movement 
between Marmot Lake and Frog Lake (not connected by a stream) of at 
least 8,858 ft (2,700 m) by three frogs in 2003 and six frogs in 2004. 
In comparison to Knapp's study, the 262 ft (80 m) width appears to be a 
conservative estimate of the riparian and upland habitats occupied by 
the mountain yellow-legged frog. We did not use results from the Knapp 
study because we had a more complete dataset from the Pope and Mathews 
study and the findings from the Knapp study are still preliminary.

Length of Occupied Stream Reaches

    The next step was to focus on delineating the length of up- and 
downstream reaches from known occupied areas to determine the length of 
stream reaches that are used by the mountain yellow-legged frog. We 
estimated the length of up- and downstream occupied reaches from our

[[Page 54353]]

review of several studies on mountain yellow-legged frog movements 
(Pope and Matthews 2001; Knapp in litt. 2005; Backlin et al. 2004; Dr. 
V. Vredenburg, University of California-Berkeley, pers. comm. 2006). 
Since there are no definitive published studies on instream movements 
of mountain yellow-legged frogs, we used portions of the above-
mentioned studies that specifically identified stream movement. In 
their study of movement ecology of mountain yellow-legged frogs in the 
Sierra Nevada Mountains, Pope and Matthews (2001) reported a tagged 
female mountain yellow-legged frog that traveled a minimum of 1,968 ft 
(600 m) in a fast-flowing stream. For streams in southern California, 
Backlin et al. (2004) reported movement distances between approximately 
131 ft (40 m) to 4,902 ft (1,494 m). In the Sierra Nevada Mountains, 
Knapp (in litt. 2005) reported movements along a stream connecting two 
lakes, a distance of approximately 2,953 ft (900 m), by 12 frogs in 
2003 and 46 frogs in 2004. Knapp (in litt. 2005) also reported an 
approximately 11,811 ft (3,580 m) movement of three frogs in 2003, and 
one frog in 2004, between two lakes that included both dispersal along 
a stream and overland movement. Finally, Dr. V. Vredenburg (University 
of California-Berkeley, pers. comm. 2006) stated that mountain yellow-
legged frog tadpoles have been located approximately 5,905 ft (1,800 m) 
downstream from where they were tagged in the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
    The variability of study designs and sample sizes in mountain 
yellow-legged frog studies in the Sierra Nevada Mountains have made it 
difficult to infer their results to understand habitat requirements and 
movement distances of mountain yellow-legged frog populations in 
southern California mountains. Instead, we have determined that using 
the recorded movement distance of 4,902 ft (1,494 m) in City Creek, 
East Fork, in the San Bernardino Mountains in southern California, is a 
more appropriate movement distance to measure the length of a stream 
that is occupied by mountain yellow-legged frogs from a known 
occurrence. We believe the observation from City Creek represents the 
best available information to define occupied upstream and downstream 
reaches for the following reasons: (1) This movement distance connects 
known occurrences along a stream or in populations to those that occur 
in tributaries; (2) this movement distance is specific to and 
representative of the southern California populations of the mountain 
yellow-legged frog; (3) movement distances between 131 ft (40 m) to 
4,902 ft (1,494 m) that were identified by Backlin et al. (2004) 
represent home range movements and reflect the high site fidelity 
displayed by mountain yellow-legged frog and are therefore not 
representative of dispersal patterns (Backlin et al. 2004); and (4) 
this distance is less than the maximum distance for stream and overland 
movements identified by Knapp (in litt. 2005) for adults and by 
Vredenburg (pers. comm. 2006) for tadpoles in the Sierra Nevada 
mountains, and thus likely represents a conservative estimate of the 
upstream and downstream movements by the mountain yellow-legged frog in 
southern California.

Stream Reaches Not Currently Known To Be Occupied

    We are also designating critical habitat on lands that were 
historically occupied by the mountain yellow-legged frog, but are not 
known to be currently occupied. These stream reaches were all 
historically occupied within the past 50 years and still contain 
features essential to the conservation of the species. We selected 
these sites based in part on comments and information provided to us by 
herpetologists and experts on the mountain yellow-legged frog. 
Biologists from management agencies (USGS, CDFG, USFS) also provided 
their knowledge of anthropogenic activity level, current habitat 
suitability for the species (including survey data), and management 
potential. Based on the best available information, we have determined 
that without the management and protection of these areas that are not 
known to be occupied, conservation of the species will not be possible 
in the foreseeable future.
    We used the following criteria to select areas historically 
occupied, but not known to be currently occupied by the mountain 
yellow-legged frog, for inclusion in critical habitat. All of the areas 
designated as critical habitat that are currently not known to be 
occupied contain one or more of the following criteria:
    (1) Streams where the habitat contains sufficient PCEs (e.g., 
characteristics such as perennial water flow, pools, riffles, runs, 
riparian and upland habitat, banks with rocky substrate) to support 
life history functions;
    (2) Streams where the habitat has been characterized as 
``suitable'' for mountain yellow-legged frog by USGS, CDFG, and USFS in 
their survey reports (i.e., contains habitat which meets additional, 
more specific characteristics that allow for a range of the species' 
biological needs, such as containing sites for breeding, feeding, 
sheltering, and other essential mountain yellow-legged frog behavioral 
patterns);
    (3) Streams that were known to be occupied by the species within 
the past 50 years, where the habitat has not changed appreciably during 
that time (thus allowing for the assumption that previous occupancy 
still provides good indication of the known suitability of the site for 
the species'' biological needs);
    (4) Streams that have potential for current occupancy by the 
mountain yellow-legged frog because: (a) No conclusive evidence exists 
indicating that the species is currently completely absent from a site 
due to few, incomplete, or absence of surveys having been conducted 
there recently, (b) there is a lack of major anthropogenic disturbance, 
or (c) they were known to be occupied within the past 15 years, which 
is the approximate life span of a mountain yellow-legged frog (Matthews 
and Miaud 2005);
    (5) Streams that are in remote locations, which are geographically 
distant from areas with heavy anthropogenic activities, such as 
vehicular traffic, human recreation, dredging, trout stocking, water 
regulation, and other sources of pollution;
    (6) Streams that are not currently stocked with nonnative fish;
    (7) Streams where threats to the species either no longer exist, or 
are few and have potential to be alleviated (e.g., by shifting current 
human recreational use patterns, and/or by trout removal) through 
voluntary cooperative conservation measures; and
    (8) Streams where there is potential for re-occupation by the 
species, either by natural means through dispersal from currently 
occupied sites, which are located within 2.5 mi (4 km) of a currently 
occupied site (Knapp in litt. 2005), or by future re-introduction 
efforts.
    When determining critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort 
to avoid developed areas such as buildings, paved areas, and other 
structures that lack PCEs for the mountain yellow-legged frog. The 
scale of the maps prepared under the parameters for publication within 
the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the removal of such 
developed areas. Any such structures and the land under them 
inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps 
of this final rule have been removed by text in the final rule and are 
not designated as critical habitat. Therefore, Federal actions limited 
to these areas would not trigger section 7

[[Page 54354]]

consultation, unless they affect the species and/or adjacent critical 
habitat.
    Units are designated based on sufficient PCEs being present to 
support one or more of the mountain yellow-legged frog's life history 
functions. Some units contain all PCEs and support multiple life 
processes, while some units contain only a portion of the PCEs 
necessary to support the frog's particular use of that habitat. Where a 
subset of the PCEs is present at the time of designation, this rule 
protects those PCEs and thus the conservation function of the habitat.
    Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes us to issue permits for 
the take of listed species incidental to otherwise lawful activities. 
An incidental take permit application must be supported by a habitat 
conservation plan (HCP) that identifies conservation measures that the 
permittee agrees to implement for the species to minimize and mitigate 
the impacts of the requested incidental take. We often exclude non-
Federal public lands and private lands that are covered by an existing 
operative HCP and executed implementation agreement (IA) under section 
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act from designated critical habitat because the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion as discussed 
in section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We have excluded non-Federal public 
lands and private lands that are covered under the Western Riverside 
County MSHCP (see Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section 
for a detailed discussion).
    A brief discussion of each area designated as critical habitat is 
provided in the unit descriptions below. Additional detailed 
documentation concerning the essential nature of these areas is 
contained in our supporting record for this rulemaking.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the primary 
constituent elements, within the areas determined to be occupied at the 
time of listing, may require special management considerations or 
protection. Threats to those features that define the primary 
constituent elements for the mountain yellow-legged frog include the 
direct and indirect impacts of some human recreation activities, 
watershed management practices, water diversions from streams, fire 
management practices, and hazardous materials spills along roadways 
adjacent to streams.
    Subunits 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 2A, and 3A may require special management 
due to threats posed by recreational activities, including camping, 
hiking, fishing, and recreational mining (USFS 2002). In areas occupied 
by mountain yellow-legged frogs, human use in and along streams can 
disrupt eggs, larvae, and adult frogs (Jennings 1995), change the 
character of the stream (e.g., sediment), and its bank and associated 
vegetation in ways that make sections of the stream less suitable as 
habitat for the species (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). For example, 
logging activity, recreational mining, or heavy trampling may alter 
and/or decrease the availability of habitat features such as bank 
overhangs, downed logs or branches, and rocks, or may alter pool 
substrate, thereby reducing or eliminating available foraging, resting, 
breeding or egg-laying sites, and increasing suspended sediments and 
turbidity (Service 2005) (PCE 1). Human activities associated with 
heavy recreational use could also erode or denude stream banks or 
shores, reduce the extent of riparian vegetation, potentially reduce 
the available prey base for frogs, alter the amount of stream shade, 
and increase sedimentation within stream channels due to erosion from 
exposed soils (Service 2005) (PCEs 1 and 2). Heavy recreational use is 
specifically cited as a potential threat in Subunit 1A (Bear Gulch and 
Vincent Gulch, the San Gabriel River--East Fork), Subunit 1C (Little 
Rock Creek), and Subunit 3A (Fuller Mill Creek and Dark Canyon); 
recreational mining is cited as a potential threat in Subunit 1A (San 
Gabriel, East Fork) (Jennings 1994, 1995, 1998, 1999; USFS 2002). 
However, due to the proximity of the San Bernardino, San Gabriel and 
San Jacinto Mountains to large urban centers, resulting in high 
recreational use of these areas, there is potential for recreational 
impacts to all of the areas being designated as critical habitat.
    Subunits 1A, 1C, 2A, and 3A may require special management due to 
threats posed by watershed management activities, including forest 
thinning or clearing for public safety or fire prevention (e.g., fuel 
load management), water diversion, application of herbicides, use of 
fire retardants, and inadvertent spills of hazardous chemicals. 
Depending on the extent of the management activities and the proximity 
to streams, forest thinning or clearing may alter streambed and 
riparian characteristics in ways that make sections of the stream less 
suitable as habitat for frogs. For example, thinning or clearing 
adjacent to streams could increase flooding and sedimentation within 
stream channels due to erosion of exposed soils (Jennings 1998) (PCE 
1). Alteration or removal of riparian vegetation could reduce the prey-
base available for mountain yellow-legged frogs (PCE 2); however, the 
presence of a dense canopy cover or riparian vegetation that decreases 
the amount of basking areas (PCE 2) may render the habitat unsuitable 
for mountain yellow-legged frogs (USFS 2002). Water diversion, such as 
water removal from the drainage system occupied by the species, could 
reduce water levels and decrease the quality and extent of suitable 
breeding, wintering, and foraging sites, and reduce the prey-base 
availability (USFS 2002). Subunit 1C (Little Rock Creek), Subunit 2A 
(East Fork City Creek), and Subunit 3A (Dark Canyon and Fuller Mill 
Creek) have potentially high canopy cover and/or dense riparian 
vegetation within the watershed (USFS 2002).
    The USFS prepared the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog Conservation 
Assessment and Strategy: Angeles and San Bernardino National Forests 
(Strategy) (USFS 2002). This Strategy provides a framework for 
conservation actions to assist in the recovery and conservation of the 
mountain yellow-legged frog and identifies the following management 
actions necessary to reduce impacts to mountain yellow-legged frog 
habitat: (1) Recreation. Closing, rerouting, or reconstructing 
unauthorized trails; closing parking areas used for unauthorized trail 
access; removing campsites and picnic tables adjacent to occupied 
creeks; installing signing at trailheads and along access points to 
promote understanding of the species' biology and habitat requirements; 
(2) High fuel loads. Develop plans for fuels reductions in the 
watershed; plans will examine potential riparian treatment of high 
canopy or dense vegetation; and (3) Hazardous materials spills. Develop 
an action plan for prevention, notification, and containment of spills 
before they enter the stream or its tributaries.
    Some of the conservation actions outlined in the Strategy have been 
implemented. For example, the USFS closed camp sites adjacent to Dark 
Canyon/North Fork San Jacinto River in May 2001, and acquired 
approximately 60 ac (24 ha) of mountain yellow-legged frog habitat in 
the headwaters of Fuller Mill Creek (USFS 2002) to protect a 
discontinuous stretch of habitat previously under private ownership. 
However, recreational activities that may impact habitat for the 
mountain yellow-legged frog continue to occur in or adjacent to other 
occupied sites.

Critical Habitat Designation

    We are designating three units, divided into 14 subunits, as 
critical

[[Page 54355]]

habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog. The critical habitat 
subunits described below constitute our best assessment at this time of 
(1) Areas determined to be occupied at the time of listing that contain 
the primary constituent elements essential for the conservation of the 
species and that may require special management considerations or 
protection, and (2) those additional areas found to be essential to the 
conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog. The three units 
designated as critical habitat are: (1) The San Gabriel Mountains Unit, 
(2) the San Bernardino Mountains Unit, and (3) The San Jacinto 
Mountains Unit. Tables 1 and 2 provide summaries of approximate area 
that meets the definition of critical habitat for the mountain yellow-
legged frog, area excluded, and area designated as critical habitat by 
subunit (Table 1), and the approximate area designated as critical 
habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog by land ownership (Table 
2).
    We believe that all lands designated as critical habitat are 
essential for the conservation and persistence of the mountain yellow-
legged frog for the following reasons:

  Table 1.--Approximate Area in Acres (ac) and Hectares (ha) Determined To Meet the Definition of Critical Habitat for the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog
                              (Definitional Area) and Excluded From the Final Critical Habitat Designation (Excluded Area)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Critical habitat
            Subunit                    subunit name         Definitional area  ac (ha)        Excluded area  ac (ha)              Total  ac (ha)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Unit 1: SAN GABRIEL MOUNTAINS UNIT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1A.............................  San Gabriel River, East  2,474 ac (1,001 ha)...........  ..............................  2,474 ac (1,001 ha).
                                  Fork \a\.
1B.............................  Big Rock Creek, South    625 ac (253 ha)...............  ..............................  625 ac (253 ha).
                                  Fork \a\.
1C.............................  Little Rock Creek \a\..  615 ac (249 ha)...............  ..............................  615 ac (249 ha).
1D.............................  Devil's Canyon \a\.....  279 ac (113 ha)...............  ..............................  279 ac (113 ha).
1E.............................  Day Canyon \b\.........  635 ac (257 ha)...............  ..............................  635 ac (257 ha).
1F.............................  San Gabriel River, East  373 ac (151 ha)...............  ..............................  373 ac (151 ha).
                                  Fork, Iron Fork \b\.
1G.............................  Bear Creek \b\.........  116 ac (47 ha)................  ..............................  116 ac (47 ha).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Unit 2: SAN BERNARDINO MOUNTAINS UNIT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2A.............................  City Creek, East and     1,386 ac (561 ha).............  ..............................  1,386 ac (561 ha).
                                  West Forks \b\.
2B.............................  Barton Creek, East Fork  193 ac (78 ha)................  ..............................  193 ac (78 ha).
                                  \b\.
2C.............................  Whitewater River, North  74 ac (30 ha).................  ..............................  74 ac (30 ha).
                                  Fork \b\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Unit 3: SAN JACINTO MOUNTAINS UNIT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3A.............................  San Jacinto River,       1,352 ac (547 ha).............  433 ac (175 ha)...............  919 ac (372 ha).
                                  North Fork \a\.
3B.............................  Indian Creek at Hall     180 ac (73 ha)................  54 ac (22 ha).................  126 ac (51 ha).
                                  Canyon \b\.
3C.............................  Tahquitz Creek \b\.....  358 ac (145 ha)...............  ..............................  358 ac (145 ha).
3D.............................  Andreas Creek \b\......  109 ac (44 ha)................  ..............................  109 ac (44 ha).
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total......................  .......................  8,770 ac (3,549 ha)...........  487 ac (197 ha)...............  8,283 ac (3,352 ha).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Occupied at the time of listing in 2002 and currently occupied as of 2005.
\b\ Not currently known to be occupied, but historically occupied.


  Table 2.--Approximate Area in Acres (ac) and Hectares (ha) for Each Critical Habitat Unit Designated for the
                                  Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog by Landownership
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Critical habitat
     Subunit            subunit name       Federal ac (ha)    State ac (ha)    Private ac (ha)    Total ac (ha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Unit 1: SAN GABRIEL MOUNTAINS UNIT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1A...............  San Gabriel River,     2,474 ac (1,001   ................  ................  2,474 ac (1,001
                    East Fork.             ha).                                                  ha).
1B...............  Big Rock Creek, South  625 ac (253 ha).  ................  ................  625 ac (253 ha).
                    Fork.
1C...............  Little Rock Creek....  615 ac (249 ha).  ................  ................  615 ac (249 ha).
1D...............  Devil's Canyon.......  279 ac (113 ha).  ................  ................  279 ac (113 ha).
1E...............  Day Canyon...........  635 ac (257 ha).  ................  ................  635 ac (257 ha.
1F...............  San Gabriel River,     373 ac (151 ha).  ................  ................  373 ac (151 ha).
                    East Fork, Iron Fork.
1G...............  Bear Creek...........  116 ac (47 ha)..  ................  ................  116 ac (47 ha).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Unit 2: SAN BERNARDINO MOUNTAINS UNIT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2A...............  City Creek, East and   1267 ac (513 ha)  ................  119 ac (48 ha)..  1,386 ac (561
                    West Fork.                                                                   ha).
2B...............  Barton Creek, East     193 ac (78 ha)..  ................  ................  193 ac (78 ha).
                    Fork.
2C...............  Whitewater River,      74 ac (30 ha)...  ................  ................  74 ac (30 ha).
                    North Fork.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Unit 3: SAN JACINTO MOUNTAINS UNIT
 
3A...............  San Jacinto River,     823 ac (333 ha).  96 ac (39 ha)...  ................  919 ac (372 ha).
                    North Fork.
3B...............  Indian Creek at Hall   126 ac (51 ha)..  ................  ................  126 ac (51 ha).
                    Canyon.
3C...............  Tahquitz Creek.......  243 ac (98 ha)..  115 ac (47 ha)..  ................  358 ac (145 ha).

[[Page 54356]]

 
3D...............  Andreas Creek........  109 ac (44 ha)..  ................  ................  109 ac (44 ha).
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........  .....................  7,952 ac (3,218   211 ac (86 ha)..  119 ac (48 ha)..  8,283 ac (3,352
                                           ha).                                                  ha).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) The range of the mountain yellow-legged frog in southern 
California has been reduced to less than 1 percent of its original area 
(i.e., extirpated from 99 percent of its former range as estimated by a 
review of historical records by Jennings and Hayes (1994a)), with the 
remaining occupied habitat limited and fragmented;
    (2) The population estimates for each stream are extremely small, 
with no estimate exceeding 100 breeding adults, and an approximate 
total of only 183 surviving adults for the entire southern California 
range (Backlin et al. 2004);
    (3) Existing small populations are at a high risk of extinction due 
to stochastic events (Pimm et al. 1988) or deterministic events (Skelly 
et al. 1999); and
    (4) Existing small populations are susceptible to other threats, 
including predation of frogs by non-native trout and human recreation.
    Of the 14 subunits being designated as critical habitat, 8 were 
historically occupied but were not known to be occupied at the time of 
listing (subunits 1E, 1F, 1G, 2B, 2C, 3B, 3C, and 3D). These subunits 
were occupied recently (within the past 50 years), and the stream and 
riparian habitat within each has not changed appreciably (Jennings 
1993, 1994, 1995, 1998, 1999; Jennings and Hayes 1994a, b; Backlin et 
al. 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004). Each of these subunits thus contains 
habitat with features essential for the conservation of the species. 
Because of the necessity of population increase or augmentation for the 
continued survival of this species, these areas may serve as important 
re-introduction sites, particularly in the San Bernardino and San 
Jacinto Mountains, where the number of known occurrences has decreased 
to two limited areas in each mountain range. Even then, one of the two 
known populations in the San Bernardino Mountains (City Creek) 
experienced a recent fire (2003) and subsequent flooding that threatens 
extant populations (Backlin et al. 2004).
    Presented below are brief descriptions of all units, and 
justification for their designation as critical habitat for the 
mountain yellow-legged frog.

Critical Habitat Unit 1: San Gabriel Mountains Unit

    Unit 1 is comprised solely of USFS lands and lies entirely within 
the San Gabriel Mountains of the Angeles and San Bernardino National 
Forests in Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California. This 
unit is comprised of seven subunits (1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1F, and 1G), 
including four subunits (1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D) that were known to be 
occupied at the time of listing and are currently occupied and three 
subunits (1E, 1F, 1G) that are not known to be currently occupied but 
were historically occupied. The populations in Unit 1 represent the 
northern- and western-most known occurrences of the mountain yellow-
legged frog.
Subunit 1A: San Gabriel River, East Fork
    Subunit 1A is comprised of 2,474 ac (1,001 ha) of Federal land 
along approximately 26.5 mi (42.7 km) of several stream reaches in the 
upper section of the East Fork of the San Gabriel River, including the 
Bear Gulch, Vincent Gulch, Fish Fork, Iron Fork, and Alder Gulch 
streams. This currently occupied subunit is located within the remote, 
mountainous terrain of the Sheep Mountain Wilderness Area in the 
Angeles National Forest in Los Angeles County, California. Mountain 
yellow-legged frogs were first recorded in the main stem of the East 
Fork of the San Gabriel River as early as 1933, from as far south as 
Heaton Flats and as far north as the headwaters at Prairie Fork, 
Vincent Gulch, and Bear Gulch, where populations have recently been 
recorded. The presence of mountain yellow-legged frogs is tenuous, as 
made evident by population estimates in Bear Gulch of 54 adults for 
2001-2003 (95 percent confidence interval 33-93), and no mountain 
yellow-legged frogs were discovered during 3 survey efforts in 2005 
(Backlin and Hitchcock in litt. 2005). In neighboring Vincent Gulch, 
mountain yellow-legged frogs were observed as early as 1933 (Backlin et 
al. 2004). In 2003, Vincent Gulch supported only a very small 
population containing approximately 2 adults and 11 first-year larvae 
(Backlin et al. 2004). Jennings (1993) stated that the trail and/or 
campgrounds that occur at the mouth of Vincent Gulch should be re-
routed to avoid human impacts to mountain yellow-legged frogs. In 
adjacent Prairie Fork, mountain yellow-legged frogs have been observed 
since 1982, but were not located during surveys in 1998 and 2000. A 
campground is located there and non-native trout are present (Backlin 
et al. 2004). Mountain yellow-legged frog populations in this 
watershed, including the areas designated as critical habitat in this 
subunit, have experienced a number of major climatic events within the 
past 40 years, including a devastating flood that occurred throughout 
southern California during 1968-69, when mountain yellow-legged frog 
populations were seemingly experiencing great reductions in size 
(Jennings and Hayes 1994b), as well as a severe fire during 1997 at the 
headwaters of the San Gabriel River, East Fork (Jennings 1999).
    Subunit 1A contains the following features essential to the 
conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog: water sources, such as 
streams and pools, for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1) and 
riparian habitat and upland vegetation for foraging and movement 
activities (PCE 2). Threats to the species and its habitat that may 
require special management of the PCEs in this subunit include the 
presence of non-native trout, potential water diversion, human 
recreation, and recreational mining (USFS 2002). There have been 
proposals for water removal from the upper part of the drainage above 
Vincent and Bear Gulch for the winter recreation on Blue Ridge, and 
there has also been an increased siltation load from recent fires (in 
1999) and from instream recreation (Jennings 1999). South of these 
headwater streams, most areas of the East Fork of the San Gabriel River 
contain non-native trout (Backlin et al. 2004). The main stem of the 
San Gabriel River has been stocked with trout (near Heaton Flats) 52 
times between 1947 and 1998 (Backlin et al. 2004). The Alder Gulch 
tributary to the East Fork of the San Gabriel River has not been 
surveyed extensively; however, it contains habitat suitable for the

[[Page 54357]]

mountain yellow-legged frog, which was known to occur here at least 
from 1994 to 1998. Rainbow trout were stocked in this stream twice 
between 1940 and 1969, and the trout persist today (Backlin et al. 
2004). As a result of these identified threats, stream segments in this 
subunit may require special management considerations or protection 
such as relocation of hiking trails or picnic areas or other access 
limitations in or near sensitive areas, additional monitoring of 
authorized mining activities, and removal of non-native trout species.
Subunit 1B: Big Rock Creek, South Fork
    Subunit 1B is comprised of 625 ac (253 ha) of Federal lands along 
approximately 6.1 mi (9.9 km) of Big Rock Creek. This currently 
occupied subunit is located within the Angeles National Forest in Los 
Angeles County, California. Mountain yellow-legged frogs were recorded 
at the uppermost reaches of the tributaries, below which rainbow trout 
occur. The number of frogs here is almost 10 times greater than in 
Little Rock Creek (Subunit 1C) (Backlin et al. 2004). The adult 
breeding population of mountain yellow-legged frogs in the South Fork 
of Big Rock Creek between 2000 and 2003 was estimated to be from 27 to 
74 (Backlin et al. 2004). Big Rock Creek and Bear Gulch (subunit 1A) 
represent the largest adult breeding populations throughout the range 
of the species in southern California.
    Subunit 1B contains the following features essential to the 
conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog: water sources, such as 
streams and pools, for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1) and 
riparian habitat and upland vegetation for foraging and movement 
activities (PCE 2). Threats to the species and its habitat that may 
require special management of the PCEs in this subunit include the 
presence of non-native trout (USFS 2002; Backlin et al. 2004) and human 
recreation. In 2002, severe drought conditions resulted in zero flow in 
the creek and only a few shallow pools remained below the area where 
mountain yellow-legged frogs occurred. The remaining pools contained an 
estimated 20 to 100 fish (Backlin et al. 2004) per pool. By 2003, the 
number of trout in the stream reaches below the locations of mountain 
yellow-legged frogs had greatly decreased, providing opportunity for 
successful trout removal and trout barrier implementation (Backlin et 
al. 2004). By late 2003, three frogs were found to occur approximately 
0.6 mi (1 km) downstream from where the majority of the mountain 
yellow-legged frog population occurred. Only one mountain yellow-legged 
frog was found in previous years. It was hypothesized that these three 
individuals could establish and persist with few or no trout (Backlin 
et al. 2004); however, there is no fish barrier to prevent trout from 
re-colonizing the upper reaches in years with heavier water flows, such 
as 2005.
    The main stem of Big Rock Creek was stocked with trout 51 times 
between 1947-1998, and the South Fork of Big Rock Creek was stocked 
four times from 1948-1953 (Backlin et al. 2004). Little information 
exists on recreational impacts to mountain yellow-legged frog habitat 
in this subunit, but the subunit borders a campground and hiking 
trails, and there are several roads close by (e.g., Angeles Crest 
Highway). Further, due to the proximity of the San Gabriel Mountains to 
large urban centers and the resulting high recreational use of these 
areas, recreational impacts are likely to occur to some extent within 
this subunit. As a result, stream segments in this subunit may require 
special management considerations or protection, such as relocation of 
hiking trails, public education efforts, other access limitations in or 
near sensitive areas, and removal of non-native trout.
Subunit 1C: Little Rock Creek
    Subunit 1C is comprised of 615 ac (249 ha) of Federal lands along 
approximately 6.1 mi (9.8 km) of Little Rock Creek. This currently 
occupied subunit is located within the Angeles National Forest in Los 
Angeles County, California. Mountain yellow-legged frogs once ranged 
from its headwaters, and throughout the entire length of this stream to 
where it empties northwest into the Mojave River. Mountain yellow-
legged frogs were observed as early as 1911 in Little Rock Creek. 
However, frogs are threatened in this creek because a reservoir was 
constructed in its lower reach where non-native trout were stocked 51 
times between 1947 and 1998 (Backlin et al. 2004). Today, the current 
population of mountain yellow-legged frogs is estimated to be 
approximately 9 individuals, and they are believed to exist only at the 
highest elevation headwaters of Little Rock Creek (Backlin et al. 
2004), although side tributaries have not been surveyed extensively.
    Subunit 1C contains the following features essential to the 
conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog: water sources, such as 
streams and pools, for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1) and 
riparian habitat and upland vegetation for foraging and movement 
activities (PCE 2). Threats to the species and its habitat that may 
require special management of the PCEs in Little Rock Creek include the 
presence of non-native trout, human recreation, and hazardous materials 
spills (USFS 2002). Rock climbing and hiking are common activities in 
the upper headwaters of Little Rock Creek, near the Angeles Crest 
Highway (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). An unofficial trail has been 
blazed to a popular rock-climbing area and follows the creek where 
mountain yellow-legged frogs occur (USFS 2002). The USGS has 
recommended that the trail be diverted away from the stream to avoid 
disturbance to the frogs and their habitat and to minimize pollution. 
Both the USFS and USGS have identified the need for educational signs 
in this area to promote understanding of the mountain yellow-legged 
frog biology/ecology and its habitat requirements (USFS 2002; Backlin 
et al. 2004). Additional special management that may be required to 
minimize the threat of recreational activities includes: Closing, 
rerouting or reconstructing unauthorized trails; closing parking areas 
used for unauthorized trail access; relocating campsites and picnic 
tables adjacent to occupied creeks; and removing non-native trout. The 
potential for hazardous materials spills is also a threat to the 
habitat within this subunit and may require special management such as 
developing an action plan for prevention, notification, and containment 
of spills before they enter the stream or its tributaries (USFS 2002). 
There have also been requests for water removal for ski operations in 
the uppermost reaches, which can potentially dewater the stream during 
the winter months when water flows are low (Service 1999, 2002; Stewart 
et al. 2000).
    Little Rock Creek, with its extant mountain yellow-legged frog 
population, is a site chosen by the USGS to conduct a manipulation 
experiment to study the effects of trout removal on the establishment 
behavior of frogs. Trout are known to be predators of ranid frogs 
(Hayes and Jennings 1986, Backlin et al. 2004), and there is evidence 
that introduced trout restrict the distribution and abundance of 
mountain yellow-legged frogs (Bradford 1989; Bradford et al 1994; Knapp 
and Matthews 2000; Knapp et al. 2003; Backlin et al. 2004). The project 
area encompasses the uppermost reaches of the creek, where it is 
divided into three sections by natural fish barriers. The first barrier 
is a natural waterfall, above which the main frog population occurs; 
below it are rainbow trout, and few mountain yellow-legged frog 
sightings have been

[[Page 54358]]

recorded there regularly (Backlin et al. 2004). Further downstream, 
where there are only trout, a second natural barrier was enhanced by 
USFS in 2003 to prevent upstream movement by trout. Trout have been 
experimentally removed by electro-shocking and dip netting between the 
waterfall and the enhanced barrier on an annual basis (2002 to present) 
(Backlin et al. 2004). In 2002, 900 trout were removed; in 2003, 90 
were removed; in 2004, approximately 250 trout, mostly young of the 
year, were removed (T. Hovey, CDFG, pers. comm. 2006). Trout removal 
efforts have significantly depleted trout populations, but have not yet 
completely removed the trout from that section of the stream.
Subunit 1D: Devil's Canyon
    Subunit 1D is comprised of 279 ac (113 ha) of Federal lands along 
approximately 3.1 mi (4.9 km) of Devil's Canyon. This currently 
occupied subunit is located within the San Gabriel Wilderness in the 
Angeles National Forest in Los Angeles County, California. Devil's 
Canyon is a rugged area which covers approximately 36,215 ac (14,667 
ha) and varies in elevation from 1,600 to 8,200 ft (490 to 2,500 m). 
The lower elevations are covered with dense chaparral, which rapidly 
changes to pine and fir-covered slopes. Although wilderness permits are 
not required, Devil's Canyon has been relatively unstudied with regard 
to vertebrate resources. The habitat has been characterized as 
excellent for mountain yellow-legged frogs (Jennings 1993), but 
difficult access has restricted survey efforts to only once each year 
from 2000 to 2005 (A. Backlin, USGS, pers. comm. 2006). An estimated 
adult mountain yellow-legged frog breeding population of 20 individuals 
exists in Devil's Canyon (Backlin et al. 2004).
    Subunit 1D contains the following features essential to the 
conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog: Water sources, such as 
streams and pools, for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1) and 
riparian habitat and upland vegetation for foraging and movement 
activities (PCE 2). Threats to the species and its habitat that may 
require special management of the PCEs within this subunit include the 
presence of non-native trout and human recreation. We do not currently 
have documented information on recreational impacts to mountain yellow-
legged frog habitat within this subunit. However, due to the proximity 
of the San Gabriel Mountains to large urban centers and the resulting 
high recreational use of these areas, we believe that recreation occurs 
to some extent within this subunit. As a result, stream segments within 
this subunit may require special management considerations or 
protection such as relocation of hiking trails or other access 
limitations in or near sensitive areas and the removal of non-native 
trout.
Subunit 1E: Day Canyon
    Subunit 1E is comprised of 635 ac (257 ha) of Federal lands 
designated as critical habitat along approximately 6.5 mi (10.4 km) of 
Day Canyon and two of its tributaries. This historically occupied, but 
not known to be currently occupied, subunit is located in the San 
Bernardino National Forest in San Bernardino County, California, 
ranging from Cucamonga Peak to a gauging station in Canyon Wash near 
the southern border of San Bernardino National Forest. The terrain is 
steep and characterized by extensive rock/boulder fields and limited 
soil development (USFS 2002). Mountain yellow-legged frogs were first 
observed in Day Canyon in 1959 (Los Angeles County Museum 2006), more 
recently in 1994, and later in the late 1990s (Myers and Wilcox 1999). 
Surveys in portions of Day Canyon in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, and 2004 
failed to detect frogs, but found rainbow trout (Backlin et al. 2004). 
Although surveyed during drought years, small mountain yellow-legged 
frog populations, and incomplete survey efforts of the entire stream 
may have contributed to the surveyor's inability to detect frogs.
    This subunit is essential for the conservation of the mountain 
yellow-legged frog because it has potential for occupancy as it was 
historically occupied within the past 15 years, and because habitat 
quality during that time has not significantly changed. The subunit 
contains the following features essential to the conservation of the 
mountain yellow-legged frog: water sources, such as streams and pools, 
for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1) and riparian habitat 
and upland vegetation for foraging and movement activities (PCE 2).
Subunit 1F: San Gabriel River, East Fork, Iron Fork
    Subunit 1F is comprised of 373 ac (151 ha) of Federal lands along 
approximately 3.8 mi (6.1 km) of two streams that drain into the San 
Gabriel East Fork, the Iron Fork, and the South Fork of Iron Fork. This 
historically occupied, but not known to be currently occupied, subunit 
is located in the Angeles National Forest in Los Angeles County, 
California. This subunit historically contained healthy populations of 
dozens of individuals from at least 1947 through 1975, and in 1994 
(Ford 1975; Jennings 1994). Since then, the difficult access and steep 
terrain restricted survey efforts only to 2001 (Backlin et al. 2002). 
The 2001 survey was able to determine that there is suitable habitat 
for the mountain yellow-legged frog in this area (A. Backlin, USGS, 
pers. comm. 2006).
    This subunit is essential for the conservation of the mountain 
yellow-legged frog because it may constitute an important pathway 
between frog populations in the East Fork of the San Gabriel River 
(Subunit 1A) and Big Rock Creek (Subunit 1B), as well as serving as a 
refuge for frogs from trout predation due to its inaccessibility and 
steepness. Since mountain yellow-legged frogs can be difficult to 
detect, especially in low rainfall years, it is possible that frogs 
still occur in this area, particularly in the upper reaches where 
surveys have not been recently conducted (A. Backlin, USGS, pers. comm. 
2006). This subunit also contains the following features essential to 
the conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog: water sources, 
such as streams and pools, for breeding and non-breeding activities 
(PCE 1) and riparian habitat and upland vegetation for foraging and 
movement activities (PCE 2). This subunit has been identified as a 
potential site for future mountain yellow-legged frog reintroduction 
because of its remoteness, high potential for recolonization through 
natural means by dispersal from nearby populations, and PCEs to support 
populations.
Subunit 1G: Bear Creek
    Subunit 1G is comprised of 116 ac (47 ha) of Federal lands along 
approximately 1.2 mi (2 km) of the upper reaches of Bear Creek, a 
tributary of the West Fork of the San Gabriel River. This historically 
occupied, but not known to be currently occupied, subunit is located in 
the San Gabriel Wilderness Area of the Angeles National Forest in Los 
Angeles County, California. Mountain yellow-legged frogs were first 
observed in the Bear Creek area in 1959 (Schoenherr 1976), but two more 
recent surveys since have failed to detect frogs (Jennings 1993; 
Backlin et al. 2003). It is possible that this subunit harbors unknown 
populations since it has not been surveyed very intensively in recent 
years and is located less than a mile east of an extant population in 
Devil's Canyon (Subunit 1D).
    This subunit is essential for the conservation of the mountain 
yellow-legged frog because it is relatively close to an extant 
population in Devil's Canyon (Subunit 1D) and contains the following 
features essential to the

[[Page 54359]]

conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog: water sources, such as 
streams and pools, for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1) and 
riparian habitat and upland vegetation for foraging and movement 
activities (PCE 2). This subunit has been identified as a potential 
site for future mountain yellow-legged frog reintroduction because of 
its remoteness, high potential for recolonization through natural means 
by dispersal from nearby populations, and PCEs to support populations.

Critical Habitat Unit 2: San Bernardino Mountains Unit

    Unit 2 is located in the San Bernardino Mountains within the 
boundaries the San Bernardino National Forest in San Bernardino County, 
California. This unit is comprised of three subunits (2A, 2B, and 2C), 
including one subunit (2A) that was known to be occupied at the time of 
listing and is currently occupied and two subunits (2B and 2C) that are 
not known to be currently occupied but were historically occupied.
Subunit 2A: City Creek, East and West Forks
    Subunit 2A is comprised of 1,267 ac (513 ha) of Federal lands and 
119 ac (48 ha) of private lands along approximately 15.1 mi (24.3 km) 
of both the West and East Forks of City Creek. This currently occupied 
subunit is located within the San Bernardino National Forest in San 
Bernardino County, California, where recreational pressure is very low. 
Between 2002 and 2003, the breeding population of mountain yellow-
legged frog in City Creek, East Fork was estimated to be 50 adults (95% 
confidence interval = 22-127; Backlin et al. 2004), at that time, 
representing one of the largest of the known populations of mountain 
yellow-legged frog in southern California. The City Creek, West Fork 
has been surveyed less frequently than City Creek, East Fork, but both 
adults and tadpoles have been observed at or near the confluence of the 
two streams and below the confluence of the streams (CDFG 1999, 2001; 
Myers and Wilcox 1999).
    In October 2003, the Old Fire burned the front range of the San 
Bernardino National Forest and killed most of the riparian vegetation 
in City Creek. During the following December, subsequent run-off and 
scouring of the stream channel from winter storms decimated many areas 
that contained mountain yellow-legged frog habitat by removing most of 
the sediment and any vegetation (alive or dead) from many stretches of 
the creek where frogs had previously been recorded (Backlin et al. 
2004). In hopes of protecting this population from future flooding 
events and further habitat loss, 11 surviving juvenile frogs were 
removed from the East Fork and originally taken to the Los Angeles 
Zoo's captive rearing facility in 2004 by personnel from several 
agencies, including the Service. Only seven of these frogs survived 
captivity and were later taken to the San Diego Zoo's Wild Animal Park. 
These frogs have since died at the Wild Animal Park. Details on the 
causes of their death are currently under investigation. In September 
of 2005, mountain yellow-legged frogs demonstrated some resiliency to 
the recent major flooding events when wild frog metamorphs were 
rediscovered in City Creek, East Fork below the Highway 330 bridge and 
above the confluence (Backlin and Hitchcock in litt. 2005).
    As a result of the 2003 fire and the 2005 floods, parts of City 
Creek, East Fork may not currently contain all of the PCEs since 
hydrologists expected that sediments (PCE 1) may have been scoured and 
transported downstream. However, the portion of the creek north of 
Highway 330 contained many pools (PCE 1) and the riparian habitat (PCE 
2) seemed intact, although the banks themselves were rocky and now lack 
soil substrate (Dr. E. Pierce, pers. obs. 2004). Therefore, at least in 
the northern portion of this creek, at least one or more of the primary 
constituent elements still exist. Over time, it is expected that 
natural processes will restore the habitat throughout the designated 
area (i.e., the bank substrates and vegetation cover) and this subunit 
will again support the PCEs.
    Subunit 2A currently contains water sources, such as streams and 
pools, for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1) and in the 
future may contain riparian habitat and upland vegetation for foraging 
and movement activities (PCE 2). Subunit 2A is essential to the 
conservation of the species because we expect the PCEs to be naturally 
restored and because: (1) The habitat previously supported a large 
adult population; and (2) this population was one of only two known 
occurrences in the San Bernardino Mountains. Threats to the species and 
its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs within this 
subunit include the presence of non-native trout, potentially high fuel 
loads, and the potential for hazardous spills along Highway 330 (USFS 
2002). Non-native brown trout were stocked 11 times between 1949 and 
1979 (Backlin et al. 2004). Threats also include temporary habitat 
alteration resulting from flood and fire events. Stream segments in 
this subunit may require special management considerations or 
protection such as removal of non-native trout species, restoration of 
habitat altered during recent fires and floods, the development of an 
action plan for prevention, notification, and containment of spills 
before they enter the stream or its tributaries, and management of 
riparian vegetation in areas of high canopy cover or dense vegetation.
Subunit 2B: Barton Creek East Fork
    Subunit 2B is comprised of 193 ac (78 ha) of Federal lands along 
approximately 2 mi (3.1 km) of the East Fork of Barton Creek. This 
historically occupied, but not known to be currently occupied, subunit 
contains a portion of the East Fork of Barton Creek that drains from 
the north-facing slope of the San Bernardino Mountain Wilderness area, 
off Shields Peak, and joins with Frog Creek to form the main stem of 
Barton Creek in the San Bernardino Mountains within the San Bernardino 
National Forest in San Bernardino County, California. Mountain yellow-
legged frogs were first documented in Barton Creek in 1910 (Museum of 
Vertebrate Zoology 2006). Frogs were not documented again until 1993 (a 
year with significant precipitation), when approximately 50 adults were 
observed in this creek (CNDDB 2006).
    This subunit is essential for the conservation of the mountain 
yellow-legged frog because it has a potential for occupancy due to 
having been recently occupied within the past 15 years, has not had a 
significant change in habitat quality during that time, and contains 
the following features essential to the conservation of the mountain 
yellow-legged frog: water sources, such as streams and pools, for 
breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1) and riparian habitat and 
upland vegetation for foraging and movement activities (PCE 2).
Subunit 2C: Whitewater River, North Fork
    Subunit 2C is comprised of 74 ac (30 ha) of Federal lands along 
approximately 0.8 mi (1.2 km) of the Whitewater River. This 
historically occupied, but not known to be currently occupied, subunit 
is located in the San Bernardino Wilderness area in the San Bernardino 
National Forest in San Bernardino County, California. Mountain yellow-
legged frogs were first collected on the desert slope between Cabezon 
and the Whitewater River in 1908 (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology 2006), 
and additional surveys discovered mountain yellow-legged

[[Page 54360]]

frogs in Whitewater River in 1959 (Los Angeles County Museum 2006). 
Recent surveys in the lower reaches of the Whitewater River in 2001 and 
2003, north of the I-10 highway, were unsuccessful in detecting frogs 
once again. However, due to the difficult access, the upper reaches of 
the North Fork of the Whitewater River containing PCEs have not been 
thoroughly surveyed.
    This subunit is essential for the conservation of the mountain 
yellow-legged frog because it contains the following features essential 
to the conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog: water sources, 
such as streams and pools, for breeding and non-breeding activities 
(PCE 1) and riparian habitat and upland vegetation for foraging and 
movement activities (PCE 2). This subunit has been identified as a 
potential site for future mountain yellow-legged frog reintroductions 
because of its remoteness and the presence of PCEs to support mountain 
yellow-legged frog populations.

Critical Habitat Unit 3: San Jacinto Mountains Unit

    Unit 3 is located in the San Jacinto Mountains in the San 
Bernardino National Forest, Riverside County, California. This unit is 
comprised of four subunits (3A, 3B, 3C, and 3D), including one subunit 
(3A) that was known to be occupied at the time of listing and is 
currently occupied and three subunits (3B, 3C, 3D) that were 
historically occupied but are not known to be currently occupied.
Subunit 3A: San Jacinto River, North Fork
    Subunit 3A is comprised of 823 ac (333 ha) of Federal lands and 96 
ac (39 ha) of State lands along approximately 9 mi (14.5 km) of several 
stream reaches in the upper section of the North Fork of the San 
Jacinto River and its tributaries, including Black Mountain Creek, 
Fuller Mill Creek, and Dark Canyon, within the San Bernardino National 
Forest in Riverside County, California. In 2003, USGS estimated that 
there were from 9-13 adult mountain yellow-legged frogs in Fuller Mill 
Creek, which accounted for approximately 5-7 percent of the total 
estimated adult population (183 individuals) in southern California 
(Backlin et al. 2004). USGS also estimated that there were 11 adults, 
54 juveniles, and 18 first-year larvae in Dark Canyon, which accounted 
for a large proportion (42 percent) of the total estimated juvenile 
population in southern California (128 individuals) (Backlin et al. 
2004). However, Dark Canyon and its upper reaches have not been 
surveyed as extensively as some of the other occupied streams (i.e. it 
was surveyed only once in 2003) because of its difficult access 
(Backlin et al. 2004). Both Fuller Mill Creek and Dark Canyon represent 
the most important sources of reproductive potential for this species 
in the San Jacinto Mountains. Adult mountain yellow-legged frogs were 
discovered in Black Mountain Creek north of Highway 243 in 1990 (CNDDB 
2006). These populations in the San Jacinto Mountains are the 
southernmost extant populations of the mountain yellow-legged frog. We 
are excluding approximately 433 ac (175 ha) of non-Federal lands along 
4.6 mi (7.4 km) of discontinuous stream reaches in the upper section of 
the North Fork of the San Jacinto River and its tributaries, including 
Black Mountain Creek, Fuller Mill Creek, and Dark Canyon from the final 
designation (see Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act for a 
detailed discussion).
    Subunit 3A contains the following features essential to the 
conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog: Water sources, such as 
streams and pools, for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1) and 
riparian habitat and upland vegetation for foraging and movement 
activities (PCE 2). Threats to the species and its habitat that may 
require special management of the PCEs in this subunit include the 
presence of non-native trout, human recreation, and potentially high 
fuel loads (USFS 2002). The North Fork San Jacinto River was stocked 
with non-native trout 36 times between 1948 and 1984 (Backlin et al. 
2004). Stream segments within this subunit may require special 
management considerations or protection such as removal of non-native 
trout species; rerouting or reconstruction of hiking trails or some 
recreational facilities located adjacent to occupied creeks; 
installation of signage at trailheads and along access points to 
promote understanding of the species' biology and habitat requirements; 
and management of riparian vegetation in areas of high canopy cover or 
dense vegetation.
Subunit 3B: Indian Creek at Hall Canyon
    Subunit 3B is comprised of 126 ac (51 ha) of Federal lands along 
approximately 1.2 mi (1.9 km) of Indian Creek at Hall Canyon. This 
historically occupied, but not known to be currently occupied, subunit 
occurs within the San Bernardino National Forest in Riverside County, 
California. Mountain yellow-legged frogs were first observed in this 
area in 1908 near Lake Fulmor (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology 2006), and 
since then, frogs were observed in 1927 (California Academy of Sciences 
2006), in the 1950s (Los Angeles County Museum 2006), and again in 1995 
(CNDDB 2006). Although surveys have not been conducted in this subunit 
during the 2000s, frogs may have been difficult to detect because water 
levels in streams have been very low due to drought conditions, their 
presumed population size is very small, and not all stream lengths were 
surveyed during the last survey effort. Approximately 54 ac (22 ha) of 
non-Federal lands along 0.5 mi (0.9 km) of Indian Creek at Hall Canyon 
has been excluded from the final designation (see Exclusion Under 
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act for a detailed discussion).
    This subunit is essential for the conservation of the mountain 
yellow-legged frog because it has a potential for occupancy due to 
having been recently occupied within the past 15 years, has not had a 
significant change in habitat quality during that time, and contains 
the following features essential to the conservation of the mountain 
yellow-legged frog: Water sources, such as streams and pools, for 
breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1) and riparian habitat and 
upland vegetation for foraging and movement activities (PCE 2).
Subunit 3C: Tahquitz Creek
    Subunit 3C is comprised of 243 ac (98 ha) of Federal lands and 115 
ac (47 ha) of State lands along approximately 2.2 mi (5.2 km) of the 
upper reaches of Tahquitz Creek and a disjunct portion of the Willow 
Creek tributary. This historically occupied, but not known to be 
currently occupied, subunit occurs in the San Jacinto Wilderness within 
the San Bernardino National Forest and the Mount San Jacinto State Park 
in Riverside County, California. Mountain yellow-legged frogs were 
documented in this stream as early as 1957, again in 1967, and in 1972 
(Los Angeles County Museum 2006). Surveys of this stream have been 
infrequent in recent years, due to its extensive length and ruggedness; 
the upper and lower reaches, but not the mid-sections, have been 
surveyed four times during the 2000s. Brown trout were found during 
recent surveys, and records show that the river was stocked with non-
native trout 36 times between 1948 and 1984 (Backlin et al. 2004).
    This subunit is essential for the conservation of the mountain 
yellow-legged frog because it is relatively close (approximately 2 mi 
(3.2 km)) to an extant population in the North Fork of the San Jacinto 
River (subunit 3A) and

[[Page 54361]]

contains the following features essential to the conservation of the 
mountain yellow-legged frog: Water sources, such as streams and pools, 
for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1) and riparian habitat 
and upland vegetation for foraging and movement activities (PCE 2). 
This subunit has been identified as a potential site for future 
mountain yellow-legged frog reintroductions because of its remoteness 
and the presence of PCEs to support mountain yellow-legged frog 
populations.
Subunit 3D: Andreas Creek
    Subunit 3D is comprised of 109 ac (44 ha) of Federal lands along 
approximately 1.2 mi (1.9 km) of the upper reaches of Andreas Creek. 
This historically occupied, but not known to be currently occupied, 
subunit occurs in the San Jacinto Wilderness within the San Bernardino 
National Forest in Riverside County, California. Mountain yellow-legged 
frogs were documented as early as 1912 (California Academy of Sciences 
2006), again in 1941 (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology 2006), and in 1978 
(Los Angeles County Museum 2006), and were thought to persist there as 
late as 1994 (Jennings and Hayes 1994b).
    This subunit is essential for the conservation of the mountain 
yellow-legged frog because it is relatively close (approximately 4 mi 
(6.4 km)) to an extant population in the North Fork of the San Jacinto 
River (subunit 3A) and contains the following features essential to the 
conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog: water sources, such as 
streams and pools, for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1) and 
riparian habitat and upland vegetation for foraging and movement 
activities (PCE 2). This subunit has been identified as a potential 
site for future mountain yellow-legged frog reintroductions because of 
its remoteness and presence of PCEs to support mountain yellow-legged 
frog populations.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are 
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. In our 
regulations at 50 CFR 402.02, we define destruction or adverse 
modification as ``a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably 
diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and 
recovery of a listed species. Such alterations include, but are not 
limited to, alterations adversely modifying any of those physical or 
biological features that were the basis for determining the habitat to 
be critical.'' However, recent decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit 
Court of Appeals have invalidated this definition (see Gifford Pinchot 
Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir 
2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 
F.3d 434, 442F (5th Cir 2001)). Pursuant to current national policy and 
the statutory provisions of the Act, destruction or adverse 
modification is determined on the basis of whether, with implementation 
of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would 
remain functional (or retain the current ability for the primary 
constituent elements to be functionally established) to serve the 
intended conservation role for the species.
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is 
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its 
critical habitat, if any is proposed or designated. Regulations 
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are 
codified at 50 CFR part 402.
    Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with 
us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of a proposed species or result in destruction or adverse modification 
of proposed critical habitat. This is a procedural requirement only. 
However, once a proposed species becomes listed, or proposed critical 
habitat is designated as final, the full prohibitions of section 
7(a)(2) apply to any Federal action. The primary utility of the 
conference procedures is to maximize the opportunity for a Federal 
agency to adequately consider proposed species and critical habitat and 
avoid potential delays in implementing their proposed action as a 
result of the section 7(a)(2) compliance process, should those species 
be listed or the critical habitat designated.
    Under conference procedures, the Service may provide advisory 
conservation recommendations to assist the agency in eliminating 
conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action. The Service may 
conduct either informal or formal conferences. Informal conferences are 
typically used if the proposed action is not likely to have any adverse 
effects to the proposed species or proposed critical habitat. Formal 
conferences are typically used when the Federal agency or the Service 
believes the proposed action is likely to cause adverse effects to 
proposed species or critical habitat, inclusive of those that may cause 
jeopardy or adverse modification.
    The results of an informal conference are typically transmitted in 
a conference report, while the results of a formal conference are 
typically transmitted in a conference opinion. Conference opinions on 
proposed critical habitat are typically prepared according to 50 CFR 
402.14, as if the proposed critical habitat were designated. We may 
adopt the conference opinion as the biological opinion when the 
critical habitat is designated, if no substantial new information or 
changes in the action alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR 
402.10(d)). As noted above, any conservation recommendations in a 
conference report or opinion are strictly advisory.
    If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section 
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities 
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify 
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species 
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) 
must enter into consultation with us. As a result of this consultation, 
compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) will be documented 
through the Service's issuance of: (1) A concurrence letter for Federal 
actions that may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, listed 
species or critical habitat; or (2) a biological opinion for Federal 
actions that may affect, but are likely to adversely affect, listed 
species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to result in jeopardy to a listed species or the destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat, we also provide reasonable 
and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable. 
``Reasonable and prudent alternatives'' are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as 
alternative actions identified during consultation that can be 
implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the 
action, that are consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's 
legal authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and 
technologically feasible, and that the Director believes would avoid 
jeopardy to the listed species or destruction or adverse modification 
of critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from 
slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the 
project. Costs associated with

[[Page 54362]]

implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly 
variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where a new 
species is listed or critical habitat is subsequently designated that 
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary 
involvement or control over the action or such discretionary 
involvement or control is authorized by law. Consequently, some Federal 
agencies may request reinitiation of consultation with us on actions 
for which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions may 
affect subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat or 
adversely modify or destroy proposed critical habitat.
    Federal activities that may affect the mountain yellow-legged frog 
or its designated critical habitat will require section 7 consultation 
under the Act. Activities on State, tribal, local or private lands 
requiring a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act or a permit under 
section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act from the Service) or involving some 
other Federal action (such as funding from the Federal Highway 
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency) will also be subject to the section 7 
consultation process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or 
critical habitat, and actions on State, Tribal, local or private lands 
that are not federally-funded, authorized, or permitted, do not require 
section 7 consultations.
    On September 15, 2005, we issued a biological opinion on the Forest 
Plan for the four southern California national forests. At issue were 
the effects of the Forest Plan on federally-listed species, including 
the mountain yellow-legged frog. The goal of the Forest Plan is to 
describe a strategic direction for the management of the national 
forests over the next 10 to 15 years. The Forest Plan also divides the 
National Forests into several ``Land Use Zones,'' including Developed 
Area Interface, Back Country, Back Country Motorized Use Restricted, 
Back Country Non-Motorized, Critical Biological, Recommended 
Wilderness, Existing Wilderness, and Experimental Forest. The land use 
zones were designed to describe the type of public use or 
administrative activities allowable. The Forest Plan does not make any 
decisions regarding USFS site-specific project proposals for 
implementing the land management plans, nor does it compel managers to 
implement any specific activity. Overall, the Forest Plan provides 
general guidance that can either benefit or remain neutral to the 
mountain yellow-legged frog. Future activities and projects will still 
receive site-specific environmental review and section 7 consultation.

Application of the Jeopardy and Adverse Modification Standards for 
Actions Involving Effects to the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog and Its 
Critical Habitat

Jeopardy Standard
    Prior to and following designation of critical habitat, the Service 
has applied an analytical framework for the mountain yellow-legged frog 
jeopardy analyses that relies heavily on the importance of core area 
populations to the survival and recovery of the mountain yellow-legged 
frog. The section 7(a)(2) analysis is focused not only on these 
populations but also on the habitat conditions necessary to support 
them.
    The jeopardy analysis usually expresses the survival and recovery 
needs of the mountain yellow-legged frog in a qualitative fashion 
without making distinctions between what is necessary for survival and 
what is necessary for recovery. Generally, if a proposed Federal action 
is incompatible with the viability of the affected core area 
population(s), inclusive of associated habitat conditions, a jeopardy 
finding is considered to be warranted, because of the relationship of 
each core area population to the survival and recovery of the species 
as a whole.
Adverse Modification Standard
    The analytical framework described in the Director's December 9, 
2004, memorandum is used to complete section 7(a)(2) analyses for 
Federal actions affecting mountain yellow-legged frog critical habitat. 
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is 
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the 
affected critical habitat would remain functional (or retain the 
current ability for the primary constituent elements to be functionally 
established) to serve the intended conservation role for the species. 
Generally, the conservation role of mountain yellow-legged frog 
critical habitat units is to support viable core area populations.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or 
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such 
designation. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat may also jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
    Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat 
are those that alter the PCEs to an extent that the conservation value 
of critical habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog is appreciably 
reduced. Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a 
Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and therefore result in 
consultation for the mountain yellow-legged frog include, but are not 
limited to:
    (1) Actions that would alter or reduce water flow in streams. Such 
activities could include, but are not limited to: Water diversion, 
recreational activities, water withdrawal, and hydropower generation. 
These activities could eliminate or reduce the habitat features needed 
for the growth and reproduction of the mountain yellow-legged frog by 
decreasing water flows to levels that would adversely affect the 
species' ability to complete its life cycle.
    (2) Actions that would significantly increase sediment deposition 
within the stream channel. Such activities could include, but are not 
limited to: Livestock grazing, road construction, channel alteration, 
recreational mining, timber harvest, off-road vehicle use, and fire-
fighting activities. These activities could eliminate or reduce the 
habitat features needed for the growth and reproduction of the mountain 
yellow-legged frog by increasing the sediment deposition to levels that 
would adversely affect the species' ability to complete its life cycle.
    (3) Actions that would increase canopy cover. Such activities could 
include, but are not limited to: Protection of unnaturally dense 
riparian vegetation and construction of bridges. These activities could 
eliminate or reduce the habitat features needed for the growth of the 
mountain yellow-legged frog by decreasing the amount of basking sites 
necessary for the frogs to meet their thermoregulation requirements.
    We consider all of the units designated as critical habitat, as 
well as those that have been excluded or not included, to contain 
features that contribute to the conservation of the mountain yellow-
legged frog. Most units are within the geographic range of the species 
and were occupied by the species at the time of listing (based on 
observations made within the last 15 years), and are likely to be used 
by the mountain yellow-legged frog. Some

[[Page 54363]]

units are outside of the geographical area occupied by the species at 
the time the species was listed. Federal agencies already consult with 
us on activities in areas currently occupied by the mountain yellow-
legged frog, or if the species may be affected by the action, to ensure 
that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of the 
mountain yellow-legged frog. If you have questions regarding whether 
specific activities may constitute adverse modification of critical 
habitat, contact the Field Supervisor of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 
Office (see ADDRESSES).
Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that critical habitat shall be 
designated, and revised, on the basis of the best available scientific 
data after taking into consideration the economic impact, national 
security impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area 
from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the 
critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific 
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical 
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that 
determination, the Secretary is afforded broad discretion and the 
Congressional record is clear that in making a determination under the 
section the Secretary has discretion as to which factors and how much 
weight will be given to any factor.
    Under section 4(b)(2), in considering whether to exclude a 
particular area from the designation, we must identify the benefits of 
including the area in the designation, identify the benefits of 
excluding the area from the designation, and determine whether the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. If an 
exclusion is contemplated, then we must determine whether excluding the 
area would result in the extinction of the species. In the following 
sections, we address a number of general issues that are relevant to 
the exclusions we considered.

General Principles of Section 7 Consultations Used in the 4(b)(2) 
Balancing Process

    In our critical habitat designations, we use the provision outlined 
in section 4(b)(2) of the Act to evaluate those specific areas that we 
formally designated as critical habitat. We have determined that non-
Federal lands within the planning area of the Western Riverside County 
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan are excluded under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act. A detailed analysis of our use of these provisions 
is provided in the following paragraphs.
    The most direct, and potentially largest, regulatory benefit of 
critical habitat is that federally authorized, funded, or carried out 
activities require consultation under section 7 of the Act to ensure 
that they are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat. There are two limitations to this regulatory effect. First, it 
only applies where there is a Federal nexus--if there is no Federal 
nexus, designation itself does not restrict actions that destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat. Second, it only limits destruction 
or adverse modification. By its nature, the prohibition on adverse 
modification is designed to ensure those areas that contain the 
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species or unoccupied areas that are essential to the conservation of 
the species are not eroded. Critical habitat designation alone, 
however, does not require specific steps toward recovery.
    Once consultation under section 7 of the Act is triggered, the 
process may conclude informally when the Service concurs in writing 
that the proposed Federal action is not likely to adversely affect the 
listed species or its critical habitat. However, if the Service 
determines through informal consultation that adverse impacts are 
likely to occur, then formal consultation would be initiated. Formal 
consultation concludes with a biological opinion issued by the Service 
on whether the proposed Federal action is likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of a listed species or result in destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat, with separate analyses being 
made under both the jeopardy and the adverse modification standards. 
For critical habitat, a biological opinion that concludes in a 
determination of no destruction or adverse modification may contain 
discretionary conservation recommendations to minimize adverse effects 
to primary constituent elements, but it would not contain any mandatory 
reasonable and prudent measures or terms and conditions. Mandatory 
reasonable and prudent alternatives to the proposed Federal action 
would only be issued when the biological opinion results in a jeopardy 
or adverse modification conclusion.
    We also note that for 30 years prior to the Ninth Circuit Court's 
decision in Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004) (hereinafter Gifford Pinchot), 
the Service equated the jeopardy standard with the standard for 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. In that 
decision, the Court ruled that the Service could no longer equate the 
two standards and that adverse modification evaluations require 
consideration of impacts on the recovery of species. Thus, under the 
Gifford Pinchot decision, critical habitat designations may provide 
greater benefits to the recovery of a species. However, we believe the 
conservation achieved through implementing habitat conservation plans 
(HCPs) or other habitat management plans is typically greater than 
would be achieved through multiple site-by-site, project-by-project, 
section 7 consultations involving consideration of critical habitat. 
Management plans commit resources to implement long-term management and 
protection to particular habitat for at least one and possibly other 
listed or sensitive species. Section 7 consultations only commit 
Federal agencies to prevent adverse modification to critical habitat 
caused by the particular project, and they are not committed to provide 
conservation or long-term benefits to areas not affected by the 
proposed project. Thus, any HCP or management plan which considers 
enhancement or recovery as the management standard will always provide 
as much or more benefit than a consultation for critical habitat 
designation conducted under the standards required by the Ninth Circuit 
in the Gifford Pinchot decision.

Educational Benefits of Critical Habitat

    A benefit of including lands in critical habitat is that the 
designation of critical habitat serves to educate landowners, State and 
local governments, and the public regarding the potential conservation 
value of an area. This helps focus and promote conservation efforts by 
other parties by clearly delineating areas of high conservation value 
for the mountain yellow-legged frog. In general the educational benefit 
of a critical habitat designation always exists, although in some cases 
it may be redundant with other educational effects. For example, HCPs 
have significant public input and may largely duplicate the educational 
benefit of a critical habitat designation. This benefit is closely 
related to a second, more indirect benefit: That designation of 
critical habitat informs State agencies and local governments about 
areas that could be conserved under State laws or local ordinances.
    However, we believe that there would be little additional 
informational benefit gained from the designation of critical

[[Page 54364]]

habitat for the exclusions we are making in this rule because these 
areas are described in this rule as having habitat containing the 
features essential to the conservation of the species. Consequently, we 
believe that the informational benefits are already provided even 
though these areas are not designated as critical habitat. Informing 
State agencies and local governments about areas that would benefit 
from protection and enhancement of habitat for the mountain yellow-
legged frog is already well established among State and local 
governments and Federal agencies, as a result of the proposed critical 
habitat rule.

Conservation Partnerships on Non-Federal Lands

    Most federally listed species in the United States will not recover 
without the cooperation of non-federal landowners. More than 60 percent 
of the United States is privately owned (National Wilderness Institute 
1995) and at least 80 percent of endangered or threatened species occur 
either partially or solely on private lands (Crouse et al. 2002). Stein 
et al. (1995) found that only about 12 percent of listed species were 
found almost exclusively on Federal lands (i.e., 90-100 percent of 
their known occurrences restricted to Federal lands) and that 50 
percent of federally listed species are not known to occur on Federal 
lands at all.
    Given the distribution of listed species with respect to land 
ownership, conservation of listed species in many parts of the United 
States is dependent upon working partnerships with a wide variety of 
entities and the voluntary cooperation of many non-federal landowners 
(Wilcove and Chen 1998; Crouse et al. 2002; James 2002). Building 
partnerships and promoting voluntary cooperation of landowners is 
essential to understanding the status of species on non-federal lands 
and is necessary to implement recovery actions such as reintroducing 
listed species, habitat restoration, and habitat protection.
    Many non-Federal landowners derive satisfaction from contributing 
to endangered species recovery. The Service promotes these private-
sector efforts through the Four Cs philosophy--conservation through 
communication, consultation, and cooperation. This philosophy is 
evident in Service programs such as Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs), 
Safe Harbors, Candidate Conservation Agreements, Candidate Conservation 
Agreements with Assurances, and conservation challenge cost-share. Many 
private landowners, however, are wary of the possible consequences of 
encouraging endangered species to their property, and there is mounting 
evidence that some regulatory actions by the Federal government, while 
well-intentioned and required by law, can (under certain circumstances) 
have unintended negative consequences for the conservation of species 
on private lands (Wilcove et al. 1996; Bean 2002; Conner and Mathews 
2002; James 2002; Koch 2002; Brook et al. 2003). Many landowners fear a 
decline in their property value due to real or perceived restrictions 
on land-use options where threatened or endangered species are found. 
Consequently, harboring endangered species is viewed by many landowners 
as a liability, resulting in anti-conservation incentives because 
maintaining habitats that harbor endangered species represents a risk 
to future economic opportunities (Main et al. 1999; Brook et al. 2003).
    The purpose of designating critical habitat is to contribute to the 
conservation of threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems 
upon which they depend. The outcome of the designation, triggering 
regulatory requirements for actions funded, authorized, or carried out 
by Federal agencies under section 7 of the Act, can sometimes be 
counterproductive to its intended purpose on non-Federal lands. 
According to some researchers, the designation of critical habitat on 
private lands significantly reduces the likelihood that landowners will 
support and carry out conservation actions (Main et al. 1999; Bean 
2002; Brook et al. 2003). The magnitude of this negative outcome is 
greatly amplified in situations where active management measures (e.g., 
reintroduction, fire management, control of invasive species) are 
necessary for species conservation (Bean 2002).
    We believe that the judicious use of excluding specific areas of 
non-federally owned lands from critical habitat designations can 
contribute to species recovery and provide a superior level of 
conservation than critical habitat alone. For example, less than 17 
percent of Hawaii is federally owned, but the State is home to more 
than 24 percent of all federally listed species, most of which will not 
recover without State and private landowner cooperation. On the island 
of Lanai, Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC, which owns 99 percent of the 
island, entered into a conservation agreement with the Service. The 
conservation agreement provides conservation benefits to target species 
through management actions that remove threats (e.g., axis deer, 
mouflon sheep, rats, invasive nonnative plants) from the Lanaihale and 
East Lanai Regions. Specific management actions include fire control 
measures, nursery propagation of native flora (including the target 
species), and planting of such flora. These actions will significantly 
improve the habitat for all currently occurring species. Due to the low 
likelihood of a Federal nexus on the island, we believe that the 
benefits of excluding the lands covered by the Memorandum of Agreement 
exceeded the benefits of including them. As stated in the final 
critical habitat rule for endangered plants on the Island of Lanai:

    On Lanai, simply preventing ``harmful activities'' will not slow 
the extinction of listed plant species. Where consistent with the 
discretion provided by the Act, the Service believes it is necessary 
to implement policies that provide positive incentives to private 
landowners to voluntarily conserve natural resources and that remove 
or reduce disincentives to conservation. While the impact of 
providing these incentives may be modest in economic terms, they can 
be significant in terms of conservation benefits that can stem from 
the cooperation of the landowner. The continued participation of 
Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC, in the existing Lanai Forest and 
Watershed Partnership and other voluntary conservation agreements 
will greatly enhance the Service's ability to further the recovery 
of these endangered plants.

    Cooperative conservation is the foundation of the Service's actions 
to protect species, and the Service has many tools by which it can 
encourage and implement partnerships for conservation. These tools 
include conservation grants, funding for Partners for Fish and Wildlife 
Program, the Coastal Program, and cooperative-conservation challenge 
cost-share grants. Our Private Stewardship Grant Program and Landowner 
Incentive Program provide assistance to private landowners in their 
voluntary efforts to protect threatened, imperiled, and endangered 
species, including the development and implementation of Habitat 
Conservation Plans.
    Conservation agreements with non-Federal landowners (e.g., Habitat 
Conservation Plans (HCPs), contractual conservation agreements, 
easements, and stakeholder-negotiated State regulations) enhance 
species conservation by extending species protections beyond those 
available through section 7 consultations. In the past decade we have 
encouraged non-Federal landowners to enter into conservation 
agreements, based on a view that we can achieve greater species 
conservation on non-Federal land through such partnerships than we can

[[Page 54365]]

through coercive methods (61 FR 63854; December 2, 1996).

Benefits of Excluding Lands With HCPs or Other Approved Management 
Plans From Critical Habitat

    The benefits of excluding lands with HCPs or other approved 
management plans from critical habitat designation include relieving 
landowners, communities, and counties of any additional regulatory 
burden that might be imposed by a critical habitat designation. Most 
HCPs and other conservation plans take many years to develop and, upon 
completion, are consistent with the recovery objectives for listed 
species that are covered within the plan area. In addition, many 
conservation plans provide conservation benefits to unlisted sensitive 
species. In fact, designating critical habitat in areas covered by a 
pending HCP or conservation plan could result in the loss of some 
species' benefits if participants abandon the planning process. The 
time and cost of regulatory compliance for a critical habitat 
designation do not have to be quantified for the designation to be 
perceived as additional Federal regulatory burden sufficient to 
discourage continued participation in plans targeting listed species' 
conservation.
    Imposing an additional regulatory review as a result of the 
designation of critical habitat may undermine conservation efforts and 
partnerships in many areas. Designation of critical habitat within the 
boundaries of management plans that provide conservation measures for a 
species could be viewed as a disincentive to those entities currently 
developing these plans or contemplating them in the future, because one 
of the incentives for undertaking conservation is greater ease of 
permitting where listed species are affected. Addition of a new 
regulatory requirement would remove a significant incentive for 
undertaking the time and expense of management planning.
    A related benefit of excluding lands within management plans from 
critical habitat designation is the unhindered, continued ability to 
seek new partnerships with future plan participants including States, 
counties, local jurisdictions, conservation organizations, and private 
landowners, which together can implement conservation actions that we 
would be unable to accomplish otherwise. If lands within approved 
management plan areas are designated as critical habitat, it would 
likely have a negative effect on our ability to establish new 
partnerships to develop these plans, particularly plans that address 
landscape-level conservation of species and habitats. By preemptively 
excluding these lands, we preserve our current partnerships and 
encourage additional conservation actions in the future.
    Furthermore, an HCP or NCCP/HCP application must itself be 
consulted upon. Such a consultation would review the effects of all 
activities covered by the HCP which might adversely impact the species 
under a jeopardy standard, including possibly significant habitat 
modification (see definition of ``harm'' at 50 CFR 17.3), even without 
the critical habitat designation. In addition, Federal actions not 
covered by the HCP in areas occupied by listed species would still 
require consultation under section 7 of the Act and would be reviewed 
for possibly significant habitat modification in accordance with the 
definition of harm referenced above.
    The information provided in this section applies to all the 
discussions below that discuss the benefits of inclusion and exclusion 
of critical habitat.

Relationship of Critical Habitat to Approved Habitat Conservation Plans 
(HCPs)--Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
    The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation 
Plan (MSHCP) is a large-scale, multi-jurisdictional habitat 
conservation plan (HCP) that addresses 146 listed and unlisted 
``Covered Species,'' including the mountain yellow-legged frog, within 
the 1.26-million ac (510,000 ha) Plan Area in western Riverside County. 
Participants in the MSHCP include 14 cities in western Riverside 
County; the County of Riverside, including the Riverside County Flood 
Control and Water Conservation Agency, Riverside County Transportation 
Commission, Riverside County Parks and Open Space District, and 
Riverside County Waste Department; California Department of Parks and 
Recreation; and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 
The MSHCP was designed to establish a multi-species conservation 
program that minimizes and mitigates the expected loss of habitat and 
the incidental take of Covered Species. On June 22, 2004, the Service 
issued a single incidental take permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the 
Act to 22 Permittees under the MSHCP for a period of 75 years. The 
Service granted the participating jurisdictions ``take authorization'' 
of listed species in exchange for their contribution to the assembly 
and management of the MSHCP Conservation Area.
    In forming the 500,000 ac (202,343 ha) MSHCP Conservation Area, the 
MSHCP will establish approximately 153,000 ac (61,916 ha) of new 
conservation lands (Additional Reserve Lands) to complement the 
approximate 347,000 ac (140,426 ha) of existing natural and open space 
areas (e.g., State Parks, USFS, and County Park lands known as Public/
Quasi-Public (PQP) Lands). The precise configuration of the 153,000 ac 
(61,916 ha) Additional Reserve Lands is not mapped or precisely 
identified in the MSHCP but rather is based on textual descriptions 
within the boundaries of a 310,000-ac (125,453-ha) Criteria Area that 
is interpreted as implementation of the MSHCP proceeds. Subunits 3A and 
3B are located entirely within the MSHCP Plan Area and are comprised of 
USFS, State Park, County of Riverside, and private lands. The USFS, 
State Park, and County of Riverside lands within these subunits are 
considered PQP lands under the MSHCP and as such are included within 
the overall MSHCP Conservation Area. As Permittees under the MSHCP, the 
County of Riverside and the California Department of Parks and 
Recreation have committed to manage their existing open-space lands in 
concert with the goals of the MSHCP. Thus, the State Park and County of 
Riverside lands within Subunits 3A and 3B will be managed consistent 
with conservation goals for the mountain yellow-legged frog.
    The private lands within these subunits are not designated as PQP 
lands or located within the Criteria Area and, thus, are not 
specifically identified under the plan for inclusion within the MSHCP 
Conservation Area. Nonetheless, for areas potentially important to the 
mountain yellow-legged frog that are located outside of the Criteria 
Area or are not identified as PQP lands, the MSHCP includes special 
surveys and procedures to further address the conservation of this 
species in the plan area (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures; 
Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP). The plan requires surveys for the mountain 
yellow-legged frog as part of the review process for public and private 
projects where suitable habitat is present within a ``Mountain Yellow-
Legged Frog Amphibian Survey Area'' (referred to here as Survey Area; 
Figure 6-3 of the MSHCP, Volume I). These surveys are required until 
the Additional Reserve Lands are assembled and conservation objectives 
for the mountain yellow-legged frog are met. If populations of mountain 
yellow-legged frog are detected by these surveys and

[[Page 54366]]

the conservation objectives for the species have not been met, the 
MSHCP calls for avoidance of impacts to 90 percent of the project 
site's suitable habitat with long-term conservation value for this 
species.
    Conservation objectives for the mountain yellow-legged frog in the 
MSHCP include: Conserving primary breeding habitat, secondary wooded 
habitat, and Core Areas within the San Jacinto Mountains; conducting 
surveys for this species as part of the MSHCP project review process 
within the amphibian species survey area; conserving mountain yellow-
legged frog localities identified by these survey efforts; and, within 
the MSHCP Conservation Area, maintaining and, if feasible, restoring 
ecological processes within occupied habitat and suitable new areas 
within the Criteria Area and maintaining and monitoring successful 
reproduction of the species (Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) 
Volume I, Section 9, Table 9-2, pp. 9-37 and 9-38).
    Conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog under the MSHCP is 
also addressed through implementation of the Protection of Species 
Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools procedures 
(RCIP, Volume I, Section 6.1.2, pp. 6-19--6-25). These procedures 
recognize the importance of protecting riparian/riverine areas and 
vernal pools to the overall conservation of aquatic and wetland-
dependent species covered by the Plan. The overall purpose of the 
procedures is to ensure that the biological functions and values of 
riparian/riverine and vernal pool areas throughout the MSHCP Plan Area 
are maintained such that the habitat values for the species inside the 
MSHCP Conservation Area are also maintained. As projects are proposed 
within the Plan Area, an assessment of the potentially significant 
effects of those projects on riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools 
is performed. The documentation for the assessment includes mapping and 
a description of the functions and values of the mapped areas with 
respect to the riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools species, 
including the mountain yellow-legged frog. This assessment is used to 
identify aquatic resources such as riparian/riverine areas and vernal 
pools that may be acquired for inclusion in the MSHCP Conservation 
Area. If an avoidance alternative is not feasible and mapping 
identifies suitable habitat for the species covered by these 
procedures, surveys followed by avoidance and minimization measures are 
required in accordance with the species-specific objectives for those 
species.
    We are excluding approximately 487 ac (197 ha) of non-Federal lands 
from critical habitat in subunits 3A and 3B within the MSHCP Plan Area 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. These non-Federal lands are comprised 
of portions of the Mount San Jacinto State Park owned by the California 
Department of Parks and Recreation (approximately 205 ac (83 ha)), 
private lands along Fuller Mill Creek (approximately 141 ac (57 ha)), 
lands owned by the County of Riverside Regional Parks and Open Space 
District at the confluence of Fuller Mill Creek and Dark Canyon 
(approximately 87 ac (35 ha)), and lands owned by the University of 
California at the James San Jacinto Mountains Reserve (approximately 54 
ac (22 ha)) along Indian Creek at Hall Canyon. The State Parks and 
County Park lands will be managed consistent with the conservation 
goals for the mountain yellow-legged frog under the MSHCP. In addition, 
all of these lands are within the MSHCP's Survey Area and will receive 
conservation benefits under the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures 
policy. Federal lands managed by the USFS are an integral part of the 
conservation strategy of the MSHCP. However, USFS is not a permittee 
under the section 10(a)(1)(B) permit for the MSHCP, and therefore, we 
are designating critical habitat on their lands in subunits 3A and 3B 
within the MSHCP Plan Area.

Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion

    We expect the MSHCP to provide substantial protection of the PCEs 
and special management of essential habitat features for the mountain 
yellow-legged frog on MSHCP conservation lands. We expect the MSHCP to 
provide a greater level of management for the mountain yellow-legged 
frog on private lands than would designation of critical habitat on 
private lands. Moreover, inclusion of these non-Federal lands as 
critical habitat would not necessitate additional management and 
conservation activities that would exceed the approved MSHCP and its 
implementing agreement. As a result, we do not anticipate any action on 
these lands would destroy or adversely modify the areas designated as 
critical habitat. Therefore, we do not expect that including those 
areas in the final designation would lead to any changes to actions on 
the conservation lands to avoid destroying or adversely modifying that 
habitat.
    The exclusion of these lands from critical habitat will help 
preserve the partnerships that we have developed with the local 
jurisdictions and project proponents in the development of the MSHCP, 
which provides for mountain yellow-legged frog conservation. The 
educational benefits of critical habitat, including informing the 
public of areas important for the long-term conservation of the 
species, are still accomplished from material provided on our Web site 
and through public notice-and-comment procedures required to establish 
the MSHCP. Further, many educational benefits of critical habitat 
designation will be achieved through the overall designation, and will 
occur whether or not this particular location is designated. For these 
reasons, we believe that designating critical habitat has little 
benefit in areas covered by the MSHCP.
    We have reviewed and evaluated benefits of inclusion and exclusion 
of critical habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog. Based on this 
evaluation, we find that the benefits of excluding land in the planning 
area for the MSHCP outweigh the benefits of including that portion of 
critical habitat in subunits 3A and 3B as critical habitat.

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species

    We do not believe that the exclusion of 487 ac (197 ha) will result 
in the extinction of the mountain yellow-legged frog because the MSHCP 
provides for the conservation of this species and its habitat on 
currently known occupied areas, as well as areas that may be found to 
be occupied in the future. Importantly, as we stated in our biological 
opinion, while some loss of modeled habitat for the mountain yellow-
legged frog is anticipated due to implementation of the Plan, we do not 
anticipate any individual frogs will be taken as a result of our permit 
issuance for the MSHCP.

Economic Analysis

    Section 4(b)(2)of the Act requires us to designate critical habitat 
on the basis of the best scientific information available and to 
consider the economic and other relevant impacts of designating a 
particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas from critical 
habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of specifying areas as critical habitat. We 
cannot exclude areas from critical habitat when exclusion will result 
in the extinction of the species concerned.
    Following the publication of the proposed critical habitat 
designation, we conducted an economic analysis to estimate the 
potential economic effect of the designation. The draft analysis was

[[Page 54367]]

made available for public review on July 3, 2006 (71 FR 37881). We 
accepted comments on the draft analysis until July 24, 2006.
    The primary purpose of the economic analysis is to estimate the 
potential economic impacts associated with the designation of critical 
habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog. This information is 
intended to assist the Secretary in making decisions about whether the 
benefits of excluding particular areas from the designation outweigh 
the benefits of including those areas in the designation. This economic 
analysis considers the economic efficiency effects that may result from 
the designation, including habitat protections that may be co-extensive 
with the listing of the species. It also addresses distribution of 
impacts, including an assessment of the potential effects on small 
entities and the energy industry. This information can be used by the 
Secretary to assess whether the effects of the designation might unduly 
burden a particular group or economic sector.
    The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic 
effects of actions relating to the conservation of the mountain yellow-
legged frog, including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of 
the Act, and including those attributable to designating critical 
habitat. It further considers the economic effects of protective 
measures taken as a result of other Federal, State, and local laws that 
aid habitat conservation for the mountain yellow-legged frog in areas 
containing features essential to the conservation of this species. The 
analysis considers both economic efficiency and distributional effects. 
In the case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects generally 
reflect the ``opportunity costs'' associated with the commitment of 
resources to comply with habitat protection measures (e.g., lost 
economic opportunities associated with restrictions on land use). This 
analysis also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be 
distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional impacts 
of habitat conservation and the potential effects of conservation 
activities on small entities and the energy industry. This information 
can be used by decision-makers to assess whether the effects of the 
designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector. 
Finally, this analysis looks retrospectively at costs that have been 
incurred since the date the species was listed as an endangered species 
and considers those costs that may occur in the 20 years following the 
designation of critical habitat.
    Mountain yellow-legged frog conservation activities are likely to 
primarily impact recreation, including trout fishing, hiking, camping, 
and rock climbing in Angeles and San Bernardino National Forests. In 
particular, significant uncertainty exists regarding the potential 
impact to trout fishing. As a result, the analysis applied two 
methodologies to bound the range of potential costs. The lower-bound 
estimate assumed that anglers' overall welfare is unaffected, because 
numerous substitute fishing sites exist. The upper-bound estimate 
assumed that fishing trips currently taken to streams in essential 
habitat are lost and not substituted elsewhere. The actual impact will 
fall between these two bounds. Because the probability distribution of 
impacts between these bounds is constant, and there is no evidence that 
suggested the distribution was skewed toward either bound, the average 
of the two estimates represented the best estimate of trout fishing 
impacts.
    The estimated total future impacts, including costs resulting from 
modifications to fishing and other types of activity, range from $11.4 
million to $12.9 million (undiscounted) over 20 years. Discounted 
future costs are estimated to be $7.5 million to $8.9 million over this 
same time period ($704,000 to $842,000 annually) using a real rate of 7 
percent, or $9.3 million to $10.8 million ($626,000 to $725,000 
annually) using a real rate of 3 percent. In summary, most of the 
economic impacts were associated with three subunits: Big Rock Creek, 
South Fork (Subunit 1B), San Jacinto River, North Fork (Subunit 3A), 
and Little Rock Creek (Subunit 1C).
    A copy of the final economic analysis with supporting documents is 
included in our administrative record and may be obtained by contacting 
the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES) or for 
downloading from the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/MYLF_Docs.htm.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a 
significant rule in that it may raise novel legal and policy issues. 
However, because the draft economic analysis indicates the potential 
economic impact associated with a designation of all habitat with 
features essential to the conservation of this species would total no 
more than $704,000 to $842,000 annually, applying a 7 percent discount 
rate, we do not anticipate that this final rule will have an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or affect the economy in 
a material way. Due to the time line for publication in the Federal 
Register, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did not formally 
review the proposed rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (e.g., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. In our proposed rule, 
we withheld our determination of whether this designation would result 
in a significant effect as defined under SBREFA until we completed our 
draft economic analysis of the proposed designation so that we would 
have the factual basis for our determination.
    According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small 
entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit 
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents, as well as small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small 
businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 
500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual 
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than 
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with 
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic 
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the 
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this 
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. 
In general, the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a 
typical small business firm's business operations.
    To determine if the rule could significantly affect a substantial 
number of small entities, we considered the

[[Page 54368]]

number of small entities affected within particular types of economic 
activities (e.g., recreational fishing, hiking, rock climbing, and 
residential development). We considered each industry or category 
individually to determine if certification is appropriate. In 
estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also 
considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement; some 
kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so 
will not be affected by the designation of critical habitat. 
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, 
funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies; non-Federal 
activities are not affected by the designation.
    Federal agencies must consult with us if their activities may 
affect designated critical habitat. Consultations to avoid the 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be 
incorporated into the existing consultation process. Our analysis 
determined that costs involving conservation measures for the mountain 
yellow-legged frog would be incurred for activities involving: (1) 
Recreational trout fishing activities; (2) recreational hiking 
activities; (3) recreational rock climbing activities; (4) residential 
development activity; (5) fire management activities; and (6) other 
activities on Federal lands. Of these six categories, impacts of frog 
conservation are not anticipated to affect small entities in three of 
these categories: residential development, fire management, and other 
activities on Federal lands. As stated in our economic analysis, 
residential development is unlikely to be impacted by frog conservation 
activities for several reasons, including the unsuitability of large-
scale development of these private lands due to their location in 
mountainous areas and easy incorporation into building designs of a 50-
foot buffer around streams to protect mountain yellow-legged frog 
habitat. Furthermore, since neither Federal nor State governments are 
defined as small entities by the Small Business Administration (SBA), 
the economic impacts borne by the USFS and the California Department of 
Fish and Game (CDFG) resulting from implementation of mountain yellow-
legged frog conservation activities or modifications to activities on 
Federal lands, including installation of signs and relocation of hiking 
trails, fire suppression efforts, monitoring recreational mining 
activity, development of hazardous spills management plans, and 
surveying and monitoring activities, are not relevant to the screening 
analysis. Accordingly, the small business analysis focuses on economic 
impacts to recreational trout fishing and rock climbing activities.
    The economic analysis considers two scenarios to estimate the 
economic impacts on recreational trout fishing activities. Under 
Scenario 1, future costs are limited to compliance costs associated 
with installing fish barriers and removing nonnative trout. The 
directly regulated entities under Scenario 1 include the USFS and CDFG, 
both of which are large government agencies. As a result, the directly 
affected entities are not subject to this screening analysis. Under 
Scenario 2, economic impacts are also estimated for recreational trout 
anglers whose activities may be interrupted by mountain yellow-legged 
frog conservation activities resulting in a decrease in the number of 
trout fishing trips. Scenario 2 concludes that fishing trips may 
decrease by as much as 6,800 to 8,200 trips per year. The welfare value 
lost to an angler is $53.28 per trip. Importantly, this per-trip impact 
represents the nonmarket value to anglers of a fishing experience, not 
changes in cash flow to local businesses.
    If fewer recreational fishing trips occur to areas within critical 
habitat, local establishments providing services to anglers may be 
indirectly affected by mountain yellow-legged frog conservation 
activities. Decreased visitation may reduce the amount of money spent 
in the region across a variety of industries, including food and 
beverage stores, food service and drinking places, accommodations, 
transportation and rental services. To determine the potential regional 
economic impacts of decreases in recreational fishing trips, this 
analysis uses regional economic modeling to quantify the dollar value 
of goods and services produced and employment generated by consumer 
expenditures. Regional economic modeling accounts for the 
interconnectedness of industries within a geographic area that not only 
supply goods and services to consumers, but also to each other. Thus, 
spending in one economic sector tends to have a larger impact on the 
regional economy as a whole. This concept is commonly referred to as 
the ``multiplier'' effect.
    In particular, this analysis utilizes a software package called 
IMPLAN to estimate the total economic effects of the reduction in 
economic activity in recreational fishing-related industries in the two 
counties associated with mountain yellow-legged frog conservation 
activities, Los Angeles and Riverside Counties. Commonly used by State 
and Federal agencies for policy planning and evaluation purposes, 
IMPLAN translates estimates of initial trip expenditures (e.g., food, 
lodging, and gas) into changes in demand for inputs to affected 
industries. Changes in output and employment are calculated for all 
industries and then aggregated to determine the regional economic 
impact of reduced recreational fishing-related expenditures potentially 
associated with frog conservation activities.
    Based on the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and 
Wildlife-Associated Recreation for California, average expenditures per 
fishing trip are approximately $38 (2005), with the bulk of these 
expenditures occurring in the food service and gasoline industries. 
This per-trip estimate of expenditures is combined with the number of 
fishing trips potentially lost due to frog conservation activities 
(7,100 to 14,300 trips per year) to estimate total expenditures of 
$271,000 to $543,000 due to recreational trout fishing in proposed 
critical habitat areas. According to IMPLAN, these recreational 
fishing-related expenditures contribute between $471,000 and $943,000 
per year to the regional economy. When compared to the total output of 
the industry sectors directly impacted by these expenditures (e.g., 
groceries, restaurants, gasoline stations, and lodging) in the regional 
economy of Los Angeles and Riverside counties (or $29.4 billion), the 
potential loss generated by a decrease in recreational trout fishing 
trips is less than one hundredth of a percent. Therefore based on these 
results, this analysis determines no significant effect on recreational 
fishing-related industries due to frog conservation activities in Los 
Angeles and Riverside counties.
    The economic analysis also estimates welfare losses to rock 
climbers as the result of a temporary one-year closure of Williamson 
Rock, adjacent to Little Rock Creek (Subunit 1C) in Los Angeles County. 
The analysis concludes that a one-year closure will result in the loss 
of approximately 10,600 to 14,600 rock climbing trips in 2006. The 
welfare value lost to a climber is $95.20 per trip. Importantly, this 
per-trip impact represents the nonmarket value to climbers of a 
climbing experience, not changes in cash flow to local businesses.
    As for recreational fishing trips, if fewer rock climbing trips 
occur to areas within proposed critical habitat, local establishments 
providing services to rock climbers may be indirectly affected by frog 
conservation activities. Decreased visitation may reduce the amount of 
money spent in the region across a variety of industries, including 
food and beverage stores, food service

[[Page 54369]]

and drinking places, and gas and transportation services.
    To determine the potential regional economic impacts of decreases 
in rock climbing trips, this analysis uses IMPLAN to quantify the 
dollar value of goods and services produced and employment generated by 
consumer expenditures.
    Ideally, this analysis would develop and use a per-trip estimate of 
expenditures for rock climbing based on the existing economics 
literature. However, no such data is available for rock climbing 
activities. In the absence of this information, and in order to 
understand the magnitude of the potential impacts, this analysis uses 
the average expenditures of approximately $26.23 per trip reported by 
the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated 
Recreation for California for fishing, hunting and wildlife-associated 
recreation. This per-trip estimate of expenditures is then combined 
with the number of rock climbing trips potentially lost due to frog 
conservation activities (a one-year loss of 10,600 to 14,600 trips per 
year) to estimate total expenditures of $278,000 to $382,000 due to 
rock climbing in proposed critical habitat areas. According to IMPLAN, 
these rock climbing-related expenditures contribute between $480,000 
and $660,000 per year to the regional economy. When compared to the 
total output of the industry sectors directly impacted by these 
expenditures (e.g., groceries, restaurants and gasoline stations) in 
the regional economy of Los Angeles County (or $21.6 billion), the 
potential loss generated by a decrease in rock climbing trips is less 
than one hundredth of a percent. Therefore based on these results, this 
analysis determines no significant effect on rock climbing-related 
industries due to frog conservation activities in Los Angeles County.
    It is important to note that the estimates of lost fishing and 
climbing trips assume that the trips are not substituted to another 
location within these counties (e.g., anglers do not visit another lake 
or stream in the county where trout continue to be stocked). In 
addition, the analysis assumes that recreators do not undertake 
substitute activities (e.g., rock climbers do not go hiking or biking 
instead of taking trips to Williamson's Rock). If recreators visit 
substitute sites or choose alternative activities, the regional impacts 
predicted in this section may be smaller or would not occur.
    In general, two different mechanisms in section 7 consultations 
could lead to additional regulatory requirements for the approximately 
four small businesses, on average, that may be required to consult with 
us each year regarding their project's impact on the mountain yellow-
legged frog and its habitat. First, if we conclude, in a biological 
opinion, that a proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a species or adversely modify its critical habitat, we can 
offer ``reasonable and prudent alternatives.'' Reasonable and prudent 
alternatives are alternative actions that can be implemented in a 
manner consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal 
authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and technologically 
feasible, and that would avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of 
listed species or result in adverse modification of critical habitat. A 
Federal agency and an applicant may elect to implement a reasonable and 
prudent alternative associated with a biological opinion that has found 
jeopardy or adverse modification of critical habitat. An agency or 
applicant could alternatively choose to seek an exemption from the 
requirements of the Act or proceed without implementing the reasonable 
and prudent alternative. However, unless an exemption were obtained, 
the Federal agency or applicant would be at risk of violating section 
7(a)(2) of the Act if it chose to proceed without implementing the 
reasonable and prudent alternatives.
    Second, if we find that a proposed action is not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed animal or plant species, 
we may identify reasonable and prudent measures designed to minimize 
the amount or extent of take and require the Federal agency or 
applicant to implement such measures through non-discretionary terms 
and conditions. We may also identify discretionary conservation 
recommendations designed to minimize or avoid the adverse effects of a 
proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, help implement 
recovery plans, or to develop information that could contribute to the 
recovery of the species.
    Based on our experience with consultations under section 7 of the 
Act for all listed species, virtually all projects--including those 
that, in their initial proposed form, would result in jeopardy or 
adverse modification determinations in section 7 consultations--can be 
implemented successfully with, at most, the adoption of reasonable and 
prudent alternatives. These measures, by definition, must be 
economically feasible and within the scope of authority of the Federal 
agency involved in the consultation. We can only describe the general 
kinds of actions that may be identified in future reasonable and 
prudent alternatives. These are based on our understanding of the needs 
of the species and the threats it faces, as described in the final 
listing rule (July 2, 2002; 67 FR 44382) and this critical habitat 
designation. Within the final critical habitat units, the types of 
Federal actions or authorized activities that we have identified as 
potential concerns are:
    (1) Regulation of activities affecting waters of the United States 
by the Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act;
    (2) Regulation of water flows, damming, diversion, and 
channelization implemented or licensed by Federal agencies;
    (3) Regulation of timber harvest, grazing, mining, and recreation 
by the USFS;
    (4) Road construction and maintenance, right-of-way designation, 
and regulation of agricultural activities.
    It is likely that a developer or other project proponent could 
modify a project or take measures to protect the mountain yellow-legged 
frog. The kinds of actions that may be included if future reasonable 
and prudent alternatives become necessary include conservation set-
asides, management of competing nonnative species, restoration of 
degraded habitat, and regular monitoring. These are based on our 
understanding of the needs of the species and the threats it faces, as 
described in the final listing rule and proposed critical habitat 
designation, and in this final rule. These measures are not likely to 
result in a significant economic impact to project proponents.
    In summary, we have considered whether this rule would result in a 
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. 
For the above reasons and based on currently available information, we 
certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Federal involvement, and thus 
section 7 consultations, would be limited to a subset of the area 
designated. The most likely Federal involvement could include Corps 
permits, permits we may issue under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act; 
Federal Highway Administration funding for road improvements; 
hydropower licenses issued by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; and 
regulation of timber harvest, grazing, mining, and recreation by the 
USFS. A regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

[[Page 54370]]

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C 801 et 
seq.)

    Under SBREFA, this rule is not a major rule. Our detailed 
assessment of the economic effects of this designation is described in 
the economic analysis. Based on the effects identified in the economic 
analysis, we believe that this rule will not have an annual effect on 
the economy of $100 million or more, will not cause a major increase in 
costs or prices for consumers, and will not have significant adverse 
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, 
innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with 
foreign-based enterprises. Refer to the final economic analysis (see 
ADDRESSES) for a discussion of the effects of this determination.

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on 
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and 
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of 
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This final rule to 
designated critical habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog is not 
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. 
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no 
Statement of Energy Effects is required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we make the following findings:
    (a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, Tribal 
governments, or the private sector and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding'' and the State, local, or Tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. (At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work 
programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; 
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption 
Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; 
and Child Support Enforcement.) ``Federal private sector mandate'' 
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the 
private sector, except (i) A condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) A 
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities who receive Federal 
funding, assistance, permits or otherwise require approval or 
authorization from a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly 
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding 
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat 
rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that 
non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive 
Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would critical 
habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above 
on to State governments.
    (b) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal mandate 
of $100 million or greater in any year, that is, it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act. The designation of critical habitat imposes no obligations on 
State or local governments. As such, Small Government Agency Plan is 
not required.

Executive Order 12630--Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property 
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of 
proposing critical habitat for the southern California DPS of the 
mountain yellow-legged frog in a takings implications assessment. The 
takings implications assessment concludes that this designation of 
critical habitat for the southern California DPS of the mountain 
yellow-legged frog does not pose significant takings implications.

Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. In keeping with DOI and Department of Commerce policy, we 
requested information from, and coordinated development of, this final 
critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource agencies 
in California. The designation of critical habitat in areas currently 
occupied by the mountain yellow-legged frog may impose nominal 
additional regulatory restrictions to those currently in place and, 
therefore, may have little incremental impact on State and local 
governments and their activities. The designation may have some benefit 
to these governments in that the areas that contain the features 
essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, 
and the primary constituent elements of the habitat necessary to the 
conservation of the species are specifically identified. While making 
this definition and identification does not alter where and what 
federally sponsored activities may occur, it may assist these local 
governments in long-range planning (rather than waiting for case-by-
case section 7 consultations to occur).

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the 
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of the Order. We are designating critical habitat in accordance with 
the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. This final rule uses 
standard property descriptions and identifies the primary constituent 
elements within the designated areas to assist the public in 
understanding the habitat needs of the mountain yellow-legged frog.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule 
will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or 
local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency 
may not

[[Page 54371]]

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    It is our position that, outside the Tenth Circuit, we do not need 
to prepare environmental analyses as defined by the NEPA in connection 
with designating critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this 
determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 
49244). This assertion was upheld in the courts of the Ninth Circuit 
(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 1995), cert. 
denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996).)

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department 
of Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have determined that 
there are no tribal lands occupied at the time of listing that contain 
the features essential for the conservation of the mountain yellow-
legged frog and no tribal lands that are unoccupied areas that are 
essential for the conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog. 
Therefore, critical habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog has not 
been designated on Tribal lands.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is 
available upon request from the Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and 
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author(s)

    The primary authors of this package are staff of the Carlsbad Fish 
and Wildlife Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

0
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.


0
2. In Sec.  17.11(h), revise the entry for ``Frog, mountain yellow-
legged (southern California DPS)'' under ``AMPHIBIANS'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Species                                                  Vertebrate population
-----------------------------------------------------------     Historic range      where endangered or     Status       When      Critical     Special
            Common name                 Scientific name                                  threatened                     listed      habitat      rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Amphibians
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Frog, mountain yellow-legged         Rana muscosa.........  U.S.A. (California,    U.S.A., southern               E         728    17.95(d)          NA
 (southern California DPS).                                  Nevada).               California.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. In Sec.  17.95(d), add an entry for ``Mountain yellow-legged frog 
(Rana muscosa), southern California DPS'' in the same alphabetical 
order in which this species appears in the table at 50 CFR 17.11(h), to 
read as follows:


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (d) Amphibians.
* * * * *
    Mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa), Southern California DPS
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Los Angeles, San 
Bernardino, and Riverside Counties, California, on the maps below.
    (2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for the 
mountain yellow-legged frog are:
    (i) Water source(s) found between 1,214 to 7,546 ft (370 to 2,300 
m) in elevation that are permanent. Water sources include, but are not 
limited to, streams, rivers, perennial creeks (or permanent plunge 
pools within intermittent creeks), pools (i.e., a body of impounded 
water that is contained above a natural dam), and other forms of 
aquatic habitat. The water source should maintain a natural flow 
pattern including periodic natural flooding. Aquatic habitats that are 
used by mountain yellow-legged frog for breeding purposes must maintain 
water during the entire tadpole growth phase, which can be up to 2 
years duration. During periods of drought, or less than average 
rainfall, these breeding sites may not hold water long enough for 
individuals to complete metamorphosis, but they would still be 
considered essential breeding habitat in wetter years. Further, the 
aquatic habitat includes:
    (A) Bank and pool substrates consisting of varying percentages of 
soil or silt, sand, gravel cobble, rock, and boulders;
    (B) Open gravel banks and rocks projecting above or just beneath 
the surface of the water for sunning posts;
    (C) Aquatic refugia, including pools with bank overhangs, downfall 
logs or branches, and/or rocks to provide cover from predators; and
    (D) Streams or stream reaches between known occupied sites that can 
function as corridors for adults and frogs for movement between aquatic 
habitats used as breeding and/or foraging sites.
    (ii) Riparian habitat and upland vegetation (e.g., ponderosa pine, 
montane hardwood-conifer, montane riparian woodlands, and chaparral) 
extending 262 feet (80 m) from each side of the centerline of each 
identified stream and its tributaries, that provides areas for feeding 
and movement of mountain yellow-legged frog, with a

[[Page 54372]]

canopy overstory not exceeding 85 percent that allows sunlight to reach 
the stream and thereby provides basking areas for the species.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures existing 
on the effective date of this rule and not containing one or more of 
the primary constituent elements, such as buildings, aqueducts, 
airports, and roads, and the land on which such structures are located.
    (4) Critical Habitat Map Units. Data layers defining map units were 
created on a base of USGS 7.5' quadrangles, and critical habitat units 
were then mapped using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates. 
Note: Index map of critical habitat units for the southern California 
DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog (Map 1) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 54373]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14SE06.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 54374]]

    (5) Unit 1: San Gabriel Mountains Unit, Los Angeles and San 
Bernardino Counties, California. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps 
Crystal Lake, Cucamonga Peak, Mount San Antonio Valyermo, and Waterman 
Mountain, California.
    (i) Subunit 1A: San Gabriel River, East Fork Angeles National 
Forest, Los Angeles County, California.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM North American Datum of 1927 
(NAD27) coordinates (E, N): 434100, 3803300; 434400, 3803300; 434400, 
3803100; 434300, 3803100; 434300, 3802900; 434200, 3802900; 434200, 
3802800; 434100, 3802800; 434100, 3802600; 434000, 3802600; 434000, 
3802500; 433800, 3802500; 433800, 3802200; 433700, 3802200; 433700, 
3801900; 433600, 3801900; 433600, 3801800; 433800, 3801800; 433800, 
3801900; 434200, 3801900; 434200, 3802000; 434400, 3802000; 434400, 
3802100; 434500, 3802100; 434500, 3802300; 434600, 3802300; 434600, 
3802500; 434700, 3802500; 434700, 3802800; 434800, 3802800; 434800, 
3802900; 434900, 3802900; 434900, 3803000; 435100, 3803000; 435100, 
3802700; 435000, 3802700; 435000, 3802600; 434900, 3802600; 434900, 
3802200; 434800, 3802200; 434800, 3802100; 434700, 3802100; 434700, 
3801900; 434600, 3801900; 434600, 3801800; 434400, 3801800; 434400, 
3801700; 434000, 3801700; 434000, 3801600; 433400, 3801600; 433400, 
3801500; 433300, 3801500; 433300, 3801400; 433400, 3801400; 433400, 
3801300; 433500, 3801300; 433500, 3800400; 433900, 3800400; 433900, 
3800500; 434000, 3800500; 434000, 3800600; 434200, 3800600; 434200, 
3800500; 434300, 3800500; 434300, 3800600; 434500, 3800600; 434500, 
3800900; 434600, 3800900; 434600, 3801200; 434700, 3801200; 434700, 
3801500; 434800, 3801500; 434800, 3801600; 434900, 3801600; 434900, 
3801800; 435000, 3801800; 435000, 3801900; 435100, 3801900; 435100, 
3802000; 435200, 3802000; 435200, 3802100; 435300, 3802100; 435300, 
3802200; 435400, 3802200; 435400, 3802300; 435500, 3802300; 435500, 
3802400; 435800, 3802400; 435800, 3802200; 435700, 3802200; 435700, 
3802100; 435600, 3802100; 435600, 3802000; 435500, 3802000; 435500, 
3801900; 435400, 3801900; 435400, 3801800; 435300, 3801800; 435300, 
3801700; 435200, 3801700; 435200, 3801600; 435100, 3801600; 435100, 
3801500; 435000, 3801500; 435000, 3801100; 434900, 3801100; 434900, 
3800900; 435000, 3800900; 435000, 3800800; 435100, 3800800; 435100, 
3800700; 435200, 3800700; 435200, 3800400; 435500, 3800400; 435500, 
3800600; 435600, 3800600; 435600, 3800800; 435700, 3800800; 435700, 
3800900; 435900, 3800900; 435900, 3801200; 436000, 3801200; 436000, 
3801300; 436100, 3801300; 436100, 3801600; 436400, 3801600; 436400, 
3801700; 436800, 3801700; 436800, 3801400; 436300, 3801400; 436300, 
3801100; 436200, 3801100; 436200, 3801000; 436100, 3801000; 436100, 
3800900; 436200, 3800900; 436200, 3800700; 436100, 3800700; 436100, 
3800600; 435800, 3800600; 435800, 3800300; 435900, 3800300; 435900, 
3800200; 436100, 3800200; 436100, 3800100; 436300, 3800100; 436300, 
3800000; 436200, 3800000; 436200, 3799800; 436100, 3799800; 436100, 
3799900; 435900, 3799900; 435900, 3800000; 435800, 3800000; 435800, 
3800100; 435100, 3800100; 435100, 3800200; 435000, 3800200; 435000, 
3800300; 434900, 3800300; 434900, 3800600; 434800, 3800600; 434800, 
3800400; 434600, 3800400; 434600, 3800300; 434100, 3800300; 434100, 
3800100; 433200, 3800100; 433200, 3800000; 433300, 3800000; 433300, 
3799800; 433400, 3799800; 433400, 3799200; 433600, 3799200; 433600, 
3798800; 433500, 3798800; 433500, 3798700; 433400, 3798700; 433400, 
3798600; 433300, 3798600; 433300, 3798500; 433200, 3798500; 433200, 
3797600; 433100, 3797600; 433100, 3797400; 433000, 3797400; 433000, 
3797300; 432800, 3797300; 432800, 3797200; 432900, 3797200; 432900, 
3797000; 432800, 3797000; 432800, 3796400; 433000, 3796400; 433000, 
3796500; 433100, 3796500; 433100, 3796600; 433200, 3796600; 433200, 
3796700; 433400, 3796700; 433400, 3796600; 433600, 3796600; 433600, 
3796700; 433700, 3796700; 433700, 3796800; 433800, 3796800; 433800, 
3796900; 434200, 3796900; 434200, 3797000; 434500, 3797000; 434500, 
3796900; 434600, 3796900; 434600, 3796700; 434000, 3796700; 434000, 
3796500; 433800, 3796500; 433800, 3796400; 434000, 3796400; 434000, 
3796300; 434100, 3796300; 434100, 3796200; 434300, 3796200; 434300, 
3796100; 434400, 3796100; 434400, 3796000; 434600, 3796000; 434600, 
3795600; 434500, 3795600; 434500, 3795800; 434300, 3795800; 434300, 
3795900; 434100, 3795900; 434100, 3796000; 433900, 3796000; 433900, 
3796100; 433600, 3796100; 433600, 3796200; 433500, 3796200; 433500, 
3796300; 433200, 3796300; 433200, 3796200; 433000, 3796200; 433000, 
3796100; 432900, 3796100; 432900, 3796000; 432800, 3796000; 432800, 
3795900; 433000, 3795900; 433000, 3795800; 433200, 3795800; 433200, 
3795700; 433300, 3795700; 433300, 3795600; 433600, 3795600; 433600, 
3795500; 433800, 3795500; 433800, 3795400; 433900, 3795400; 433900, 
3795300; 434000, 3795300; 434000, 3795200; 434100, 3795200; 434100, 
3795100; 434200, 3795100; 434200, 3795000; 434100, 3795000; 434100, 
3794900; 434000, 3794900; 434000, 3795000; 433800, 3795000; 433800, 
3795100; 433700, 3795100; 433700, 3795200; 433600, 3795200; 433600, 
3795300; 433400, 3795300; 433400, 3795400; 433100, 3795400; 433100, 
3795500; 433000, 3795500; 433000, 3795600; 432800, 3795600; 432800, 
3795700; 432500, 3795700; 432500, 3795500; 432400, 3795500; 432400, 
3795400; 432500, 3795400; 432500, 3795300; 432700, 3795300; 432700, 
3795200; 432800, 3795200; 432800, 3795100; 433100, 3795100; 433100, 
3795000; 433200, 3795000; 433200, 3794800; 433400, 3794800; 433400, 
3794700; 433600, 3794700; 433600, 3794600; 433500, 3794600; 433500, 
3794400; 433400, 3794400; 433400, 3794500; 433200, 3794500; 433200, 
3794600; 433000, 3794600; 433000, 3794800; 432900, 3794800; 432900, 
3794900; 432600, 3794900; 432600, 3795000; 432500, 3795000; 432500, 
3795100; 432300, 3795100; 432300, 3795200; 432000, 3795200; 432000, 
3795100; 432100, 3795100; 432100, 3795000; 432000, 3795000; 432000, 
3794900; 431900, 3794900; 431900, 3794800; 431800, 3794800; 431800, 
3794500; 431600, 3794500; 431600, 3794400; 431500, 3794400; 431500, 
3794100; 431600, 3794100; 431600, 3794000; 431700, 3794000; 431700, 
3793600; 431600, 3793600; 431600, 3793400; 431400, 3793400; 431400, 
3793900; 431300, 3793900; 431300, 3794600; 431400, 3794600; 431400, 
3794700; 431500, 3794700; 431500, 3795000; 431600, 3795000; 431600, 
3795300; 431100, 3795300; 431100, 3795100; 430600, 3795100; 430600, 
3795200; 430200, 3795200; 430200, 3795400; 430100, 3795400; 430100, 
3795500; 430200, 3795500; 430200, 3795600; 430400, 3795600; 430400, 
3795500; 430700, 3795500; 430700, 3795400; 430800, 3795400; 430800, 
3795300; 430900, 3795300; 430900, 3795600; 431100, 3795600; 431100, 
3795900; 431000, 3795900; 431000, 3796600; 431100, 3796600; 431100, 
3796900; 431000, 3796900; 431000, 3797000; 431100, 3797000; 431100, 
3797200; 431200, 3797200; 431200, 3797000; 431300, 3797000; 431300, 
3796500; 431200, 3796500; 431200, 3796100; 431300, 3796100; 431300, 
3795700; 431400, 3795700; 431400,

[[Page 54375]]

3795600; 431600, 3795600; 431600, 3795500; 431800, 3795500; 431800, 
3795300; 431900, 3795300; 431900, 3795400; 432000, 3795400; 432000, 
3795500; 432100, 3795500; 432100, 3795600; 432200, 3795600; 432200, 
3795700; 432300, 3795700; 432300, 3796000; 432500, 3796000; 432500, 
3796100; 432400, 3796100; 432400, 3796300; 432500, 3796300; 432500, 
3796400; 432600, 3796400; 432600, 3796600; 432500, 3796600; 432500, 
3796900; 432600, 3796900; 432600, 3797100; 432500, 3797100; 432500, 
3797400; 432600, 3797400; 432600, 3797500; 432800, 3797500; 432800, 
3797700; 432700, 3797700; 432700, 3797800; 432300, 3797800; 432300, 
3797900; 432200, 3797900; 432200, 3798000; 432100, 3798000; 432100, 
3798100; 432000, 3798100; 432000, 3798200; 431700, 3798200; 431700, 
3798300; 431600, 3798300; 431600, 3798400; 431400, 3798400; 431400, 
3798500; 431300, 3798500; 431300, 3798600; 431200, 3798600; 431200, 
3798900; 431400, 3798900; 431400, 3798800; 431500, 3798800; 431500, 
3798700; 431600, 3798700; 431600, 3798600; 431800, 3798600; 431800, 
3798500; 431900, 3798500; 431900, 3798400; 432100, 3798400; 432100, 
3798300; 432200, 3798300; 432200, 3798200; 432300, 3798200; 432300, 
3798100; 432400, 3798100; 432400, 3798000; 432800, 3798000; 432800, 
3797900; 432900, 3797900; 432900, 3798200; 433000, 3798200; 433000, 
3798700; 433100, 3798700; 433100, 3798900; 433300, 3798900; 433300, 
3799100; 433200, 3799100; 433200, 3799300; 433100, 3799300; 433100, 
3799900; 432900, 3799900; 432900, 3800300; 433000, 3800300; 433000, 
3800400; 432900, 3800400; 432900, 3800500; 432600, 3800500; 432600, 
3800600; 432400, 3800600; 432400, 3800700; 432200, 3800700; 432200, 
3800800; 431600, 3800800; 431600, 3801000; 431700, 3801000; 431700, 
3801100; 432000, 3801100; 432000, 3801000; 432400, 3801000; 432400, 
3800900; 432600, 3800900; 432600, 3800800; 432700, 3800800; 432700, 
3800700; 433100, 3800700; 433100, 3800600; 433200, 3800600; 433200, 
3800800; 433300, 3800800; 433300, 3801200; 433100, 3801200; 433100, 
3801300; 433000, 3801300; 433000, 3801600; 433100, 3801600; 433100, 
3802000; 433000, 3802000; 433000, 3802100; 432800, 3802100; 432800, 
3802200; 432600, 3802200; 432600, 3802300; 432400, 3802300; 432400, 
3802400; 432200, 3802400; 432200, 3802500; 431900, 3802500; 431900, 
3802700; 432200, 3802700; 432200, 3803000; 432400, 3803000; 432400, 
3802900; 432500, 3802900; 432500, 3802800; 432600, 3802800; 432600, 
3802700; 432700, 3802700; 432700, 3802500; 432800, 3802500; 432800, 
3802400; 433000, 3802400; 433000, 3802300; 433200, 3802300; 433200, 
3802100; 433300, 3802100; 433300, 3802000; 433400, 3802000; 433400, 
3802100; 433500, 3802100; 433500, 3802500; 433600, 3802500; 433600, 
3802700; 433800, 3802700; 433800, 3802800; 433900, 3802800; 433900, 
3802900; 434000, 3802900; 434000, 3803100; 434100, 3803100; returning 
to 434100, 3803300.
    (B) Map depicting subunit 1A is located at paragraph (5)(vi)(B) of 
this section.
    (ii) Subunit 1B: Big Rock Creek, South Fork, Angeles National 
Forest, Los Angeles County, California.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N): 
424400, 3805700; 424600, 3805700; 424600, 3805400; 424500, 3805400; 
424500, 3805300; 424300, 3805300; 424300, 3805200; 424400, 3805200; 
424400, 3805000; 424300, 3805000; 424300, 3804900; 424100, 3804900; 
424100, 3804800; 424000, 3804800; 424000, 3804700; 423900, 3804700; 
423900, 3804500; 423800, 3804500; 423800, 3804400; 423700, 3804400; 
423700, 3804300; 424000, 3804300; 424000, 3804100; 424100, 3804100; 
424100, 3804000; 424200, 3804000; 424200, 3803900; 424300, 3803900; 
424300, 3803800; 425200, 3803800; 425200, 3803700; 425700, 3803700; 
425700, 3803400; 425400, 3803400; 425400, 3803500; 424400, 3803500; 
424400, 3803000; 424500, 3803000; 424500, 3802900; 425100, 3802900; 
425100, 3802800; 425300, 3802800; 425300, 3802600; 424500, 3802600; 
424500, 3802700; 424300, 3802700; 424300, 3802800; 424200, 3802800; 
424200, 3803000; 424100, 3803000; 424100, 3803700; 423900, 3803700; 
423900, 3803800; 423800, 3803800; 423800, 3804000; 423700, 3804000; 
423700, 3803700; 423500, 3803700; 423500, 3803600; 423400, 3803600; 
423400, 3803400; 423300, 3803400; 423300, 3803200; 423500, 3803200; 
423500, 3803000; 423600, 3803000; 423600, 3802600; 423700, 3802600; 
423700, 3802500; 423800, 3802500; 423800, 3802400; 424000, 3802400; 
424000, 3802300; 423500, 3802300; 423500, 3802400; 423400, 3802400; 
423400, 3802800; 423300, 3802800; 423300, 3802900; 423200, 3802900; 
423200, 3803000; 423100, 3803000; 423100, 3803100; 423000, 3803100; 
423000, 3803000; 422900, 3803000; 422900, 3802800; 422800, 3802800; 
422800, 3802700; 422700, 3802700; 422700, 3802800; 422600, 3802800; 
422600, 3803100; 422700, 3803100; 422700, 3803200; 422800, 3803200; 
422800, 3803300; 422900, 3803300; 422900, 3803400; 423000, 3803400; 
423000, 3803500; 423100, 3803500; 423100, 3803600; 423200, 3803600; 
423200, 3803900; 423400, 3803900; 423400, 3804500; 423500, 3804500; 
423500, 3804600; 423600, 3804600; 423600, 3804700; 423700, 3804700; 
423700, 3804900; 423800, 3804900; 423800, 3805000; 423900, 3805000; 
423900, 3805100; 424000, 3805100; 424000, 3805400; 424100, 3805400; 
424100, 3805500; 424200, 3805500; 424200, 3805600; 424400, 3805600; 
returning to 424400, 3805700.
    (B) Map depicting subunit 1B is located at paragraph (5)(vi)(B) of 
this entry.
    (iii) Subunit 1C: Little Rock Creek, Angeles National Forest, Los 
Angeles County, California.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N): 
419500, 3803800; 420000, 3803800; 420000, 3803600; 419700, 3803600; 
419700, 3803500; 419600, 3803500; 419600, 3803400; 419500, 3803400; 
419500, 3803300; 419600, 3803300; 419600, 3803200; 419700, 3803200; 
419700, 3802900; 420000, 3802900; 420000, 3803000; 420200, 3803000; 
420200, 3803100; 420400, 3803100; 420400, 3803200; 420500, 3803200; 
420500, 3803300; 420600, 3803300; 420600, 3803400; 420900, 3803400; 
420900, 3803200; 420800, 3803200; 420800, 3803100; 420700, 3803100; 
420700, 3803000; 420600, 3803000; 420600, 3802900; 420500, 3802900; 
420500, 3802800; 420100, 3802800; 420100, 3802700; 419900, 3802700; 
419900, 3802600; 419800, 3802600; 419800, 3802400; 419700, 3802400; 
419700, 3802300; 419500, 3802300; 419500, 3802400; 419400, 3802400; 
419400, 3802300; 419300, 3802300; 419300, 3802100; 419200, 3802100; 
419200, 3802000; 419100, 3802000; 419100, 3801900; 419000, 3801900; 
419000, 3801800; 418800, 3801800; 418800, 3801900; 418500, 3801900; 
418500, 3801800; 417900, 3801800; 417900, 3801900; 417800, 3801900; 
417800, 3802000; 417700, 3802000; 417700, 3802100; 417600, 3802100; 
417600, 3802300; 417500, 3802300; 417500, 3802400; 417300, 3802400; 
417300, 3802300; 417200, 3802300; 417200, 3802200; 417000, 3802200; 
417000, 3801400; 416900, 3801400; 416900, 3801300; 416800, 3801300; 
416800, 3801200; 416700, 3801200; 416700, 3801100; 416600, 3801100; 
416600, 3801200; 416500, 3801200; 416500, 3801400; 416700, 3801400; 
416700, 3802100; 416500, 3802100; 416500, 3802000; 416200, 3802000;

[[Page 54376]]

416200, 3802100; 416100, 3802100; 416100, 3802200; 416000, 3802200; 
416000, 3802500; 416300, 3802500; 416300, 3802300; 416500, 3802300; 
416500, 3802400; 416900, 3802400; 416900, 3802500; 417100, 3802500; 
417100, 3802600; 417800, 3802600; 417800, 3802400; 417900, 3802400; 
417900, 3802300; 418000, 3802300; 418000, 3802100; 418300, 3802100; 
418300, 3802400; 418600, 3802400; 418600, 3802200; 419000, 3802200; 
419000, 3802400; 419100, 3802400; 419100, 3802500; 419200, 3802500; 
419200, 3802700; 419400, 3802700; 419400, 3803100; 419300, 3803100; 
419300, 3803600; 419400, 3803600; 419400, 3803700; 419500, 3803700; 
returning to 419500, 3803800.
    (B) Map depicting subunit 1C is located at paragraph (5)(vi)(B) of 
this entry.
    (iv) Subunit 1D: Devil's Canyon, Angeles National Forest, Los 
Angeles County, California.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N): 
414500, 3799300; 414700, 3799300; 414700, 3798600; 414600, 3798600; 
414600, 3798500; 414500, 3798500; 414500, 3798400; 414300, 3798400; 
414300, 3798300; 413900, 3798300; 413900, 3798200; 413600, 3798200; 
413600, 3798100; 413400, 3798100; 413400, 3798000; 413000, 3798000; 
413000, 3797800; 412600, 3797800; 412600, 3797700; 412500, 3797700; 
412500, 3797600; 412300, 3797600; 412300, 3797700; 412100, 3797700; 
412100, 3797800; 411800, 3797800; 411800, 3797700; 411400, 3797700; 
411400, 3797800; 411300, 3797800; 411300, 3798100; 411500, 3798100; 
411500, 3798000; 411800, 3798000; 411800, 3798100; 412200, 3798100; 
412200, 3798000; 412300, 3798000; 412300, 3797900; 412400, 3797900; 
412400, 3798000; 412700, 3798000; 412700, 3798100; 412800, 3798100; 
412800, 3798200; 413100, 3798200; 413100, 3798300; 413400, 3798300; 
413400, 3798400; 413700, 3798400; 413700, 3798500; 414100, 3798500; 
414100, 3798600; 414200, 3798600; 414200, 3798700; 414400, 3798700; 
414400, 3798800; 414500, 3798800; returning to 414500, 3799300.
    (B) Map depicting subunit 1D is located at paragraph (5)(vi)(B) of 
this entry.
    (v) Subunit 1F: San Gabriel River, East Fork, Iron Fork, Los 
Angeles County, California.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N): 
429100, 3798400; 429400, 3798400; 429400, 3798000; 429500, 3798000; 
429500, 3797400; 429700, 3797400; 429700, 3797100; 429600, 3797100; 
429600, 3797000; 429700, 3797000; 429700, 3796800; 429800, 3796800; 
429800, 3796700; 429900, 3796700; 429900, 3796500; 430000, 3796500; 
430000, 3796000; 430100, 3796000; 430100, 3795800; 430200, 3795800; 
430200, 3795500; 430100, 3795500; 430100, 3795400; 430000, 3795400; 
430000, 3795600; 429600, 3795600; 429600, 3795500; 429300, 3795500; 
429300, 3795600; 429000, 3795600; 429000, 3795700; 428700, 3795700; 
428700, 3795800; 428600, 3795800; 428600, 3795700; 428300, 3795700; 
428300, 3795800; 428000, 3795800; 428000, 3796100; 428700, 3796100; 
428700, 3796000; 428900, 3796000; 428900, 3795900; 429400, 3795900; 
429400, 3795800; 429800, 3795800; 429800, 3796000; 429700, 3796000; 
429700, 3796400; 429600, 3796400; 429600, 3796600; 429500, 3796600; 
429500, 3796800; 429400, 3796800; 429400, 3797200; 429300, 3797200; 
429300, 3797300; 429200, 3797300; 429200, 3798000; 429000, 3798000; 
429000, 3798300; 429100, 3798300; returning to 429100, 3798400.
    (B) Map depicting subunit 1F is located at paragraph (5)(vi)(B) of 
this entry.
    (vi) Subunit 1G: Bear Creek, Angeles National Forest, Los Angeles 
County, California.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N): 
417500, 3797700; 417800, 3797700; 417800, 3797500; 417900, 3797500; 
417900, 3797300; 418000, 3797300; 418000, 3796800; 417900, 3796800; 
417900, 3796700; 418000, 3796700; 418000, 3796600; 418200, 3796600; 
418200, 3796500; 418300, 3796500; 418300, 3796300; 417900, 3796300; 
417900, 3796400; 417800, 3796400; 417800, 3796500; 417700, 3796500; 
417700, 3797200; 417600, 3797200; 417600, 3797500; 417500, 3797500; 
returning to 417500, 3797700.
    (B) Map of Unit 1, with subunits 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1F, and 1G (Map 
2), follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 54377]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14SE06.001

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 54378]]

    (vii) Subunit 1E: Day Canyon, San Bernardino National Forest, San 
Bernardino County, California.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N): 
446400, 3786900; 446700, 3786900; 446700, 3786800; 446900, 3786800; 
446900, 3786700; 447100, 3786700; 447100, 3786600; 447200, 3786600; 
447200, 3786500; 447300, 3786500; 447300, 3786400; 447400, 3786400; 
447400, 3786200; 447500, 3786200; 447500, 3786100; 447600, 3786100; 
447600, 3786000; 447700, 3786000; 447700, 3785900; 447900, 3785900; 
447900, 3785800; 448100, 3785800; 448100, 3785700; 448400, 3785700; 
448400, 3785600; 448600, 3785600; 448600, 3785500; 448800, 3785500; 
448800, 3785400; 448900, 3785400; 448900, 3785000; 449000, 3785000; 
449000, 3784900; 449200, 3784900; 449200, 3784800; 449300, 3784800; 
449300, 3784600; 449400, 3784600; 449400, 3784300; 449500, 3784300; 
449500, 3784400; 449700, 3784400; 449700, 3785100; 449800, 3785100; 
449800, 3785800; 450000, 3785800; 450000, 3784800; 449900, 3784800; 
449900, 3784700; 450000, 3784700; 450000, 3784500; 449900, 3784500; 
449900, 3783800; 450000, 3783800; 450000, 3783700; 450300, 3783700; 
450300, 3783800; 450400, 3783800; 450400, 3783900; 450500, 3783900; 
450500, 3784700; 450600, 3784700; 450600, 3784800; 450700, 3784800; 
450700, 3784900; 450800, 3784900; 450800, 3785100; 450900, 3785100; 
450900, 3785200; 451000, 3785200; 451000, 3785100; 451100, 3785100; 
451100, 3784800; 451000, 3784800; 451000, 3784700; 450900, 3784700; 
450900, 3784600; 450800, 3784600; 450800, 3783900; 450700, 3783900; 
450700, 3783700; 450600, 3783700; 450600, 3783600; 450500, 3783600; 
450500, 3783500; 450300, 3783500; 450300, 3783100; 450400, 3783100; 
450400, 3783000; 450500, 3783000; 450500, 3782800; 450200, 3782800; 
450200, 3782900; 450100, 3782900; 450100, 3783100; 450000, 3783100; 
450000, 3783200; 449900, 3783200; 449900, 3783500; 449800, 3783500; 
449800, 3783600; 449700, 3783600; 449700, 3783700; 449600, 3783700; 
449600, 3783900; 449700, 3783900; 449700, 3784100; 449200, 3784100; 
449200, 3784300; 449100, 3784300; 449100, 3784600; 449000, 3784600; 
449000, 3784700; 448800, 3784700; 448800, 3784800; 448700, 3784800; 
448700, 3785200; 448600, 3785200; 448600, 3785300; 448400, 3785300; 
448400, 3785400; 448300, 3785400; 448300, 3785500; 447900, 3785500; 
447900, 3785600; 447800, 3785600; 447800, 3785700; 447500, 3785700; 
447500, 3785800; 447400, 3785800; 447400, 3785900; 447300, 3785900; 
447300, 3786000; 447200, 3786000; 447200, 3786200; 447100, 3786200; 
447100, 3786300; 447000, 3786300; 447000, 3786400; 446900, 3786400; 
446900, 3786500; 446700, 3786500; 446700, 3786600; 446500, 3786600; 
446500, 3786700; 446400, 3786700; returning to 446400, 3786900.
    (B) Map of subunit 1E (Map 3) follows:

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 54379]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14SE06.002

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 54380]]

    (6) Unit 2: San Bernardino Mountains, San Bernardino National 
Forest, San Bernardino County, California. From USGS 1:24,000 
quadrangle maps Big Bear Lake, Catclaw Flat and Harrison Mountain, 
California.
    (i) Subunit 2A: City Creek, East and West Forks, San Bernardino 
National Forest, San Bernardino County, California.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N): 
483800, 3785100; 483900, 3785100; 483900, 3785200; 484000, 3785200; 
484000, 3785400; 484100, 3785400; 484100, 3785600; 484200, 3785600; 
484200, 3785700; 484300, 3785700; 484300, 3785800; 484400, 3785800; 
484400, 3785900; 484600, 3785900; 484600, 3785600; 484500, 3785600; 
484500, 3785500; 484400, 3785500; 484400, 3785400; 484300, 3785400; 
484300, 3785200; 484200, 3785200; 484200, 3785000; 484100, 3785000; 
484100, 3784900; 484000, 3784900; 484000, 3784800; 483900, 3784800; 
483900, 3784700; 483800, 3784700; 483800, 3784400; 483900, 3784400; 
483900, 3784000; 483700, 3784000; 483700, 3783900; 483900, 3783900; 
483900, 3783800; 484000, 3783800; 484000, 3783400; 483900, 3783400; 
483900, 3783300; 483700, 3783300; 483700, 3782900; 483900, 3782900; 
483900, 3783100; 484000, 3783100; 484000, 3783200; 484300, 3783200; 
484300, 3783100; 484400, 3783100; 484400, 3783400; 484500, 3783400; 
484500, 3783500; 484400, 3783500; 484400, 3783900; 484500, 3783900; 
484500, 3784000; 484700, 3784000; 484700, 3784100; 484800, 3784100; 
484800, 3784700; 484900, 3784700; 484900, 3785000; 485000, 3785000; 
485000, 3785200; 485100, 3785200; 485100, 3785300; 485200, 3785300; 
485200, 3785400; 485400, 3785400; 485400, 3785800; 485700, 3785800; 
485700, 3785700; 485800, 3785700; 485800, 3785600; 485600, 3785600; 
485600, 3785200; 485400, 3785200; 485400, 3785100; 485300, 3785100; 
485300, 3785000; 485200, 3785000; 485200, 3784600; 485100, 3784600; 
485100, 3784200; 485000, 3784200; 485000, 3783900; 484900, 3783900; 
484900, 3783800; 484700, 3783800; 484700, 3783300; 484800, 3783300; 
484800, 3783100; 484700, 3783100; 484700, 3783000; 484600, 3783000; 
484600, 3782900; 484500, 3782900; 484500, 3782800; 484200, 3782800; 
484200, 3782900; 484100, 3782900; 484100, 3782700; 483900, 3782700; 
483900, 3782600; 483800, 3782600; 483800, 3782400; 483700, 3782400; 
483700, 3782200; 484000, 3782200; 484000, 3782000; 484400, 3782000; 
484400, 3782100; 484700, 3782100; 484700, 3782000; 485000, 3782000; 
485000, 3781900; 485200, 3781900; 485200, 3781800; 485400, 3781800; 
485400, 3781700; 485200, 3781700; 485200, 3781600; 485000, 3781600; 
485000, 3781700; 484800, 3781700; 484800, 3781800; 484300, 3781800; 
484300, 3781700; 483900, 3781700; 483900, 3781800; 483800, 3781800; 
483800, 3782000; 483600, 3782000; 483600, 3781800; 483400, 3781800; 
483400, 3781200; 483600, 3781200; 483600, 3780900; 483500, 3780900; 
483500, 3780500; 484200, 3780500; 484200, 3780600; 484300, 3780600; 
484300, 3780500; 484800, 3780500; 484800, 3780400; 484900, 3780400; 
484900, 3780300; 485000, 3780300; 485000, 3780100; 484700, 3780100; 
484700, 3780200; 484600, 3780200; 484600, 3780300; 483700, 3780300; 
483700, 3780200; 483500, 3780200; 483500, 3780100; 483400, 3780100; 
483400, 3780000; 483300, 3780000; 483300, 3779900; 483400, 3779900; 
483400, 3779500; 483300, 3779500; 483300, 3779000; 483100, 3779000; 
483100, 3778800; 482800, 3778800; 482800, 3778900; 482700, 3778900; 
482700, 3779000; 482900, 3779000; 482900, 3779200; 483100, 3779200; 
483100, 3779300; 483000, 3779300; 483000, 3779700; 483100, 3779700; 
483100, 3780100; 483200, 3780100; 483200, 3780300; 483300, 3780300; 
483300, 3780400; 483200, 3780400; 483200, 3780700; 483300, 3780700; 
483300, 3781100; 482900, 3781100; 482900, 3781200; 482800, 3781200; 
482800, 3781800; 482700, 3781800; 482700, 3781900; 482800, 3781900; 
482800, 3782600; 482900, 3782600; 482900, 3782800; 483000, 3782800; 
483000, 3782900; 483100, 3782900; 483100, 3783000; 483000, 3783000; 
483000, 3783100; 482900, 3783100; 482900, 3783200; 482300, 3783200; 
482300, 3783500; 482600, 3783500; 482600, 3783600; 482700, 3783600; 
482700, 3783500; 483000, 3783500; 483000, 3783400; 483100, 3783400; 
483100, 3783300; 483300, 3783300; 483300, 3783200; 483500, 3783200; 
483500, 3783500; 483700, 3783500; 483700, 3783700; 483300, 3783700; 
483300, 3784100; 483100, 3784100; 483100, 3784400; 483300, 3784400; 
483300, 3784300; 483500, 3784300; 483500, 3784200; 483600, 3784200; 
483600, 3784400; 483500, 3784400; 483500, 3784700; 483400, 3784700; 
483400, 3784900; 483500, 3784900; 483500, 3785100; 483600, 3785100; 
483600, 3785300; 483800, 3785300; returning to 483800, 3785100; 
excluding land bounded by 483700, 3785100; 483800, 3785100; 483800, 
3785000; 483700, 3785000; 483700, 3785100; land bounded by 483100, 
3782700; 483600, 3782700; 483600, 3782600; 483500, 3782600; 483500, 
3782500; 483400, 3782500; 483400, 3782400; 483300, 3782400; 483300, 
3782300; 483200, 3782300; 483200, 3782100; 483100, 3782100; 483100, 
3782700; and land bounded by 483000, 3781800; 483100, 3781800; 483100, 
3781500; 483000, 3781500; 483000, 3781800.
    (B) Map of subunit 2A (Map 4) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


[[Page 54381]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14SE06.003

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 54382]]

    (ii) Subunit 2B: Barton Creek, East Fork, San Bernardino National 
Forest, San Bernardino County, California.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N): 
510000, 3781300; 510100, 3781300; 510100, 3781200; 510200, 3781200; 
510200, 3781100; 510400, 3781100; 510400, 3780700; 510500, 3780700; 
510500, 3780400; 510600, 3780400; 510600, 3780200; 510500, 3780200; 
510500, 3780100; 510600, 3780100; 510600, 3779800; 510700, 3779800; 
510700, 3779600; 510800, 3779600; 510800, 3779400; 510700, 3779400; 
510700, 3779300; 510800, 3779300; 510800, 3779000; 510900, 3779000; 
510900, 3778500; 510600, 3778500; 510600, 3779100; 510500, 3779100; 
510500, 3779600; 510400, 3779600; 510400, 3779900; 510300, 3779900; 
510300, 3780400; 510200, 3780400; 510200, 3780700; 510100, 3780700; 
510100, 3781000; 510000, 3781000; returning to 510000, 3781300.
    (B) Map depicting subunit 2B is located at paragraph (6)(iii)(B) of 
this entry.
    (iii) Subunit 2C: Whitewater River, North Fork, San Bernardino 
National Forest, San Bernardino County, California.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N): 
523300, 3769200; 523400, 3769200; 523400, 3769100; 523600, 3769100; 
523600, 3769000; 523800, 3769000; 523800, 3768900; 523900, 3768900; 
523900, 3768800; 524200, 3768800; 524200, 3768500; 523900, 3768500; 
523900, 3768600; 523700, 3768600; 523700, 3768700; 523600, 3768700; 
523600, 3768800; 523400, 3768800; 523400, 3768900; 523200, 3768900; 
523200, 3769100; 523300, 3769100; returning to 523300, 3769200.
    (B) Map of subunits 2B and 2C (Map 5) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 54383]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14SE06.004

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 54384]]

    (7) Unit 3: San Jacinto Mountains, San Bernardino National Forest, 
Riverside County, California. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Lake 
Fulmor, Palm Springs and San Jacinto Peak, California
    (i) Subunit 3A: San Jacinto River, North Fork, San Bernardino 
National Forest, Riverside County, California.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N): 
526400, 3743000; 526600, 3743000; 526600, 3742700; 526400, 3742700; 
526400, 3742600; 526300, 3742600; 526300, 3742500; 526200, 3742500; 
526200, 3742400; 526600, 3742400; 526600, 3742300; 526900, 3742300; 
526900, 3742200; 527000, 3742200; 527000, 3742000; 526800, 3742000; 
526800, 3742100; 526300, 3742100; 526300, 3742200; 526100, 3742200; 
526100, 3742800; 526200, 3742800; 526200, 3742900; 526400, 3742900; 
returning to 526400, 3743000; land bounded by: 525000, 3742100; 525200, 
3742100; 525200, 3742000; 525400, 3742000; 525400, 3741900; 525300, 
3741900; 525300, 3741800; 525100, 3741800; 525100, 3741700; 525000, 
3741700; 525000, 3741600; 524900, 3741600; 524900, 3741800; 524800, 
3741800; 524800, 3741900; 524900, 3741900; 524900, 3742000; 525000, 
3742000; returning to 525000, 3742100; land bounded by: 522600, 
3741900; 522800, 3741900; 522800, 3741800; 522900, 3741800; 522900, 
3741600; 522800, 3741600; 522800, 3741400; 522600, 3741400; 522600, 
3741300; 522500, 3741300; 522500, 3741200; 522400, 3741200; 522400, 
3741100; 522300, 3741100; 522300, 3740700; 522200, 3740700; 522200, 
3740500; 522100, 3740500; 522100, 3740000; 522000, 3740000; 522000, 
3739500; 521900, 3739500; 521900, 3739200; 521800, 3739200; 521800, 
3739000; 522000, 3739000; 522000, 3739100; 522600, 3739100; 522600, 
3739200; 523000, 3739200; 523000, 3739300; 523100, 3739300; 523100, 
3739400; 523200, 3739400; 523200, 3739000; 522900, 3739000; 522900, 
3738900; 522600, 3738900; 522600, 3738800; 521800, 3738800; 521800, 
3738700; 521700, 3738700; 521700, 3738600; 521400, 3738600; 521400, 
3738800; 521500, 3738800; 521500, 3738900; 521600, 3738900; 521600, 
3739500; 521700, 3739500; 521700, 3739700; 521800, 3739700; 521800, 
3740300; 521900, 3740300; 521900, 3740700; 522000, 3740700; 522000, 
3740900; 522100, 3740900; 522100, 3741300; 522200, 3741300; 522200, 
3741400; 522400, 3741400; 522400, 3741600; 522600, 3741600; returning 
to 522600, 3741900; land bounded by: 525800, 3741200; 525900, 3741200; 
525900, 3740900; 525800, 3740900; 525800, 3740800; 525600, 3740800; 
525600, 3740700; 525500, 3740700; 525500, 3740600; 525400, 3740600; 
525400, 3740400; 525300, 3740400; 525300, 3740300; 525200, 3740300; 
525200, 3740200; 525100, 3740200; 525100, 3740100; 525000, 3740100; 
525000, 3740000; 525600, 3740000; 525600, 3740100; 525800, 3740100; 
525800, 3740000; 525900, 3740000; 525900, 3739700; 525800, 3739700; 
525800, 3739800; 525500, 3739800; 525500, 3739700; 525700, 3739700; 
525700, 3739600; 525800, 3739600; 525800, 3739500; 525900, 3739500; 
525900, 3739400; 526000, 3739400; 526000, 3739000; 525900, 3739000; 
525900, 3739100; 525800, 3739100; 525800, 3739200; 525700, 3739200; 
525700, 3739300; 525600, 3739300; 525600, 3739400; 525100, 3739400; 
525100, 3739500; 524800, 3739500; 524800, 3739600; 524600, 3739600; 
524600, 3739500; 524500, 3739500; 524500, 3739400; 524200, 3739400; 
524200, 3739300; 524100, 3739300; 524100, 3739600; 524200, 3739600; 
524200, 3739700; 524400, 3739700; 524400, 3739800; 524500, 3739800; 
524500, 3740000; 524600, 3740000; 524600, 3740100; 524700, 3740100; 
524700, 3740200; 524800, 3740200; 524800, 3740300; 524900, 3740300; 
524900, 3740400; 525000, 3740400; 525000, 3740500; 525100, 3740500; 
525100, 3740600; 525200, 3740600; 525200, 3740700; 525300, 3740700; 
525300, 3740800; 525400, 3740800; 525400, 3740900; 525500, 3740900; 
525500, 3741000; 525600, 3741000; 525600, 3741100; 525800, 3741100; 
returning to 525800, 3741200; and land bounded by 523900, 3741000; 
524200, 3741000; 524200, 3740800; 524100, 3740800; 524100, 3740700; 
524000, 3740700; 524000, 3740600; 523900, 3740600; 523900, 3740500; 
523800, 3740500; 523800, 3740400; 523600, 3740400; 523600, 3740300; 
523500, 3740300; 523500, 3740100; 523400, 3740100; 523400, 3739500; 
523200, 3739500; 523200, 3739600; 523100, 3739600; 523100, 3740000; 
523200, 3740000; 523200, 3740300; 523300, 3740300; 523300, 3740500; 
523400, 3740500; 523400, 3740600; 523600, 3740600; 523600, 3740700; 
523800, 3740700; 523800, 3740900; 523900, 3740900; returning to 523900, 
3741000.
    (B) Map depicting subunit 3A is located at paragraph (7)(iv)(B) of 
this entry.
    (ii) Subunit 3B: Indian Creek at Hall Canyon, San Bernardino 
National Forest, Riverside County, California.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N): 
521600, 3742800; 521800, 3742800; 521800, 3742500; 521700, 3742500; 
521700, 3741700; 521600, 3741700; 521600, 3741500; 521500, 3741500; 
521500, 3741400; 521400, 3741400; 521400, 3741200; 521300, 3741200; 
521300, 3741100; 520900, 3741100; 520900, 3741200; 521000, 3741200; 
521000, 3741300; 521100, 3741300; 521100, 3741400; 521200, 3741400; 
521200, 3741600; 521300, 3741600; 521300, 3741700; 521400, 3741700; 
521400, 3742300; 521500, 3742300; 521500, 3742700; 521600, 3742700; 
returning to 521600, 3742800.
    (B) Map depicting subunit 3B is located at paragraph (7)(iv)(B) of 
this entry.
    (iii) Subunit 3C: Tahquitz Creek, San Bernardino National Forest, 
Riverside County, California.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N): 
529600, 3739000; 529900, 3739000; 529900, 3738900; 531000, 3738900; 
531000, 3738800; 531100, 3738800; 531100, 3738700; 531200, 3738700; 
531200, 3738600; 531300, 3738600; 531300, 3738500; 531400, 3738500; 
531400, 3738400; 531500, 3738400; 531500, 3738200; 531200, 3738200; 
531200, 3738300; 531100, 3738300; 531100, 3738400; 531000, 3738400; 
531000, 3738500; 530900, 3738500; 530900, 3738600; 530200, 3738600; 
530200, 3738700; 529600, 3738700; returning to 529600, 3739000; and 
land bounded by 532100, 3737000; 532400, 3737000; 532400, 3736900; 
532600, 3736900; 532600, 3736600; 532300, 3736600; 532300, 3736700; 
532200, 3736700; 532200, 3736500; 531800, 3736500; 531800, 3736300; 
531700, 3736300; 531700, 3736200; 531600, 3736200; 531600, 3736100; 
531500, 3736100; 531500, 3736000; 531400, 3736000; 531400, 3735700; 
531300, 3735700; 531300, 3735500; 531200, 3735500; 531200, 3735300; 
531100, 3735300; 531100, 3735100; 531000, 3735100; 531000, 3735000; 
530900, 3735000; 530900, 3734900; 530600, 3734900; 530600, 3735200; 
530800, 3735200; 530800, 3735300; 530900, 3735300; 530900, 3735500; 
531000, 3735500; 531000, 3735800; 531100, 3735800; 531100, 3735900; 
531200, 3735900; 531200, 3736200; 531300, 3736200; 531300, 3736300; 
531400, 3736300; 531400, 3736400; 531500, 3736400; 531500, 3736600; 
531600, 3736600; 531600, 3736700; 531700, 3736700; 531700, 3736800; 
532000, 3736800; 532000, 3736900; 532100, 3736900; returning to 532100, 
3737000.
    (B) Map depicting subunit 3C is located at paragraph (7)(iv)(B) of 
this entry.
    (iv) Subunit 3D: Andreas Creek, San Bernardino National Forest, 
Riverside County, California.

[[Page 54385]]

    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N): 
534300, 3735900; 534700, 3735900; 534700, 3735800; 535000, 3735800; 
535000, 3735700; 535100, 3735700; 535100, 3735600; 535300, 3735600; 
535300, 3735500; 535400, 3735500; 535400, 3735400; 535500, 3735400; 
535500, 3735300; 535700, 3735300; 535700, 3735000; 535500, 3735000; 
535500, 3735100; 535300, 3735100; 535300, 3735200; 535200, 3735200; 
535200, 3735300; 535100, 3735300; 535100, 3735400; 534900, 3735400; 
534900, 3735500; 534800, 3735500; 534800, 3735600; 534300, 3735600; 
returning to 534300, 3735900.
    (B) Map of Unit 3, with Subunits 3A, 3B, 3C, and 3D (Map 6), 
follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 54386]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14SE06.005

* * * * *

    Dated: September 1, 2006.
David M. Verhey,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 06-7578 Filed 9-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C