3412 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2023–0157; 

FXES1111090FEDR–256–FF09E21000] 

RIN 1018–BH11 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for Four Distinct Population 

Segments of the Foothill YellowLegged Frog 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

designate critical habitat for four 

distinct population segments (DPSs) of 

the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, 

approximately 760,071 acres (307,590 

hectares) in California fall within the 

boundaries of the proposed critical 

habitat designation. We also announce 

the availability of an economic analysis 

of the proposed designation of critical 

habitat for four DPSs. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

March 17, 2025. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 

below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 

eastern time on the closing date. We 

must receive requests for a public 

hearing, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by February 28, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R8–ES–2023–0157, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

Then, click on the Search button. On the 

resulting page, in the panel on the left 

side of the screen, under the Document 

Type heading, check the Proposed Rule 

box to locate this document. You may 

submit a comment by clicking on 

‘‘Comment.’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–R8–ES–2023–0157, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on https:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see 

Information Requested, below, for more 

information). 

Availability of supporting materials: 

Supporting materials, such as the 

species status assessment report, are 

available at https://www.regulations.gov 

at Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2023–0157. 

If we finalize the critical habitat 

designation, we will make the 

coordinates or plot points or both from 

which the maps are generated available 

at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–R8–ES–2023–0157. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Fris, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento 

Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage 

Way, Sacramento, CA 95825; telephone 

916–414–6700. Individuals in the 

United States who are deaf, deafblind, 

hard of hearing, or have a speech 

disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 

TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. Please see 

Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2023–0157 on 

https://www.regulations.gov for a 

document that summarizes this 

proposed rule. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, any species that is determined 

to be an endangered or threatened 

species requires critical habitat to be 

designated, to the maximum extent 

prudent and determinable. Designations 

and revisions of critical habitat can be 

completed only by issuing a rule 

through the Administrative Procedure 

Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et 

seq.). 

What this document does. We 

propose the designation of critical 

habitat for four DPSs of the foothill 

yellow-legged frog, which are listed as 

endangered or threatened (see 88 FR 

59698; August 29, 2023). 

The basis for our action. Section 

4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary 

of the Interior (Secretary), to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, to designate critical 

habitat concurrent with listing. Section 

3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat 

as (i) the specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed, on which 

are found those physical or biological 

features (I) essential to the conservation 

of the species and (II) which may 

require special management 

considerations or protections; and (ii) 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

it is listed, upon a determination by the 

Secretary that such areas are essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the 

Secretary must make the designation on 

the basis of the best scientific data 

available and after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, the 

impact on national security, and any 

other relevant impacts of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. 

Information Requested 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from other governmental 

agencies, Native American Tribes, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. We particularly seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) Specific information on: 

(a) Biological or ecological 

requirements of the species, including 

habitat requirements for life-history 

functions including but not limited to 

feeding, breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) The amount and distribution of the 

four DPSs’ habitat; 

(c) Any additional areas occurring 

within the range of the four DPSs in 

California that should be included in 

the designation because they (i) are 

occupied at the time of listing and 

contain the physical or biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the four DPSs and that 

may require special management 

considerations or protection, or (ii) are 

unoccupied at the time of listing and are 

essential for the conservation of the four 

DPSs; 

(d) Special management 

considerations or protection that may be 

needed in critical habitat areas we are 

proposing, including managing for the 

potential effects of climate change; and 

(e) Whether occupied areas are 

adequate for the conservation of the four 

DPSs, as this will help us evaluate the 

potential to include areas not occupied 

at the time of listing. Additionally, 

please provide specific information 

regarding whether or not unoccupied 

areas would, with reasonable certainty, 

contribute to the conservation of the 

four DPSs and contain at least one 

physical or biological feature essential 

to the conservation of the DPSs. We also 

seek comments or information regarding 

whether areas not occupied at the time 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3413 

of listing qualify as habitat for the four 

DPSs. 

(2) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

critical habitat. 

(3) Any probable economic, national 

security, or other relevant impacts of 

designating any area that may be 

included in the final designation, and 

the related benefits of including or 

excluding specific areas. 

(4) Information on the extent to which 

the description of probable economic 

impacts in the draft economic analysis 

is a reasonable estimate of the likely 

economic impacts and any additional 

information regarding probable 

economic impacts that we should 

consider. 

(5) Ongoing conservation measures 

being implemented by landowners or 

land managers to conserve the four 

DPSs’ habitat. 

(6) Whether any specific areas we are 

proposing for critical habitat 

designation should be considered for 

exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, and whether the benefits of 

potentially excluding any specific area 

outweigh the benefits of including that 

area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in 

particular for those areas associated 

with the joint Federal and State 

permitted Santa Clara Valley Habitat 

Conservation Plan/Natural Communities 

Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) that can 

be obtained from the Sacramento Fish 

and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT above). If you 

think we should exclude any additional 

areas, please provide information 

supporting a benefit of exclusion. 

(7) Whether we could improve or 

modify our approach to designating 

critical habitat in any way to provide for 

greater public participation and 

understanding, or to better 

accommodate public concerns and 

comments. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for, or opposition to, the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, do not provide 

substantial information necessary to 

support a determination. Section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act directs that the Secretary 

shall designate critical habitat on the 

basis of the best scientific data available. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit information via https:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Our final determination may differ 

from this proposal because we will 

consider all comments we receive 

during the comment period as well as 

any information that may become 

available after this proposal. Based on 

the new information we receive (and, if 

relevant, any comments on that new 

information), our final designation may 

not include all areas proposed, may 

include some additional areas that meet 

the definition of critical habitat, or may 

exclude some areas if we find the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion and exclusion will 

not result in the extinction of the 

species. In our final rule, we will clearly 

explain our rationale and the basis for 

our final decision, including why we 

made changes, if any, that differ from 

this proposal. 

Public Hearing 

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for 

a public hearing on this proposal, if 

requested. Requests must be received by 

the date specified in DATES. Such 

requests must be sent to the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. We will schedule a public 

hearing on this proposal, if requested, 

and announce the date, time, and place 

of the hearing, as well as how to obtain 

reasonable accommodations, in the 

Federal Register and local newspapers 

at least 15 days before the hearing. We 

may hold the public hearing in person 

or virtually via webinar. We will 

announce any public hearing on our 

website, in addition to the Federal 

Register. The use of virtual public 

hearings is consistent with our 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3). 

Previous Federal Actions 

On July 11, 2012, we received a 

petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity to list 53 species of reptiles 

and amphibians, including the foothill 

yellow-legged frog, as endangered or 

threatened under the Act. On July 1, 

2015, we published our 90-day finding 

in the Federal Register (80 FR 37568) 

that found that listing the foothill 

yellow-legged frog may be warranted. 

On December 28, 2021, we published in 

the Federal Register (86 FR 73914) a 

combined 12-month finding and 

proposed rule to list the North Feather 

and Central Coast DPSs of the foothill 

yellow-legged frog as threatened and the 

South Sierra and South Coast DPSs of 

the foothill yellow-legged frog as 

endangered under the Act. On August 

29, 2023, we published in the Federal 

Register (88 FR 59698) the final rule to 

list the North Feather and Central Coast 

DPSs of the foothill yellow-legged frog 

as threatened and the South Sierra and 

South Coast DPSs of the foothill yellowlegged frog as endangered under the 

Act. The proposed and final rules listing 

the North Feather and Central Coast 

DPSs included a rule issued under 

section 4(d) of the Act (‘‘a 4(d) rule’’) for 

each of these two DPSs. 

Peer Review 

A species status assessment (SSA) 

team prepared an SSA report for the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Service 

2023b, entire). The SSA team was 

composed of Service biologists, in 

consultation with other species experts. 

The SSA report represents a 

compilation of the best scientific and 

commercial data available concerning 

the status of the species, including the 

impacts of past, present, and future 

factors (both negative and beneficial) 

affecting the species. The SSA report 

also contains a compilation of the most 

current habitat needs and requirements 

for the species and forms the basis for 

our determination of critical habitat for 

the four DPSs. 

In accordance with our joint policy on 

peer review published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), 

and our August 22, 2016, memorandum 

updating and clarifying the role of peer 

review in listing actions under the Act, 

we solicited independent scientific 

review of the information contained in 

the foothill yellow-legged frog’s SSA 

report. We received peer review from 

three appropriate specialists regarding 

the SSA report. Results of this 

structured peer review process can be 

found at https://www.regulations.gov at 

Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2023–0157. In 

preparing this proposed critical habitat 

rule, we incorporated the results of 

these reviews, as appropriate, into the 

SSA report, which is the foundation for 

this proposed rule. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
3414 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments 

As discussed in Peer Review above, 

we received comments from three peer 

reviewers on the draft SSA report. We 

reviewed all comments we received 

from the peer reviewers for substantive 

issues and new information regarding 

the contents of the SSA report. The peer 

reviewers generally concurred with our 

information, methods, and conclusions, 

and they provided additional 

information, clarifications, and 

suggestions to improve the SSA report, 

including information related to the 

habitat needs of the foothill yellowlegged frog. 

Critical Habitat 

Background 

Regulatory Framework 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and the implementing regulations in 

title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations set forth the procedures for 

determining whether a species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, issuing protective regulations 

for threatened species, and designating 

critical habitat for endangered and 

threatened species. 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires 

that, to the maximum extent prudent 

and determinable, we designate a 

species’ critical habitat concurrently 

with listing the species. Critical habitat 

is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the Act 

as: 

(1) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features 

(a) Essential to the conservation of the 

species, and 

(b) Which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(2) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 

define the geographical area occupied 

by the species as an area that may 

generally be delineated around species’ 

occurrences, as determined by the 

Secretary (i.e., range). Such areas may 

include those areas used throughout all 

or part of the species’ life cycle, even if 

not used on a regular basis (e.g., 

migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, 

and habitats used periodically, but not 

solely, by vagrant individuals). 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

that are necessary to bring an 

endangered 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 

requirement that each Federal action 

agency ensures, in consultation with the 

Service, that any action they authorize, 

fund, or carry out is not likely to result 

in the destruction or adverse 

modification of designated 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 also does not 

allow the government or public to 

access private lands. Such designation 

does not require implementation of 

restoration, recovery, or enhancement 

measures by non-Federal landowners. 

Rather, designation requires that, where 

a landowner requests Federal agency 

funding or authorization for an action 

that may affect an area designated as 

critical habitat, the Federal agency 

consult with the Service under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act. If the action may 

affect the listed species itself (such as 

for occupied critical habitat), the 

Federal agency would have already been 

required to consult with the Service 

even absent the designation because of 

the requirement to ensure that the 

action is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species. Even 

if the Service were to conclude after 

consultation that the proposed activity 

is likely to result in destruction or 

adverse modification of the critical 

habitat, the Federal action agency and 

the landowner are not required to 

abandon the proposed activity, or to 

restore or recover the species; instead, 

they must implement ‘‘reasonable and 

prudent alternatives’’ to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. 

Under the first prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it was listed 

are included in a critical habitat 

designation if they contain physical or 

biological features (1) which are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (2) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. For these areas, critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

data available, those physical or 

biological features that are essential to 

the conservation of the species (such as 

space, food, cover, and protected 

habitat). 

Under the second prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, we can 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it is listed, 

upon a determination that such areas 

are essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. 

Further, our Policy on Information 

Standards Under the Endangered 

Species Act (published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), 

the Information Quality Act (section 515 

of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our 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 we are determining which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information from the SSA 

report and information developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may include any generalized 

conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 

that may have been developed for the 

species; 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; other unpublished 

materials; or experts’ opinions or 

personal knowledge. 

Habitat is dynamic, and species may 

move from one area to another over 

time. We recognize that critical habitat 

designated at a particular point in time 

may not include all of the habitat areas 

that we may later determine are 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, a critical 

habitat designation does not signal that 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3415 

habitat outside the designated area is 

unimportant or may not be needed for 

recovery of the species. Areas that are 

important to the conservation of the 

species, both inside and outside the 

critical habitat designation, will 

continue to be subject to: (1) 

Conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) 

regulatory protections afforded by the 

requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

for Federal agencies to ensure their 

actions are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered 

or threatened species; and (3) the 

prohibitions found in section 9 of the 

Act for endangered species or the 4(d) 

rule for threatened species. Federally 

funded or permitted projects affecting 

listed species outside their designated 

critical habitat areas may still result in 

jeopardy findings in some cases. These 

protections and conservation tools will 

continue to contribute to recovery of the 

species. 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 (HCPs), or other species 

conservation planning efforts if new 

information available at the time of 

those planning efforts calls for a 

different outcome. 

Physical or Biological Features 

Essential to the Conservation of the 

Species 

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) 

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), in determining which areas 

we will designate as critical habitat from 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time of listing, we 

consider the physical or biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species, and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. The 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define 

‘‘physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species’’ as 

the features that occur in specific areas 

and that are essential to support the lifehistory needs of the species, including, 

but not limited to, water characteristics, 

soil type, geological features, sites, prey, 

vegetation, symbiotic species, or other 

features. A feature may be a single 

habitat characteristic or a more complex 

combination of habitat characteristics. 

Features may include habitat 

characteristics that support ephemeral 

or dynamic habitat conditions. 

Features may also be expressed in 

terms relating to principles of 

conservation biology, such as patch size, 

distribution distances, and connectivity. 

For example, physical features essential 

to the conservation of the species might 

include gravel of a particular size 

required for spawning, alkaline soil for 

seed germination, protective cover for 

migration, or susceptibility to flooding 

or fire that maintains necessary earlysuccessional habitat characteristics. 

Biological features might include prey 

species, forage grasses, specific kinds or 

ages of trees for roosting or nesting, 

symbiotic fungi, or absence of a 

particular level of nonnative species 

consistent with conservation needs of 

the listed species. The features may also 

be combinations of habitat 

characteristics and may encompass the 

relationship between characteristics or 

the necessary amount of a characteristic 

essential to support the life history of 

the species. 

In considering whether features are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, we may consider an appropriate 

quality, quantity, and spatial and 

temporal arrangement of habitat 

characteristics in the context of the lifehistory needs, condition, and status of 

the species. These characteristics 

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, 

or rearing (or development) of offspring; 

and habitats that are protected from 

disturbance. 

Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog 

Description, Distribution, and Habitat 

Requirements 

Below is a summary of the 

distribution and habitat requirements of 

the foothill yellow-legged frog. For a 

more thorough discussion of this 

information as well as information on 

the ecology and life history of the 

species, please see the SSA report 

(Service 2023b, chapter 2, pp. 15–34, 

and chapter 4, pp. 52–66). 

The foothill yellow-legged frog is a 

small- to medium-sized stream-dwelling 

frog approximately 1.5 to 3.2 inches (in.) 

(37 to 82 millimeters (mm)) in length. 

Colorization is highly variable but is 

usually light and dark mottled gray, 

olive, or brown, with variable amounts 

of brick red. The undersurfaces of the 

lower abdomen and inside surfaces of 

the rear legs are varying shades of 

yellow. The range of the four DPSs of 

the foothill yellow-legged frog is 

entirely in California and includes areas 

within the North Feather River 

watershed (North Feather DPS), areas in 

the Sierra Nevada Mountains south of 

Placer County to Kern County (South 

Sierra DPS), areas in the California 

Coast Range from Contra Costa to 

western Fresno County (Central Coast 

DPS), and areas of western Monterey 

County to northern Los Angeles County 

(South Coast DPS) (see figure below). 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
3416 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

Foothill yellow-legged frogs are 

obligate stream-dwelling frogs (Wheeler 

and Welsh 2008, p. 128) that use aquatic 

habitat for feeding, reproduction, and 

development and terrestrial habitat near 

streams for foraging, overwintering, and 

dispersal. The species occurs in lower 

elevation streams from sea level to 

approximately 5,000 feet (ft) (1,524 

meters (m)) but have been documented 

at higher elevations. The species uses 

small tributaries to larger mainstem 

streams (first- through eighth-order 

streams as identified by the Strahler 

method (Strahler 1957, p. 914)) that are 

either primarily rain-fed (coastal DPSs) 

to primarily snow-influenced (most 

Sierra Nevada DPSs) (Olson and Davis 

2009, p. 12; Wheeler et al. 2015, pp. 

1276–1277; California Department of 

Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2019, p. 16). 

The streams and surrounding terrestrial 

habitat of the foothill yellow-legged frog 

occurs in a wide variety of vegetation 

types including valley-foothill 

hardwood, valley-foothill hardwoodconifer, valley-foothill riparian, 

ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, mixed 

chaparral, and wet meadows (Hayes et 

al. 2016, p. 5). While habitat conditions 

can be vastly different among the stream 

habitat and across the species’ 

geographic range, only a narrow range of 

abiotic conditions are tolerated by early 

life stages (i.e., eggs, tadpoles, and 

metamorphs) (Kupferberg 1996, pp. 

1336–1342; Bondi et al. 2013, p. 101; 

Lind et al. 2016, p. 263; Catenazzi and 

Kupferberg 2018, pp. 1044–1045). The 

abiotic conditions that directly 

influence the success of early life stages 

are those associated with stream 

velocity, water depth, water 

temperature, and streambed substrate. 

Because foothill yellow-legged frogs are 

a wide-ranging species and habitat 

conditions are also highly variable 

depending on factors such as 

surrounding vegetation cover, stream 

depth, stream geomorphology, slope, 

and substrate composition, the exact 

conditions for stream velocity, depth, 

and temperature needed by the species 

for early life stages across its range for 

successful reproduction are also 

variable. Because each population is 

limited to its present ecological 

conditions, it is difficult to determine 

specific thresholds for these parameters 

across the range of the species. 

In general, foothill yellow-legged frog 

breeding takes place between late March 

and early July (Zweifel 1955, p. 228; 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3417 

Yarnell et al. 2013, pp. 64, 67, table 14). 

Most foothill yellow-legged frogs breed 

along mainstem water channels and 

overwinter along smaller tributaries 

near the mainstem channel (Kupferberg 

1996, p. 1339; GANDA 2008, p. 20). 

Foothill yellow-legged frogs that 

overwinter along tributaries often 

congregate at the same breeding 

locations along the mainstem each year 

(Kupferberg 1996, p. 1334; Wheeler and 

Welsh 2008, p. 128). 

Stream morphology is a strong 

predictor of breeding habitat because it 

creates the microhabitat conditions 

required for successful oviposition (i.e., 

egg-laying), hatching, growth, and 

metamorphosis. Stream velocity, water 

depth, water temperature, and 

streambed substrate are most suitable 

for foothill yellow-legged frog 

oviposition and rearing in streams that 

exemplify the natural hydrological 

pattern that is characterized by strong 

winter flows in mainstem channels, 

followed by gradually decreasing flows 

during the spring into the summer 

(Kupferberg et al. 2009, p. 3; Power et 

al. 2016, pp. 714, 716, 719, figure 33.2). 

Increased or strong winter flows can 

maintain or increase foothill yellowlegged frog habitat by widening and 

diversifying channel morphology, 

improving rocky substrate conditions 

(by removing sediments), and increasing 

sunlight (by removing encroaching 

vegetation) (Lind et al. 1996, pp. 64–65; 

Lind et al. 2016, p. 269; Power et al. 

2016, p. 719). The transition from the 

wet season to the dry season is 

characterized by a gradually decreasing 

stream flow called the spring recession 

flow, decreasing water velocity, and 

increasing water temperature 

(Kupferberg et al. 2012, p. 520; Power et 

al. 2016, pp. 714, 716, figure 33.2). 

Foothill yellow-legged frogs require a 

hydroperiod (i.e., period of time during 

which an area is saturated with or full 

of water) that is sufficient for successful 

breeding and survival through dry 

periods. The timeframe and duration of 

the hydroperiod required varies by year 

and by region because of regional 

differences in timing of hydrological 

breeding cues (e.g., water flows, 

temperature, spring recession flows), 

intrinsic tadpole growth rates (Catenazzi 

and Kupferberg 2017, pp. 1261–1262, 

figure 4), and ambient conditions (e.g., 

temperature) that influence early life 

stage development. Foothill yellowlegged frogs are most likely cued in to 

these gradually reducing flows and 

increases in stream temperatures for 

reproduction (Kupferberg 1996, p. 1332; 

Wheeler and Welsh 2008, p. 134; 

Gonsolin 2010, p. 32; Van Hattem et al. 

2021, pp. 206–207). 

The foothill yellow-legged frog spends 

much of the year outside of breeding 

areas, so it is extremely important that 

nonbreeding habitat meet their feeding, 

sheltering, and thermoregulatory needs 

by providing sources of invertebrate 

prey and intermittent canopy, thermally 

stable microsites, and moist, interstitial 

spaces (van Wagner 1996, p. 101; 

Rombough 2006, p. 159). During the 

nonbreeding season, the smaller 

tributaries, some of which may flow 

only during the wet winter season, 

provide refuge while the larger breeding 

channels may experience overbank 

flooding and high flows (Kupferberg 

1996, p. 1339). Habitat elements outside 

the mainstem streams that provide both 

refuge from winter peak flows and 

adequate moisture for foothill yellowlegged frogs include pools, springs, 

seeps, submerged root wads, undercut 

banks, and large boulders or debris at or 

above high-water lines (van Wagner 

1996, pp. 74–75, 111; Rombough 2006, 

p. 159). 

Food resources are variable by life 

stage with tadpoles consuming algae, 

diatoms, and detritus that are scraped 

from submerged rocks and vegetation 

(Ashton et al. 1997, p. 7; Fellers 2005, 

p. 535). Metamorphs, juveniles, and 

adults feed upon a wide range of aquatic 

and terrestrial invertebrates including 

snails, moths, flies, water striders, 

beetles, grasshoppers, hornets, 

arthropods, and ants, as well as 

vertebrates such as small fish and small 

frogs (Zweifel 1955, p. 223; Nussbaum 

et al. 1983, p. 165). Food resources have 

been found to be primarily terrestrial 

(88 percent) as opposed to aquatic (i.e., 

captured on or under water) (van 

Wagner 1996, pp. 88–89, 94, figure 38). 

Summary of Essential Physical or 

Biological Features 

We derive the specific physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the foothill yellowlegged frog from studies of the species’ 

habitat, ecology, and life history as 

described above. Additional information 

can be found in the SSA report (Service 

2023b, pp. 23–34, 52–66). We have 

determined that the following physical 

or biological features are essential to the 

conservation of the four DPSs of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog: 

1. Aquatic Stream Habitat 

(a) Stream reaches with a hydrological 

pattern (including appropriate stream 

velocity, water depth, water 

temperature, streambed substrate, and 

geomorphic heterogeneity) capable of 

supporting foothill yellow-legged frog 

breeding and rearing. Suitable stream 

reaches typically contain a wide and 

shallow channel morphology, an 

intermittent canopy, and rocky substrate 

that is cobble-sized or larger. These 

features provide habitat for breeding, 

feeding, and reproduction and in some 

cases general aquatic or overwintering 

habitat for the foothill yellow-legged 

frog. 

(b) Tributary (nonbreeding) habitat 

adjacent to and accessible from breeding 

and rearing habitat. Suitable tributary 

habitats typically contain sources of 

invertebrate prey, intermittent canopy, 

thermally stable microsites, and moist 

overwintering refugia protected from 

scouring winter flows. These refugia 

may include springs, seeps, pools, 

woody debris, root wads, undercut 

banks, clumps of sedges, and rocks. 

2. Terrestrial and Dispersal Habitat 

(a) Upland habitat adjacent to and 

accessible from breeding, rearing, and 

tributary habitat as identified in 1(a) and 

(b) above. Suitable upland habitats 

typically contain sources of invertebrate 

prey, intermittent canopy, thermally 

stable microsites, and moist 

overwintering refugia. These refugia 

may include nonstream pools, woody 

debris, root wads, clumps of sedges, and 

large boulders or debris. 

(b) Dispersal habitat comprising 

permanent or ephemeral water channels 

and adjacent uplands that connect 

breeding and overwintering habitat 

sites. Suitable dispersal habitat does not 

need to hold moisture for extended 

periods. Suitable dispersal habitat 

typically connects areas containing 

intermittent canopy, interstitial spaces 

for sheltering, and sources of 

invertebrate prey. Additionally, suitable 

dispersal habitat is free from large 

physical barriers, hydrological barriers 

(e.g., dams, reservoirs, and rivers with 

highly altered flow regimes), and areas 

with high exposure to predators. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the specific areas within 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing contain 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. The 

features essential to the conservation of 

the four DPSs of the foothill yellowlegged frog that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to reduce the following direct 

or indirect threats to habitat are: (1) 

altered hydrology and stream flow; (2) 

nonnative species predation and 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
3418 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

competition; (3) disease; (4) wildfire 

(upland habitat disturbance and 

sedimentation); (5) effects of climate 

change (e.g., increased temperatures); 

and (6) anthropogenic activities (e.g., 

agriculture (land conversion), 

urbanization, road construction, and 

recreation). 

Special management considerations 

or protection that may be required 

within critical habitat areas to address 

these threats include (but are not 

limited to) the following: implement 

best management practices (BMPs) for 

protecting, maintaining, and enhancing 

stream flows or managing stream flows 

to mimic natural hydrologic conditions; 

maintaining adequate habitat 

connectivity between occupied areas or 

upland and aquatic habitat; avoiding 

alteration of stream features and 

associated upland habitats; protecting 

and restoring riparian vegetation along 

streams; implementing practices to 

reduce sedimentation, erosion, and 

streambank degradation; reducing other 

watershed, riparian, and floodplain 

disturbances that release sediments, 

pollutants, or nutrients into the water; 

and improving industrial and municipal 

water treatment facilities and sewage 

systems to reduce nutrient and pathogen 

pollution. 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, we use the best scientific data 

available to designate critical habitat. In 

accordance with the Act and our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), we review available 

information pertaining to the habitat 

requirements of the species and identify 

specific areas within the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

of listing and any specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species to be considered for designation 

as critical habitat. We are not currently 

proposing to designate any areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species because we have not identified 

any unoccupied areas that meet the 

definition of critical habitat. 

In identifying areas of critical habitat 

for each of the four DPSs of the foothill 

yellow-legged frog, we developed a 

conservation strategy to assist in 

delineating the specific areas on which 

are found those physical or biological 

features essential for the conservation of 

the foothill yellow-legged frog. In our 

analysis for determining areas as critical 

habitat, we focused on those areas that 

have well-established populations 

throughout each of the four DPS’s 

ranges. These areas would provide 

individuals for other local populations 

and assist in maintaining the 

redundancy, representation, and 

resiliency of the foothill yellow-legged 

frog throughout the range of each DPS. 

Additional aspects of our conservation 

strategy include: (1) conserving and 

maintaining a sufficient amount of highquality breeding and rearing habitat 

with appropriate physical and 

hydrological characteristics to provide 

for recruitment over the long term; (2) 

conserving and maintaining sufficient 

high-quality upland and tributary 

habitat to provide for juvenile and adult 

overwintering survival to allow for 

maintenance of breeding populations 

over the long term; and (3) retaining or 

providing areas for connectivity 

between high-quality breeding and 

rearing habitat for genetic exchange and 

recolonization within metapopulations. 

Without appropriate well-established 

areas for breeding, rearing, and upland 

use, the foothill yellow-legged frog 

within each of the four DPSs would not 

be able to sustain populations in the 

wild. 

To implement the above strategy and 

identify the areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing, we 

delineated critical habitat unit 

boundaries using the following criteria 

and processes: (1) we determined local 

populations by using breeding 

occurrence information from recent 

occurrence and modeling data; (2) we 

identified the upland and dispersal 

extent within 2 km (1.2 mi) of highquality breeding and rearing habitat that 

had well-established breeding 

populations; and (3) we evaluated 

boundaries of units and included areas 

with appropriate in-stream and upland 

habitat characteristics and removed 

nonhabitat features as allowed by the 

available data. 

Our identification of these areas using 

this rule set will allow for opportunities 

to monitor occupancy and abundance of 

existing populations and survey areas 

within and around each DPS’s historical 

range to determine where potential 

population enhancement, 

reintroductions, threat management, or 

other actions may be necessary. 

In our analysis of identifying areas as 

critical habitat, we determined the 

extent and distribution of areas being 

considered are sufficient to conserve 

each of the four DPSs. Although smaller 

populations, populations in less 

desirable habitat, and unoccupied areas 

occur within each of the four DPS’s 

ranges, these areas have limited 

conservation value to each DPS overall 

and do not meet our rule set for 

consideration as critical habitat. As a 

result, we have not included these less 

desirable occupied or unoccupied areas 

in our proposed designation. 

When determining proposed critical 

habitat boundaries, we made every 

effort to avoid including developed 

areas such as lands covered by 

buildings, pavement, and other 

structures because such lands lack 

physical or biological features necessary 

for the four DPSs of the foothill yellowlegged frog. The scale of the maps we 

prepared under the parameters for 

publication within the Code of Federal 

Regulations may not reflect the 

exclusion of such developed lands. Any 

such lands inadvertently left inside 

critical habitat boundaries shown on the 

maps of this proposed rule have been 

excluded by text in the proposed rule 

and are not proposed for designation as 

critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical 

habitat is finalized as proposed, a 

Federal action involving these lands 

(and not affecting the designated critical 

habitat) would not trigger section 7 

consultation with respect to critical 

habitat and the requirement of no 

adverse modification unless the specific 

action would affect the physical or 

biological features in the adjacent 

critical habitat. 

We propose to designate as critical 

habitat lands that we have determined 

are occupied at the time of listing (i.e., 

currently occupied) and that contain 

one or more of the physical or biological 

features that are essential to support 

life-history processes of the four DPSs of 

the foothill yellow-legged frog. 

We have identified 4 units for the 

North Feather DPS; 14 units with 4 

subunits for the South Sierra DPS; 8 

units with 7 subunits for the Central 

Coast DPS; and 1 unit for the South 

Coast DPS as proposed critical habitat 

based on one or more of the physical or 

biological features being present to 

support each of the four DPS’s lifehistory processes. Some units contain 

all of the identified physical or 

biological features and support multiple 

life-history processes. Some units 

contain only some of the physical or 

biological features necessary to support 

each respective DPS’s particular use of 

that habitat. 

The proposed critical habitat 

designation is defined by the map or 

maps, as modified by any accompanying 

regulatory text, presented at the end of 

this document under Proposed 

Regulation Promulgation. 

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation 

We are proposing a total of 27 units 

as critical habitat for the foothill yellowlegged frog within the range of the four 

DPSs totaling approximately 760,071 ac 

(307,590 ha). The critical habitat areas 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3419 

we describe below constitute our 

current best assessment of areas that 

meet the definition of critical habitat for 

the foothill yellow-legged frog. The 

areas we propose as critical habitat are 

identified below. All units and subunits 

are currently occupied by each 

respective DPS. Table 1 shows the total 

area of proposed critical habitat by 

general land ownership for each of the 

four specific DPSs. 

TABLE 1—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE FOUR DPSS OF THE FOOTHILL YELLOW-LEGGED FROG

[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries] 

Unit No./name Area in acres 

(hectares) Land ownership 

* Impacts to 

physical or 

biological 

features 

North Feather DPS 

Unit NF–1. North Fork Feather River ................................................... 30,116 (12,188) Federal .......................................... 1, 4, 5 

383 (155) State.

68,934 (27,897) Private.

Unit NF–2. Middle Fork Feather River ................................................. 69,251 (28,025) Federal .......................................... 1, 2, 4, 5 

447 (181) State.

7,446 (3,013) Private.

Unit NF–3. South Fork Feather River .................................................. 4,645 (1,880) Federal .......................................... 1, 2, 4, 5 

6,541 (2,647) Private.

Unit NF–4. Clear Creek ........................................................................ 32 (13) Federal .......................................... 1, 2, 4, 5 

4,480 (1,813) Private.

Total ............................................................................................... 192,275 (77,811) 

South Sierra DPS 

Unit SS–1. Rock Creek ........................................................................ 2,630 (1,064) Federal .......................................... 1, 2, 4, 5 

1,718 (695) Private.

Unit SS–2. Chili Bar Reservoir ............................................................. 1,245 (504) Federal .......................................... 1, 2, 4, 5 

3,732 (1,510) Private.

Unit SS–3. South Fork American River–Camp Creek ......................... 30,894 (12,502) Federal .......................................... 1, 2, 4, 5 

11,214 (4,538) Private.

Unit SS–4. North Fork Mokelumne River ............................................. 16,174 (6,546) Federal .......................................... 1, 2, 4, 5 

18,577 (7,518) Private.

Unit SS–5. Else Creek ......................................................................... 324 (131) Federal .......................................... 1, 2, 4, 5 

219 (89) State.

4,114 (1,665) Private.

Unit SS–6. Jesus Maria Creek ............................................................. 1,606 (650) Federal .......................................... 1, 2, 4, 5 

2,476 (1,002) Private.

Unit SS–7 Subunit a. Stanislaus Confluence ....................................... 37,548 (15,195) Federal .......................................... 1, 2, 4, 5 

2,720 (1,101) State.

15,564 (6,299) Private.

Unit SS–7 Subunit b. Moaning Cave ................................................... 587 (238) Federal .......................................... 1, 2, 4, 5 

3,037 (1,229) Private.

Unit SS–8. North Fork and Middle Tuolumne River ............................ 64,360 (26,046) Federal .......................................... 1, 2, 4, 5 

13,791 (5,581) Private.

Unit SS–9. Moccasin Creek ................................................................. 4,509 (1,825) Federal .......................................... 1, 2, 4, 5 

3,770 (1,526) Private.

Unit SS–10 Subunit a. North Fork Merced River ................................. 10,467 (4,236) Federal .......................................... 1, 2, 4, 5 

5,024 (2,033) Private.

Unit SS–10 Subunit b. Bull Creek ........................................................ 11,087 (4,487) Federal .......................................... 1, 2, 4, 5 

992 (402) Private.

Unit SS–11. Merced River and Sherlock Creek .................................. 13,267 (5,369) Federal .......................................... 1, 2, 4, 5 

3,451 (1,397) Private.

Unit SS–12. Jose Creek ....................................................................... 9,204 (3,725) Federal .......................................... 1, 2, 4, 5 

30 (12) State.

948 (384) Private.

Unit SS–13. North Fork Tule River ...................................................... 217 (88) Federal .......................................... 1, 2, 4, 5 

4,932 (1,996) Private.

Unit SS–14. Kern River ........................................................................ 7,327 (2,965) Federal .......................................... 1, 2, 4, 5 

17 (7) Private.

Total ............................................................................................... 307,772 (124,485) 

Central Coast DPS 

Unit CC–1 Subunit a. Corral Hollow Creek .......................................... 4,483 (1,814) Private ........................................... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 

Unit CC–1 Subunit b. Lower Arroyo Mocho ......................................... 6 (3) Local ............................................. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 

7,564 (3,061) Private.

Unit CC–1 Subunit c. Upper Arroyo Mocho ......................................... 4,541 (1,838) Private ........................................... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 

Unit CC–1 Subunit d. Colorado Creek ................................................. 4,698 (1,901) Private ........................................... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 

Unit CC–1 Subunit e. Del Puerto Creek .............................................. 414 (168) Federal .......................................... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
3420 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE FOUR DPSS OF THE FOOTHILL YELLOW-LEGGED FROG—Continued 

[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries] 

Unit No./name Area in acres 

(hectares) Land ownership 

* Impacts to 

physical or 

biological 

features 

11,981 (4,849) Private.

Unit CC–2. Robison Creek ................................................................... 5,139 (2,080) State ............................................. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 

1,839 (744) Private.

Unit CC–3. Orestimba Creek ............................................................... 4,541 (1,838) Private ........................................... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 

Unit CC–4. Alameda Creek, Arroyo Hondo, and Upper Penitencia 

Creek.

2,828 (1,144) State ............................................. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 

1,871 (757) Local.

59,208 (23,961) Private.

Unit CC–5. Coyote Creek ..................................................................... 643 (260) Federal .......................................... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 

16,251 (6,576) State.

255 (103) County.

23,222 (9,398) Private.

Unit CC–6 Subunit a. Guadalupe and Rincon Creeks ........................ 1,100 (445) County .......................................... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 

6,672 (2,700) Private.

Unit CC–6 Subunit b. Llagas Creek ..................................................... 9,459 (3,828) Private ........................................... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 

Unit CC–7. Soquel and Bridge Creeks ................................................ 5,689 (2,302) State ............................................. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 

13,800 (5,585) Private.

Unit CC–8. Goat Mountain ................................................................... 38,953 (15,764) Federal .......................................... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 

1,804 (730) State.

22,981 (9,300) Private.

Total ............................................................................................... 249,942 (101,148) 

South Coast DPS 

Unit SC–1. San Carpoforo Creek ......................................................... 2,683 (1,086) Federal .......................................... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 

7,394 (2,992) Private.

Total ............................................................................................... 10,077 (4,078) 

Grand Total ............................................................................ 760,071 (307,590) 

Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. 

* See table 2 for codes identifying those activities that may impact the physical or biological features. 

TABLE 2—ACTIVITY CODES

Code Activity that may impact the physical or biological features Physical or biological feature impacted 

1 .............................. Activities associated with altered hydrology and stream flows from dams or 

other water diversion or conveyance infrastructure.

1(a), 1(b), and 2(b). 

2 .............................. Activities to control or remove nonnative aquatic predators or invasive aquatic 

plants that cause impacts to habitat or water quality.

1(a), 1(b), 2(a), 2(b). 

3 .............................. Activities associated with the introduction and potential spread of disease ......... 1(a) and 1(b). 

4 .............................. Activities associated with wildfire suppression and prevention that result in 

nonpoint- and point-source pollution or discharge of sediment into aquatic 

habitat, causing water quality impacts.

1(a), 1(b), and 2(b). 

5 .............................. Activities associated with human use and development (e.g., agriculture (land 

conversion), urbanization, road construction, and recreation.

1(a), 1(b), 2(a), 2(b). 

We present brief descriptions of all 

units, and reasons why they meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the four 

DPSs, below. 

North Feather DPS 

Unit NF–1: North Fork Feather River 

The North Fork Feather River Unit is 

in Butte and Plumas Counties along the 

North Fork Feather River within the 

Sacramento River watershed east of the 

City of Chico and State Route 32 to the 

west, north, and east of the town of 

Paradise. The unit encompasses 99,433 

acres (ac) (40,239 hectares (ha)) and 

contains Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM; 4,362 ac (1,765 ha)), U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS; 25,754 ac (10,422 ha)), 

State Park (383 ac (155 ha)), and private 

(68,934 ac (27,897 ha)) lands. General 

land uses in this unit are primarily 

agriculture, recreation, and residential 

development. Threats present in this 

unit that may require special 

management include altered hydrology, 

effects of climate change, road 

construction and use, predation by 

nonnative species, encroachment by 

development, wildfire, and trampling by 

vehicles or recreational activity. The 

unit is occupied and contains one or 

more physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. The unit is the northernmost 

proposed critical habitat unit. 

Unit NF–2: Middle Fork Feather River 

The Middle Fork Feather River Unit is 

in Butte and Plumas Counties within 

the Sacramento River watershed 

northeast of Lake Oroville and south of 

State Route 70. The unit encompasses 

77,145 ac (31,219 ha) and contains 

USFS (69,251 ac (28,025 ha)), State (447 

ac (181 ha)), and private (7,446 ac (3,013 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3421 

ha)) lands. General land uses in this unit 

are primarily agriculture, mining, 

recreational activities, and a small 

amount of residential development. 

Threats present in this unit that may 

require special management include 

altered hydrology, climate change, road 

construction and use, predation by 

nonnative species, encroachment by 

development, wildfire, and trampling by 

vehicles or recreational activity. The 

unit is occupied and contains all 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. This 

unit contains areas near the documented 

altitudinal limit of the species (ca. 6,500 

ft (1,981 m)) where the species 

occasionally interbreeds with its 

endangered congener, the Sierra Nevada 

yellow-legged frog (Rana sierrae). 

Unit NF–3: South Fork Feather River 

The South Fork Feather River Unit is 

in Butte and Plumas Counties along the 

South Fork Feather River within the 

Sacramento River watershed east of 

Lake Oroville and north of New 

Bullards Bar Reservoir. The unit 

encompasses 11,186 ac (4,527 ha) and 

contains USFS (4,645 ac (1,880 ha)) and 

private (6,541 ac (2,647 ha)) lands. 

General land uses in this unit are 

primarily mining and recreational 

activities. Threats present in this unit 

that may require special management 

include altered hydrology, climate 

change, predation by nonnative species, 

wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or 

recreational activity. The unit is 

occupied and contains all physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Unit NF–4: Clear Creek 

The Clear Creek Unit is in Butte 

County along Clear Creek within the 

Sacramento River watershed west of the 

Town of Butte. The unit encompasses 

4,512 ac (1,826 ha) and contains BLM 

(32 ac (13 ha)) and private (4,480 ac 

(1,813 ha)) lands. General land uses in 

this unit are primarily agriculture, 

mining, and recreational activities. A 

small portion of the unit is developed as 

the Butte College campus and 

residential development. Threats 

present in this unit that may require 

special management include altered 

hydrology, climate change, predation by 

nonnative species, wildfire, 

encroachment from development, and 

trampling by vehicles or recreational 

activity. The unit is occupied and 

contains one or more physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

South Sierra DPS 

Unit SS–1: Rock Creek 

The Rock Creek Unit is in El Dorado 

County along Rock Creek within the 

South Fork of the American River 

watershed east of the Town of 

Georgetown. The unit encompasses 

4,348 ac (1,760 ha) and contains USFS 

(2,630 ac (1,064 ha)) and private (1,718 

ac (695 ha)) lands. General land use in 

this unit is primarily recreation, and 

there is a small amount of residential 

development. Threats present in this 

unit that may require special 

management include altered hydrology, 

climate change, predation by nonnative 

species, wildfire, encroachment from 

development, and trampling by vehicles 

or recreational activity. The unit is 

occupied and contains one or more 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. 

Unit SS–2: Chili Bar Reservoir 

The Chili Bar Reservoir Unit is in El 

Dorado County upstream (east) of Chili 

Bar Reservoir within the South Fork of 

the American River watershed. The unit 

encompasses 4,976 ac (2,014 ha) and 

contains BLM (1,012 ac (410 ha)), USFS 

(232 ac (94 ha)), and private (3,732 ac 

(1,510 ha)) lands. General land use in 

this unit is primarily recreation and 

small portions of agriculture. The unit is 

urbanized at its southern extent near the 

town of Placerville. Threats present in 

this unit that may require special 

management include altered hydrology, 

climate change, predation by nonnative 

species, wildfire, encroachment from 

development, and trampling by vehicles 

or recreational activity. The unit is 

occupied and contains one or more 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. 

Unit SS–3: South Fork American 

River—Camp Creek 

The South Fork American River– 

Camp Creek Unit is in El Dorado County 

along the South Fork American River 

within the South Fork American River 

watershed and Camp Creek within the 

San Joaquin River watershed east of the 

Town of Pollock Pines. The unit 

encompasses 42,108 ac (17,040 ha) and 

contains USFS (30,894 ac (12,502 ha)) 

and private (11,214 ac (4,538 ha)) lands. 

General land use in this unit is 

primarily recreation. The unit is densely 

urbanized near the town of Pollock 

Pines. Threats present in this unit that 

may require special management 

include altered hydrology, climate 

change, predation by nonnative species, 

wildfire, encroachment from 

development, and trampling by vehicles 

or recreational activity. Notably, Camp 

Creek drains into the San Joaquin River 

watershed rather than into the South 

Fork American River. However, these 

drainages are in close proximity to each 

other and likely maintain population 

connectivity through dispersal. The 

location of this unit spanning two 

separate drainages likely magnifies the 

importance of this unit for maintaining 

species connectivity throughout the 

entire South Sierra DPS. This unit is 

occupied and contains all physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Unit SS–4: North Fork Mokelumne 

River 

The North Fork Mokelumne River 

Unit is in Amador County along the 

North Fork Mokelumne River within the 

San Joaquin River watershed 

downstream of Salt Springs Reservoir 

and east of the Town of Pioneer. The 

unit encompasses 34,751 ac (14,063 ha) 

and contains USFS (15,227 ac (6,162 

ha)), BLM (948 ac (384 ha)), and private 

(18,577 ac (7,518 ha)) lands. General 

land use in this unit is primarily 

recreation. Threats present in this unit 

that may require special management 

include altered hydrology, climate 

change, predation by nonnative species, 

wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or 

recreational activity. This unit is 

occupied and contains one or more of 

the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

Unit SS–5: Else Creek 

The Else Creek Unit is in Amador 

County along Else Creek within the San 

Joaquin River watershed near the Town 

of Pine Grove. The unit encompasses 

4,658 ac (1,885 ha) and contains BLM 

(324 ac (131 ha)), State (219 ac (89 ha)), 

and private (4,114 ac (1,665 ha)) lands. 

General land use in this unit is 

primarily agriculture and recreation. 

The unit is urbanized near the town of 

Pine Grove. Threats present in this unit 

that may require special management 

include altered hydrology, climate 

change, predation by nonnative species, 

wildfire, encroachment by development, 

and trampling by vehicles or 

recreational activity. This unit is 

occupied and contains one or more of 

the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

Unit SS–6: Jesus Maria Creek 

The Jesus Maria Creek Unit is in 

Calaveras County northeast of the Town 

of San Andreas along Jesus Maria Creek 

within the San Joaquin River watershed. 

The unit encompasses 4,082 ac (1,652 

ha) and contains BLM (1,606 ac (650 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
3422 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

ha)) and private (2,476 ac (1,002 ha)) 

lands. General land use in this unit is 

primarily recreation. The unit is 

sparsely developed at its southern 

extent. Threats present in this unit that 

may require special management 

include altered hydrology, climate 

change, predation by nonnative species, 

wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or 

recreational activity. This unit is 

occupied and contains one or more of 

the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

Unit SS–7: Stanislaus River 

The Stanislaus River Unit is located 

in Calaveras and Tuolumne Counties 

along the Stanislaus River within the 

San Joaquin River watershed north and 

west of the City of Columbia. The unit 

encompasses 59,457 ac (24,062 ha) and 

contains BLM (4,554 ac (1,843 ha)), 

Bureau of Reclamation (718 ac, 291 ha)), 

USFS (32,864 ac (13,300 ha)), State 

(2,720 ac (1,101 ha)), and private 

(18,601 ac (7,528 ha)) lands. General 

land use in this unit is primarily 

agriculture, mining, and recreation. The 

unit is sparsely developed along its 

periphery. Threats present in this unit 

that may require special management 

include altered hydrology, climate 

change, predation by nonnative species, 

wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or 

recreational activity. This unit is 

composed of two occupied subunits that 

are in close proximity to each other in 

the Stanislaus River watershed that 

contain all physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. 

Unit SS–7, Subunit a: Stanislaus 

Confluence 

The Stanislaus Confluence Subunit is 

located in Calaveras County upstream of 

the confluence of the Main Steam and 

South Fork of the Stanislaus River 

within the San Joaquin River watershed 

north of the City of Columbia. The 

subunit encompasses 55,833 ac (22,595 

ha) and contains BLM (4,141 ac (1,676 

ha)), Bureau of Reclamation (543 ac, 220 

ha)), USFS (32,864 ac (13,300 ha)), State 

(2,720 ac (1,101 ha)), and private 

(15,564 ac (6,299 ha)) lands. General 

land use in this subunit is primarily 

agriculture, mining, and recreation. The 

subunit is sparsely developed along its 

northern and southern periphery. 

Threats present in this subunit that may 

require special management include 

altered hydrology, climate change, 

predation by nonnative species, 

wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or 

recreational activity. This subunit is 

occupied and contains all physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Unit SS–7, Subunit b: Moaning Cave 

The Moaning Cave Subunit is located 

in Calaveras County along Coyote Creek 

within the San Joaquin River watershed 

southeast of the Town of Angels Camp. 

The subunit encompasses 3,625 ac 

(1,467 ha) and contains BLM (413 ac 

(167 ha)), Bureau of Reclamation (175 ac 

(71 ha)), and private (3,037 ac (1,229 

ha)) lands. General land use in this 

subunit is primarily agriculture and 

recreation. The subunit is sparsely 

developed at its northeastern extent 

along Moaning Cave Road. Threats 

present in this subunit that may require 

special management include altered 

hydrology, climate change, predation by 

nonnative species, wildfire, and 

trampling by vehicles or recreational 

activity. This subunit is occupied and 

contains one or more physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Unit SS–8: North Fork and Middle 

Tuolumne River 

The North Fork and Middle 

Tuolumne River Unit is located in 

Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties along 

the North Fork and Middle Tuolumne 

River within the San Joaquin River 

watershed generally south of State 

Route 108 and north of State Route 120 

to the west of Yosemite National Park. 

The unit encompasses 78,151 ac (31,627 

ha) and contains BLM (3,565 ac (1,443 

ha)), USFS (60,795 ac (24,603 ha)), and 

private (13,791 ac (5,581 ha)) lands. 

General land use in this unit is 

primarily agriculture and recreation. 

The unit is sparsely developed along 

Highway 120 and near the towns of 

Buchanan and Confidence. Threats 

present in this unit that may require 

special management include altered 

hydrology, climate change, predation by 

nonnative species, wildfire, and 

trampling by vehicles or recreational 

activity. This unit is occupied and 

contains all physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. 

Unit SS–9: Moccasin Creek 

The Moccasin Creek Unit is located in 

Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties along 

Moccasin Creek within the San Joaquin 

River watershed south (upstream) of 

Moccasin Reservoir. The unit 

encompasses 8,280 ac (3,351 ha) and 

contains BLM (4,509 ac (1,825 ha)) and 

private (3,770 ac (1,526 ha)) lands. 

General land use in this unit is 

primarily agriculture, water 

management, and recreation. The unit is 

sparsely developed along Highway 49 

and near the Moccasin Reservoir. 

Threats present in this unit that may 

require special management include 

altered hydrology, climate change, 

predation by nonnative species, 

wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or 

recreational activity. This unit is 

occupied and contains one or more 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. 

Unit SS–10: North Fork Merced River, 

Bull Creek 

The North Fork Merced River, Bull 

Creek Unit is located in Mariposa 

County located along North Fork 

Merced River and Bull Creek within the 

San Joaquin River watershed east of 

State Route 49 and north of State Route 

140. The unit encompasses 27,571 ac 

(11,157 ha) and contains BLM (28 ac (11 

ha)), USFS (21,525 ac (8,711 ha)), and 

private (6,017 ac (2,435 ha)) lands. 

General land use in this unit is 

primarily agriculture and recreation. 

The unit is sparsely developed near the 

town of Greeley Hill. Threats present in 

this unit that may require special 

management include altered hydrology, 

climate change, predation by nonnative 

species, wildfire, and trampling by 

vehicles or recreational activity. This 

unit is composed of two occupied 

subunits that are in close proximity to 

each other in the Merced River 

watershed that contain all physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Unit SS–10, Subunit a: North Fork 

Merced River 

The North Fork Merced River Subunit 

is located in Mariposa County along the 

North Fork Merced River east of the 

Town of Greeley Hill. The subunit 

encompasses 15,491 ac (6,269 ha) and 

contains BLM (28 ac (11 ha)), USFS 

(10,439 ac (4,224 ha)), and private 

(5,024 ac (2,033 ha)) lands. General land 

use in this subunit is primarily 

agriculture and recreation. The subunit 

is sparsely developed near the town of 

Greeley Hill. Threats present in this 

subunit that may require special 

management include altered hydrology, 

climate change, predation by nonnative 

species, wildfire, and trampling by 

vehicles or recreational activity. This 

subunit is occupied and contains one or 

more physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

Unit SS–10, Subunit b: Bull Creek 

The Bull Creek Subunit is located in 

Mariposa County along Bull Creek west 

of the Town of Foresta. The subunit 

encompasses 12,079 ac (4,888 ha) and 

contains USFS (11,087 ac (4,487 ha)) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3423 

and private (992 ac (402 ha)) lands. 

General land use in this subunit is 

primarily recreation. Threats present in 

this subunit that may require special 

management include altered hydrology, 

climate change, predation by nonnative 

species, wildfire, and trampling by 

vehicles or recreational activity. This 

subunit is occupied and contains all 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. 

Unit SS–11: Merced River and Sherlock 

Creek 

The Merced River and Sherlock Creek 

Unit is located in Mariposa County 

along the Merced River and Sherlock 

Creek within the San Joaquin River 

watershed north of the Town of 

Mariposa. The unit encompasses 16,719 

ac (6,766 ha) and contains BLM (13,267 

ac (5,369 ha)) and private (3,451 ac 

(1,397 ha)) lands. General land use in 

this unit is primarily agriculture and 

recreation. The unit is sparsely 

developed at its southeastern extent. 

Threats present in this subunit that may 

require special management include 

altered hydrology, climate change, 

predation by nonnative species, 

wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or 

recreational activity. This unit is 

occupied and contains one or more 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. 

Unit SS–12: Jose Creek 

The Jose Creek Unit is located in 

Madera and Fresno Counties along Jose 

Creek within the San Joaquin River 

watershed west of Shaver Lake. The unit 

encompasses 10,182 ac (4,121 ha) and 

contains USFS (9,204 ac (3,725 ha)), 

State (30 ac (12 ha)), and private (948 ac 

(384 ha)) lands. General land use in this 

unit is primarily agriculture and 

recreation. The unit is sparsely 

developed near the confluence of Jose 

Creek with the San Joaquin River. 

Threats present in this unit that may 

require special management include 

altered hydrology, climate change, 

predation by nonnative species, 

wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or 

recreational activity. This unit is 

occupied and contains one or more 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. 

Unit SS–13: North Fork Tule River 

The North Fork Tule River Unit is 

located in Tulare County along the 

North Fork Tule River within the 

Tulare/Buena Vista Lake watershed east 

of the Town of Porterville. The unit 

encompasses 5,149 ac (2,084 ha) and 

contains USFS (217 ac (88 ha)) and 

private (4,932 ac (1,996 ha)). General 

land use in this unit is primarily for 

agriculture and recreation. The unit is 

sparsely developed along the North Fork 

Tule River and near the town of 

Springville. Threats present in this unit 

that may require special management 

include altered hydrology, climate 

change, predation by nonnative species, 

wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or 

recreational activity. This unit is 

occupied and contains one or more 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. This 

unit contains one of the few remaining 

occupied areas within the Tulare/Buena 

Vista Lake watershed. 

Unit SS–14: Kern River 

The Kern River Unit is located in 

Tulare County along Jywood and Ash 

Creeks (two adjacent tributaries to the 

Kern River) within the Tulare/Buena 

Vista Lake watershed northeast of the 

Town of Johnsondale. The unit 

encompasses 7,344 ac (2,972 ha) and 

contains USFS (7,327 ac (2,965 ha)) and 

private (17 ac (7 ha)) lands. General land 

use in this unit is primarily recreation. 

Threats present in this unit that may 

require special management include 

altered hydrology, climate change, 

predation by nonnative species, 

wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or 

recreational activity. This unit is 

occupied and contains one or more 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. This 

unit contains one of the few remaining 

occupied areas within the Tulare/Buena 

Vista Lake watershed and is the 

southernmost locality remaining in the 

South Sierra DPS. 

Central Coast DPS 

Unit CC–1: Northeastern Coastal Range 

The Northeastern Coastal Range Unit 

in Alameda, Santa Clara, and Stanislaus 

Counties contains subunits located 

along drainages within the San 

Francisco Bay and San Joaquin River 

watersheds near the eastern ridge of the 

Coastal Range Mountains southeast of 

the City of Livermore. The unit 

encompasses 33,687 ac (13,633 ha). The 

unit contains BLM (414 ac (168 ha)), 

local government (6 ac (3 ha)) and 

private (33,266 ac (13,462 ha)) lands. 

The unit is sparsely developed along 

Lower Arroyo Mocho. General land use 

in this unit is primarily agriculture and 

recreation. Threats present in this unit 

that may require special management 

include altered hydrology, climate 

change, disease, predation by nonnative 

species, wildfire, and trampling by 

vehicles or recreational activity. The 

unit is composed of five occupied 

subunits that are in close proximity to 

each other or in the same drainages that 

contain one or more physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species. The unit 

spans both the San Francisco Bay and 

San Joaquin River drainages and is also 

likely important for maintaining species 

connectivity within the Central Coast 

DPS. 

Unit CC–1, Subunit a: Corral Hollow 

Creek 

The Corral Hollow Creek subunit is 

located in Alameda County along Corral 

Hollow Creek within the San Joaquin 

River watershed 8 kilometers northeast 

of Lake Del Valle. The unit encompasses 

approximately 4,483 ac (1,814 ha) of 

entirely private land. General land use 

within the subunit is agriculture and 

recreation. The subunit is sparsely 

developed near its northern extent. 

Threats present in this subunit that may 

require special management include 

altered hydrology, climate change, 

predation by nonnative species, 

wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or 

recreational activity. The subunit is 

occupied and contains one or more 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. 

Unit CC–1, Subunit b: Lower Arroyo 

Mocho 

The Lower Arroyo Mocho Subunit is 

located in Alameda County along Lower 

Arroyo Mocho within the San Francisco 

Bay watershed 2 kilometers northeast 

and east of Lake Del Valle. The subunit 

encompasses 7,571 ac (3,064 ha)) of 

local government (6 ac (3 ha)) and 

private land (7,564 ac, 3,061 ha)). 

General land use within the subunit is 

agriculture and recreation. The subunit 

is sparsely developed along Arroyo 

Mocho. Threats present in this subunit 

that may require special management 

include altered hydrology, climate 

change, predation by nonnative species, 

wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or 

recreational activity. The subunit is 

occupied and contains one or more 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. 

Unit CC–1, Subunit c: Upper Arroyo 

Mocho 

The Upper Arroyo Mocho Subunit is 

located in Alameda County along Upper 

Arroyo Mocho in the San Francisco Bay 

watershed 9 kilometers southeast of 

Lake Del Valle. The subunit 

encompasses 4,541 ac (1,838 ha) of 

private land. General land use within 

the subunit is agriculture and 

recreation. The subunit is sparsely 

developed along Arroyo Mocho. Threats 

present in this subunit that may require 

special management include altered 

hydrology, climate change, predation by 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
3424 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

nonnative species, wildfire, and 

trampling by vehicles or recreational 

activity. The subunit is occupied and 

contains one or more physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Unit CC–1, Subunit d: Colorado Creek 

The Colorado Creek Subunit is 

located in Santa Clara County along 

Colorado Creek within the San 

Francisco Bay watershed approximately 

10 kilometers north of the Town of 

Ashrama. The subunit encompasses 

approximately 4,698 ac (1,901 ha) of 

entirely private land. General land use 

within the subunit is mining and 

recreation. Threats present in this 

subunit that may require special 

management include altered hydrology, 

climate change, predation by nonnative 

species, wildfire, and trampling by 

vehicles or recreational activity. The 

subunit is occupied and contains one or 

more physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. The subunit is located in close 

proximity to the Del Puerto Creek 

Subunit (Unit CC–1, Subunit e) 

described below and is likely important 

for maintaining connectivity between 

the San Francisco Bay and San Joaquin 

River watersheds. 

Unit CC–1, Subunit e: Del Puerto Creek 

The Del Puerto Creek Subunit is 

located in Stanislaus County along Del 

Puerto Creek within the San Joaquin 

River watershed approximately 8 

kilometers northeast of the Town of 

Ashrama. The subunit encompasses 

approximately 12,395 ac (5,016 ha) of 

BLM (414 ac (168 ha)) and private lands 

(11,981 ac (4,849 ha)). General land use 

within the subunit is agriculture and 

recreation. The subunit is sparsely 

developed along Del Puerto Creek. 

Threats present in this subunit that may 

require special management include 

altered hydrology, climate change, 

predation by nonnative species, 

wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or 

recreational activity. The subunit is 

occupied and contains one or more 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. The 

subunit is located in close proximity to 

the Colorado Creek Subunit (Unit CC–1, 

Subunit d) described above and is likely 

important for maintaining connectivity 

between the San Francisco Bay and San 

Joaquin River watersheds. 

Unit CC–2: Robison Creek 

The Robison Creek Unit is located in 

Stanislaus County along Robison Creek 

within the San Joaquin River watershed 

at the northeastern extent of Henry W. 

Coe State Wilderness Area. The unit 

encompasses 6,977 ac (2,824 ha) and 

contains State Park (5,139 ac (2,080 ha)) 

and private (1,838 ac (744 ha)) lands. 

General land use within the unit is 

recreation. Threats present in this unit 

that may require special management 

include altered hydrology, climate 

change, predation by nonnative species, 

wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or 

recreational activity. The unit is 

occupied and contains one or more 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. 

Unit CC–3: Orestimba Creek 

The Orestimba Creek Unit is located 

in Stanislaus County along Orestimba 

Creek within the San Joaquin River 

watershed approximately 7 kilometers 

west of Interstate Highway 5. The unit 

encompasses 4,541 ac (1,838 ha) of 

private lands. General land use within 

the unit is recreation. The unit is 

sparsely developed along Orestimba 

Creek. Threats present in this unit that 

may require special management 

include altered hydrology, climate 

change, predation by nonnative species, 

wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or 

recreational activity. The unit is 

occupied and contains one or more 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. 

Unit CC–4: Alameda Creek, Arroyo 

Hondo, and Upper Penitencia Creek 

The Alameda Creek, Arroyo Hondo, 

and Upper Penitencia Creek Unit is 

located in Alameda and Santa Clara 

Counties along Indian Creek, Alameda 

Creek, Arroyo Hondo, Isabel Creek, 

Bonita Creek, San Antonio Creek, Smith 

Creek, and Sulphur Creek within the 

San Francisco Bay watershed as well as 

Upper Penitencia Creek within the 

Coyote Creek watershed near the eastern 

extent of the City of San Jose. The unit 

encompasses a total of 63,907 ac (25,862 

ha) including State (2,828 ac (1,144 ha)), 

local government (1,871 ac (757 ha)), 

and private lands (59,208 ac (23,961 

ha)). General land use within the unit is 

agriculture and recreation. The unit is 

sparsely developed along its western 

periphery. Threats present in this unit 

that may require special management 

include altered hydrology, climate 

change, predation by nonnative species, 

encroachment by development, wildfire, 

and trampling by vehicles or 

recreational activity. The unit is 

occupied and contains one or more 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. 

Notably the unit spans both the Coyote 

Creek and San Francisco Bay 

watersheds and is likely important for 

maintaining species connectivity within 

the Central Coast DPS. We have 

identified a portion of this unit for 

potential exclusion as a result of the 

Santa Clara Valley HCP/NCCP (see 

Consideration of Impacts under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act below). 

Unit CC–5: Coyote Creek 

The Coyote Creek Unit is located in 

Santa Clara County along Coyote Creek 

within the Coyote Creek watershed east 

of the City of Morgan Hill. The unit 

encompasses 40,370 ac (16,337 ha) and 

contains BLM (643 ac (260 ha)), State 

(16,251 ac (6,576 ha)), County (255 ac 

(103 ha)), and private (23,222 ac (9,398 

ha)) lands. A large portion of the unit is 

within Henry Coe State Park. General 

land use within the unit is recreation. 

The unit is sparsely developed at its 

southern extent. Threats present in this 

unit that may require special 

management include altered hydrology, 

climate change, predation by nonnative 

species, encroachment by development, 

wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or 

recreational activity. The unit is 

occupied and contains one or more 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. We 

have identified a portion of this unit for 

potential exclusion as a result of the 

Santa Clara Valley HCP/NCCP (see 

Consideration of Impacts under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act below). 

Unit CC–6: Interior Santa Cruz 

Mountains 

The Interior Santa Cruz Mountains 

Unit is located in Santa Clara County 

along the interior portion of the Santa 

Cruz Mountains southeast of the City of 

Los Gatos and northwest of the City of 

Morgan Hill. The unit encompasses 

17,231 ac (6,973 ha) and contains 

subunits that drain into the Coyote 

Creek and Pajaro Slough watersheds. 

The unit contains county park (1,100 ac 

(445 ha)) and private (16,131 ac (6,528 

ha)) lands. General land use in this unit 

is primarily agriculture and recreation. 

The unit is heavily developed at its 

northwestern extent near the City of Los 

Gatos and sparsely developed at its 

northeastern extent near Chesbro 

Reservoir. The unit is sparsely 

developed at its southern extent. 

Threats present in this unit that may 

require special management include 

altered hydrology, climate change, 

predation by nonnative species, 

encroachment by development, wildfire, 

and trampling by vehicles or 

recreational activity. The unit is 

composed of two occupied subunits that 

are in close proximity to each other in 

the Coyote Creek and Pajaro Slough 

drainages that contain one or more 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3425 

Unit CC–6, Subunit a: Guadalupe and 

Rincon Creeks 

The Guadalupe and Rincon Creeks 

Subunit (Central Coast DPS Unit 6, 

Subunit a) of proposed critical habitat 

for the Central Coast DPS is located 

along Guadalupe and Rincon Creeks 

within the Coyote Creek watershed in 

Santa Clara County, California. The 

subunit encompasses 7,772 ac (3,145 ha) 

and contains county park (1,100 ac (445 

ha)) and private (6,672 ac (2,700 ha)) 

lands. A large portion of the subunit lies 

within the Sierra Azul Open Space 

Regional Park. General land use within 

the subunit is agriculture and 

recreation. The subunit is heavily 

developed at its northern extent near the 

City of Los Gatos. Threats present in this 

subunit that may require special 

management include altered hydrology, 

climate change, predation by nonnative 

species, encroachment by development, 

wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or 

recreational activity. The subunit is 

occupied and contains one or more of 

the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. The subunit is in close 

proximity to the Llagas Creek Subunit 

(Unit CC–6, Subunit b) described below 

and thus likely promotes genetic 

connectivity between the Coyote Creek 

and Pajaro Slough watersheds. We have 

identified a portion of this subunit for 

potential exclusion as a result of the 

Santa Clara Valley HCP/NCCP (see 

Consideration of Impacts under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act below). 

Unit CC–6, Subunit b: Llagas Creek 

The Llagas Creek Subunit is located in 

Santa Clara County along Llagas Creek 

within the Pajaro Slough watershed 

west of the City of Morgan Hill. The 

subunit encompasses 9,459 ac (3,828 ha) 

and contains entirely private lands. A 

large portion of the subunit lies within 

the Rancho Canada del Oro Open Space 

Regional Park. General land use within 

the subunit is agriculture and 

recreation. The subunit is sparsely 

developed along its eastern extent near 

the Chesbro Reservoir. Threats present 

in this subunit that may require special 

management include altered hydrology, 

climate change, predation by nonnative 

species, wildfire, and trampling by 

vehicles or recreational activity. The 

subunit is occupied and contains one or 

more of the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. The subunit is in close 

proximity to the Guadalupe and Rincon 

Creeks Subunit (Unit CC–6, Subunit a) 

and thus likely promotes genetic 

connectivity between the Coyote Creek 

and Pajaro Slough watersheds. We have 

identified a portion of this subunit for 

potential exclusion as a result of the 

Santa Clara Valley HCP/NCCP (see 

Consideration of Impacts under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act below). 

Unit CC–7: Soquel and Bridge Creeks 

The Soquel and Bridge Creeks Unit is 

located in Santa Cruz County along 

Soquel and Bridge Creeks within the 

Monterey Bay watershed northeast of 

the City of Santa Cruz. The unit 

encompasses 19,490 ac (7,887 ha) and 

contains State (5,689 ac (2,302 ha)) and 

private (13,800 ac (5,585 ha)) lands. A 

large portion of the unit is within the 

State’s Soquel Demonstration Forest and 

Forest of Nisene Marks State Park. 

General land use within the unit is 

agriculture and recreation. The southern 

extent of the unit is heavily developed 

along Soquel Creek near the City of 

Santa Cruz. Threats present in this unit 

that may require special management 

include altered hydrology, climate 

change, predation by nonnative species, 

encroachment by development, wildfire, 

and trampling by vehicles or 

recreational activity. The unit is 

occupied and contains one or more of 

the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

Unit CC–8: Goat Mountain 

The Goat Mountain Unit is located in 

San Benito and Fresno Counties along 

creeks within the Diablo Range 

Mountains northeast of King City. 

Creeks within the unit drain into the 

Pajaro Slough, San Joaquin River, and 

Tulare-Buena Vista Lakes watersheds. 

The unit encompasses 63,739 ac (25,794 

ha) and contains BLM (38,953 ac 

(15,764 ha)), State (1,804 ac (730 ha)), 

and private (22,981 ac (9,300 ha)) lands. 

General land use in this unit is 

primarily agriculture and recreation. 

The unit is sparsely developed near the 

town of Idria. Threats present in this 

unit that may require special 

management include altered hydrology, 

climate change, predation by nonnative 

species, wildfire, and trampling by 

vehicles or recreational activity. This 

unit is occupied and contains all of the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. The 

unit is likely important for maintaining 

species connectivity across watersheds 

within the Central Coast DPS. 

South Coast DPS 

Unit SC–1: San Carpoforo Creek 

The San Carpoforo Creek Unit is 

located in Monterey and San Luis 

Obispo Counties along San Carpoforo 

Creek within the Big Creek watershed. 

The unit encompasses approximately 

10,077 ac (4,078 ha), including USFS 

(2,683 ac (1,086 ha)) and private land 

owned by Hearst Ranch (7,394 ac (2,992 

ha)). The primary use of lands within 

the unit is recreation. Threats present in 

this unit that may require special 

management include altered hydrology, 

climate change, disease, predation by 

nonnative species, wildfire, and 

trampling by vehicles or recreational 

activity. This unit is occupied and 

contains one or more of the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species. As noted by 

the SSA report (Service 2023b, p. 48), 

creeks used by the species in the South 

Coast DPS have flashier flows, more 

ephemeral channels, and a higher 

degree of intermittency because of the 

region’s more variable and lower 

amount of precipitation, and have the 

warmest average temperatures in 

comparison to other portions of the 

species’ range. Thus, the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species within the 

unit may be especially vulnerable to 

threats from the effects of climate 

change or altered hydrology that may 

also increase the likelihood of disease 

outbreaks (Adams et al. 2017, p. 10228; 

Service 2023b, p. 48). At present it is 

likely that the population within this 

unit is isolated from other populations 

of the species, including the nearby Los 

Burros Creek population located on Fort 

Hunter Liggett. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to ensure that any action they authorize, 

fund, or carry out is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered species or threatened 

species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat of such species. In 

addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to confer with 

the Service on any agency action which 

is likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any species proposed to be 

listed under the Act or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. 

We published a final rule revising the 

definition of destruction or adverse 

modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 

44976). Destruction or adverse 

modification means a direct or indirect 

alteration that appreciably diminishes 

the value of critical habitat as a whole 

for the conservation of a listed species. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
3426 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

Compliance with the requirements of 

section 7(a)(2) of the Act is documented 

through our 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, and are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species and/or destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat, we 

provide reasonable and prudent 

alternatives to the project, if any are 

identifiable, that would avoid the 

likelihood of jeopardy and/or 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable 

and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR 

402.02) as alternative actions identified 

during formal consultation that: 

(1) Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended purpose of 

the action, 

(2) Can be implemented consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, 

(3) Are economically and 

technologically feasible, and 

(4) Would, in the Service Director’s 

opinion, avoid the likelihood of 

jeopardizing the continued existence of 

the listed species or avoid the likelihood 

of destroying or adversely modifying 

critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives 

can vary from slight project 

modifications to extensive redesign or 

relocation of the project. Costs 

associated with implementing a 

reasonable and prudent alternative are 

similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth 

requirements for Federal agencies to 

reinitiate consultation if any of the 

following four conditions occur: (1) the 

amount or extent of taking specified in 

the incidental take statement is 

exceeded; (2) new information reveals 

effects of the action that may affect 

listed species or critical habitat in a 

manner or to an extent not previously 

considered; (3) the identified action is 

subsequently modified in a manner that 

causes an effect to the listed species or 

critical habitat that was not considered 

in the biological opinion or written 

concurrence; or (4) a new species is 

listed or critical habitat designated that 

may be affected by the identified action. 

The reinitiation requirement applies 

only to actions that remain subject to 

some discretionary Federal involvement 

or control. As provided in 50 CFR 

402.16, the requirement to reinitiate 

consultations for new species listings or 

critical habitat designation does not 

apply to certain agency actions (e.g., 

land management plans issued by the 

Bureau of Land Management in certain 

circumstances). 

Destruction or Adverse Modification of 

Critical Habitat 

The key factor related to the 

destruction or adverse modification 

determination is whether 

implementation of the proposed Federal 

action directly or indirectly alters the 

designated critical habitat in a way that 

appreciably diminishes the value of the 

critical habitat for the conservation of 

the listed species. As discussed above, 

the role of critical habitat is to support 

the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of a listed 

species and provide for the conservation 

of the species. 

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us 

to briefly evaluate and describe, in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat, activities 

involving a Federal action that may 

violate section 7(a)(2) of the Act by 

destroying or adversely modifying such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. 

Activities that we may, during a 

consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the 

Act, consider likely to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat 

include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Actions that would alter stream 

flow magnitude (either increasing or 

decreasing flows), flow timing, or 

temperature. Such activities could 

include, but are not limited to, water 

management on streams with dams or 

other water delivery and conveyance 

infrastructures such as pipelines, or 

water diversions. These activities could 

change appropriate water conditions 

(temperature, flow periods), disrupt 

breeding, disturb egg masses, change 

stream substrate requirements, or 

increase shading due to lack of flows. 

(2) Actions that would increase 

sedimentation. Such activities could 

include road construction, wildland 

fire, urbanization and development, 

unauthorized off-highway-vehicle use, 

or riparian habitat alteration or 

destruction. These activities may 

increase deposit of sediments into 

stream habitat and reduce appropriate 

cobbled structure and interstitial spaces 

needed for cover. 

(3) Actions that would eliminate or 

reduce the upland habitat necessary for 

overwintering and dispersal. Such 

activities could include urbanization, 

timber harvest, or natural land use 

conversion from agriculture. These 

activities would limit upland 

overwintering ability and potentially 

reduce localized populations. Limiting 

dispersal would subject populations to 

inbreeding and make them more 

vulnerable to catastrophic events. 

Exemptions 

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act 

The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 

1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 

required each military installation that 

includes land and water suitable for the 

conservation and management of 

natural resources to complete an 

integrated natural resources 

management plan (INRMP) by 

November 17, 2001. An INRMP 

integrates implementation of the 

military mission of the installation with 

stewardship of the natural resources 

found on the base. Each INRMP 

includes: 

(1) An assessment of the ecological 

needs on the installation, including the 

need to provide for the conservation of 

listed species; 

(2) A statement of goals and priorities; 

(3) A detailed description of 

management actions to be implemented 

to provide for these ecological needs; 

and 

(4) A monitoring and adaptive 

management plan. 

Among other things, each INRMP 

must, to the extent appropriate and 

applicable, provide for fish and wildlife 

management; fish and wildlife habitat 

enhancement or modification; wetland 

protection, enhancement, and 

restoration where necessary to support 

fish and wildlife; and enforcement of 

applicable natural resource laws. 

The National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108– 

136) amended the Act to limit areas 

eligible for designation as critical 

habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) 

of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) 

provides that the Secretary shall not 

designate as critical habitat any lands or 

other geographical areas owned or 

controlled by the Department of 

Defense, or designated for its use, that 

are subject to an integrated natural 

resources management plan prepared 

under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 

U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines 

in writing that such plan provides a 

benefit to the species for which critical 

habitat is proposed for designation. 

We consult with the military on the 

development and implementation of 

INRMPs for installations with listed 

species. We analyzed INRMPs 

developed by military installations 

located within the range of the proposed 

critical habitat designation for the 

foothill yellow-legged frog to determine 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3427 

if they meet the criteria for exemption 

from critical habitat under section 

4(a)(3) of the Act. The following areas 

are Department of Defense (DoD) lands 

with completed, Service-approved 

INRMPs within the proposed critical 

habitat designation. 

Approved INRMPs 

U.S. Army Fort Hunter Liggett Military 

Reservation, Monterey County, 

California 

U.S. Army Fort Hunter Liggett 

occupies approximately 163,000 ac 

(66,000 ha) of varied habitats within the 

Santa Lucia Mountains in southern 

Monterey County. The current INRMP 

for Fort Hunter Liggett was completed 

in December 2022 (Desert Research 

Institute 2022, entire) and became 

effective in May 2023. The Service and 

CDFW are signatory agencies on the Fort 

Hunter Liggett INRMP. We have 

identified 5,557 ac (2,249 ha) of 

occupied habitat for the South Coast 

DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog on 

the facility. As stated above, to be 

exempt under section 4(a)(3) of the Act, 

an INRMP must include the four criteria 

identified above as well as meet the 

criteria under our regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(h) that includes information 

regarding: (a) the extent of the area and 

features present; (b) the type and 

frequency of use of the area by the 

species; (c) the relevant elements of the 

INRMP in terms of management 

objectives, activities covered, and best 

management practices, and the certainty 

that the relevant elements will be 

implemented; and (d) the degree to 

which the relevant elements of the 

INRMP will protect the habitat from the 

types of effects that would be addressed 

through a destruction-or-adversemodification analysis. The Fort Hunter 

Liggett INRMP meets all of these 

requirements. 

The South Coast DPS of the foothill 

yellow-legged frog occurs on the facility 

in less than 4.5 km (2.8 mi) of Los 

Burros and North Fork creeks. The 

endangered arroyo toad (Anaxyrus 

californicus) and threatened California 

red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) occur 

on the facility and use similar habitat as 

the South Coast DPS of the foothill 

yellow-legged frog. Measures being 

implemented for these species will 

provide benefits to the South Coast DPS 

by protecting water quality, reducing 

nonnative predators, and contributing to 

other habitat protection. Measures being 

implemented specifically for the foothill 

yellow-legged frog include enhancing 

habitat conditions and continuing 

annual surveys to determine stability of 

the breeding population. Fort Hunter 

Liggett has implemented its INRMP and 

established several Sensitive Resource 

Management Areas (SRMAs) including a 

4,059-ac (1,643-ha) area for the listed 

species on the facility. The INRMP 

includes Endangered Species 

Management Components (ESMCs) for 

listed species; both development and 

implementation of such components are 

required by U.S. Army regulations. 

The Army through implementation of 

the INRMP has established several 

guiding principles in their management 

of habitat for sensitive species and their 

habitat including: 

(1) Identify installation activities that 

compromise the function and 

composition of ecosystems and develop 

remedies through adaptive management; 

(2) Sustain and enhance healthy 

terrestrial and aquatic habitats on the 

facility that provide services and values 

in an ecosystem; 

(3) Protect, restore, and enhance 

wetlands to maintain no net loss of 

wetland acreage and quality; 

(4) Assess, sustain, and enhance the 

health and habitats of fish and wildlife 

populations in a manner consistent with 

the military mission and security 

constraints; 

(5) Minimize pest-related habitat 

damage and health risks to natural 

resources and people; 

(6) Provide sustainable natural 

resources-related outdoor recreation 

opportunities given security constraints; 

(7) Increase awareness of natural 

resources issues, programs, and 

responsibilities among Fort Hunter 

Liggett employees, residents, tenants, 

and visitors; 

(8) Integrate the natural resources 

programs as identified in the INRMP 

with local, State, and regional 

environmental programs and initiatives; 

and 

(9) Use a geographical information 

system (GIS) database to monitor and 

enhance natural resources management 

on the facility. 

Based on the above considerations, 

and in accordance with section 

4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have 

determined that the identified lands are 

subject to the Fort Hunter Liggett 

INRMP and that conservation efforts 

identified in the INRMP will provide a 

benefit to the South Coast DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog. Therefore, 

lands within this installation are exempt 

from critical habitat designation under 

section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not 

including approximately 5,557 ac (2,249 

ha) of habitat in this proposed critical 

habitat designation because of this 

exemption. 

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that 

the Secretary shall designate and make 

revisions to critical habitat 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 

designated critical habitat based on 

economic impacts, impacts on national 

security, or any other relevant impacts. 

Exclusion decisions are governed by the 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 and the 

Policy Regarding Implementation of 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act (hereafter, the ‘‘2016 

Policy’’; 81 FR 7226, February 11, 2016), 

both of which were developed jointly 

with the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS). We also refer to a 2008 

Department of the Interior Solicitor’s 

opinion entitled ‘‘The Secretary’s 

Authority to Exclude Areas from a 

Critical Habitat Designation under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act’’ (M–37016). 

In considering whether to exclude a 

particular area from the designation, we 

identify the benefits of including the 

area in the designation, identify the 

benefits of excluding the area from the 

designation, and evaluate whether the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion. If the analysis 

indicates that the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the 

Secretary may exercise discretion to 

exclude the area only if such exclusion 

would not result in the extinction of the 

species. In making the determination to 

exclude a particular area, the statute on 

its face, as well as the legislative history, 

are clear that the Secretary has broad 

discretion regarding which factor(s) to 

use and how much weight to give to any 

factor. In our final rules, we explain any 

decision to exclude areas, as well as 

decisions not to exclude, to make clear 

the rational basis for our decision. We 

describe below the process that we use 

for taking into consideration each 

category of impacts and any initial 

analyses of the relevant impacts. 

Consideration of Economic Impacts 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its 

implementing regulations require that 

we consider the economic impact that 

may result from a designation of critical 

habitat. To assess the probable 

economic impacts of a designation, we 

must first evaluate specific land uses or 

activities and projects that may occur in 

the area of the critical habitat. We then 

must evaluate the impacts that a specific 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
3428 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

critical habitat designation may have on 

restricting or modifying specific land 

uses or activities for the benefit of the 

species and its habitat within the areas 

proposed. We then identify which 

conservation efforts may be the result of 

the species being listed under the Act 

versus those attributed solely to the 

designation of critical habitat for this 

particular species. The probable 

economic impact of a proposed critical 

habitat designation is analyzed by 

comparing scenarios both ‘‘with critical 

habitat’’ and ‘‘without critical habitat.’’ 

The ‘‘without critical habitat’’ 

scenario represents the baseline for the 

analysis, which includes the existing 

regulatory and socio-economic burden 

imposed on landowners, managers, or 

other resource users potentially affected 

by the designation of critical habitat 

(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as 

other Federal, State, and local 

regulations). Therefore, the baseline 

represents the costs of all efforts 

attributable to the listing of the species 

under the Act (i.e., conservation of the 

species and its habitat incurred 

regardless of whether critical habitat is 

designated). The ‘‘with critical habitat’’ 

scenario describes the incremental 

impacts associated specifically with the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

species. The incremental conservation 

efforts and associated impacts would 

not be expected without the designation 

of critical habitat for the species. In 

other words, the incremental costs are 

those attributable solely to the 

designation of critical habitat, above and 

beyond the baseline costs. These are the 

costs we use when evaluating the 

benefits of inclusion and exclusion of 

particular areas from the final 

designation of critical habitat should we 

choose to conduct a discretionary 

4(b)(2) exclusion analysis. 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and E.O. 

13563 and direct Federal agencies to 

assess the costs and benefits of available 

regulatory alternatives in quantitative 

(to the extent feasible) and qualitative 

terms. Consistent with these E.O. 

regulatory analysis requirements, our 

effects analysis under the Act may take 

into consideration impacts to both 

directly and indirectly affected entities, 

where practicable and reasonable. If 

sufficient data are available, we assess 

to the extent practicable the probable 

impacts to both directly and indirectly 

affected entities. To determine whether 

the designation of critical habitat may 

have an economic effect of $200 million 

or more in any given year (which would 

trigger section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, as 

amended by E.O. 14094), we used a 

screening analysis to assess whether a 

designation of critical habitat for the 

foothill yellow-legged frog is likely to 

exceed this threshold. 

For this particular designation, we 

developed an incremental effects 

memorandum (IEM) considering the 

probable incremental economic impacts 

that may result from this proposed 

designation of critical habitat (Service 

2023a, entire). The information 

contained in our IEM was then used to 

develop a screening analysis of the 

probable effects of the designation of 

critical habitat for the four DPSs of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Industrial 

Economics, Inc. (IEc) 2023, entire). We 

began by conducting a screening 

analysis of the proposed designation of 

critical habitat in order to focus our 

analysis on the key factors that are 

likely to result in incremental economic 

impacts. The purpose of the screening 

analysis is to filter out particular 

geographical areas of critical habitat that 

are already subject to such protections 

and are, therefore, unlikely to incur 

incremental economic impacts. 

In particular, the screening analysis 

considers baseline costs (i.e., absent 

critical habitat designation) and 

includes any probable incremental 

economic impacts where land and water 

use may already be subject to 

conservation plans, land management 

plans, best management practices, or 

regulations that protect the habitat area 

as a result of the Federal listing status 

of the species. Ultimately, the screening 

analysis allows us to focus our analysis 

on evaluating the specific areas or 

sectors that may incur probable 

incremental economic impacts as a 

result of the designation. The presence 

of the listed species in occupied areas 

of critical habitat means that any 

destruction or adverse modification of 

those areas is also likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of the species. 

Therefore, designating occupied areas as 

critical habitat typically causes little if 

any incremental impact above and 

beyond the impacts of listing the 

species. As a result, we generally focus 

the screening analysis on areas of 

unoccupied critical habitat (unoccupied 

units or unoccupied areas within 

occupied units). Overall, the screening 

analysis assesses whether designation of 

critical habitat is likely to result in any 

additional management or conservation 

efforts that may incur incremental 

economic impacts. This screening 

analysis combined with the information 

contained in our IEM constitute what 

we consider to be our economic analysis 

of the proposed critical habitat 

designation for the four DPSs of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog; our 

economic analysis is summarized in the 

narrative below. 

As part of our screening analysis, we 

considered the types of economic 

activities that are likely to occur within 

the areas likely affected by the critical 

habitat designation. In our evaluation of 

the probable incremental economic 

impacts that may result from the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the four DPSs of the foothill yellowlegged frog, first we identified, in the 

IEM dated May 2023, probable 

incremental economic impacts 

associated with the following categories 

of activities: (1) altered hydrology and 

stream flows; (2) nonnative species 

predation and competition; (3) 

introduction and spread of disease; (4) 

wildfire prevention and suppression; (5) 

effects of climate change; and (6) 

anthropogenic activities and their 

effects (e.g., agriculture, urbanization, 

and recreation). We considered each 

industry or category individually. 

Additionally, we considered whether 

their activities have any Federal 

involvement. Critical habitat 

designation generally will not affect 

activities that do not have any Federal 

involvement; under the Act, designation 

of critical habitat affects only activities 

conducted, funded, permitted, or 

authorized by Federal agencies. In areas 

where any of the four listed DPSs of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog is present, 

Federal agencies would be required to 

consult with the Service under section 

7 of the Act on activities they authorize, 

fund, or carry out that may affect the 

species or its habitat. If we finalize this 

proposed critical habitat designation, 

Federal agencies would be required to 

consider the effects of their actions on 

the designated habitat, and if the 

Federal action may affect critical 

habitat, our consultations would 

include an evaluation of measures to 

avoid the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

In our IEM, we attempted to clarify 

the distinction between the effects that 

would result from the species being 

listed and those attributable to the 

critical habitat designation (i.e., 

difference between the jeopardy and 

adverse modification standards) for each 

of the four DPSs’ critical habitat. 

Because the designation of critical 

habitat for the four DPSs of the foothill 

yellow-legged frog is being proposed 

after a relatively short time after their 

final listing, it has been our experience 

that it is more difficult to discern which 

conservation efforts are attributable to 

the species being listed and those which 

will result solely from the designation of 

critical habitat. However, the following 

specific circumstances in this case help 

to inform our evaluation: (1) The 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3429 

essential physical or biological features 

identified for critical habitat are the 

same features essential for the life 

requisites of the species, and (2) any 

actions that would likely adversely 

affect the essential physical or biological 

features of occupied critical habitat are 

also likely to adversely affect the species 

itself. The IEM outlines our rationale 

concerning this limited distinction 

between baseline conservation efforts 

and incremental impacts of the 

designation of critical habitat for this 

species. This evaluation of the 

incremental effects has been used as the 

basis to evaluate the probable 

incremental economic impacts of this 

proposed designation of critical habitat. 

The proposed critical habitat 

designation for the four DPSs of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog includes 27 

occupied units, totaling approximately 

760,071 ac (307,590 ha). The lands 

being considered are Federal (47 

percent), State (5 percent), local 

government (0.4 percent), and private 

(49 percent) making up the remainder of 

land ownership. In these areas, any 

actions that may affect the species or its 

habitat would also affect the proposed 

critical habitat, and it is unlikely that 

any additional conservation efforts 

would be recommended to address the 

adverse modification standard over and 

above those recommended as necessary 

to avoid jeopardizing the continued 

existence of any of the four DPSs of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog. The entities 

most likely to incur incremental costs 

are parties to section 7 consultations, 

including Federal action agencies (such 

as the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of 

Land Management, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Army Corps of Engineers, 

and Federal Highway Administration) 

and, in some cases, third parties, most 

frequently State (transportation 

agencies) and private land owners and 

developers. While this additional 

analysis will require time and resources 

by both the Federal action agency and 

the Service, in most circumstances, 

these costs would predominantly be 

administrative in nature and would not 

be significant. 

The incremental costs for each 

technical assistance, informal, formal, 

and programmatic section 7 

consultation conducted is estimated to 

total $430, $2,700, $5,500, and $10,000, 

respectively, across all Federal and third 

party participants. These estimates 

assume that consultations would occur 

even in the absence of critical habitat 

due to the presence of the listed DPS 

and the amount of administrative effort 

to address critical habitat during this 

process is relatively minor. 

Applying these incremental costs to 

the estimated future consultations 

forecast, we estimate the incremental 

administrative costs of consultations 

pursuant to the proposed critical habitat 

for the four DPSs of the foothill yellowlegged frog is likely on the order of 

$346,500 per year (2023 dollars), 

including approximately $220,000 for 

formal consultations, $116,100 for 

informal consultations, and $10,400 for 

technical assistances. 

We are soliciting data and comments 

from the public on the economic 

analysis discussed above. During the 

development of a final designation, we 

will consider the information presented 

in the economic analysis and any 

additional information on economic 

impacts we receive during the public 

comment period to determine whether 

any specific areas should be excluded 

from the final critical habitat 

designation under authority of section 

4(b)(2) of the Act, our implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.19, and the 

2016 Policy. We may exclude an area 

from critical habitat if we determine that 

the benefits of excluding the area 

outweigh the benefits of including the 

area, provided the exclusion will not 

result in the extinction of this species. 

Consideration of National Security 

Impacts 

Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may 

not cover all DoD lands or areas that 

pose potential national-security 

concerns (e.g., a DoD installation that is 

in the process of revising its INRMP for 

a newly listed species or a species 

previously not covered). If a particular 

area is not covered under section 

4(a)(3)(B)(i), then national-security or 

homeland-security concerns are not a 

factor in the process of determining 

what areas meet the definition of 

‘‘critical habitat.’’ However, the Service 

must still consider impacts on national 

security, including homeland security, 

on those lands or areas not covered by 

section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) because section 

4(b)(2) requires the Service to consider 

those impacts whenever it designates 

critical habitat. Accordingly, if DoD, the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), or another Federal agency has 

requested exclusion based on an 

assertion of national-security or 

homeland-security concerns, or we have 

otherwise identified national-security or 

homeland-security impacts from 

designating particular areas as critical 

habitat, we generally have reason to 

consider excluding those areas. 

However, we cannot automatically 

exclude requested areas. When DoD, 

DHS, or another Federal agency requests 

exclusion from critical habitat on the 

basis of national-security or homelandsecurity impacts, we must conduct an 

exclusion analysis if the Federal 

requester provides information, 

including a reasonably specific 

justification of an incremental impact 

on national security that would result 

from the designation of that specific 

area as critical habitat. That justification 

could include demonstration of 

probable impacts, such as impacts to 

ongoing border-security patrols and 

surveillance activities, or a delay in 

training or facility construction, as a 

result of compliance with section 7(a)(2) 

of the Act. If the agency requesting the 

exclusion does not provide us with a 

reasonably specific justification, we will 

contact the agency to recommend that it 

provide a specific justification or 

clarification of its concerns relative to 

the probable incremental impact that 

could result from the designation. If we 

conduct an exclusion analysis because 

the agency provides a reasonably 

specific justification or because we 

decide to exercise the discretion to 

conduct an exclusion analysis, we will 

defer to the expert judgment of DoD, 

DHS, or another Federal agency as to: 

(1) Whether activities on its lands or 

waters, or its activities on other lands or 

waters, have national-security or 

homeland-security implications; (2) the 

importance of those implications; and 

(3) the degree to which the cited 

implications would be adversely 

affected in the absence of an exclusion. 

In that circumstance, in conducting a 

discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion 

analysis, we will give great weight to 

national-security and homeland-security 

concerns in analyzing the benefits of 

exclusion. 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

also consider whether a national 

security or homeland security impact 

might exist on lands owned or managed 

by DoD or DHS. In preparing this 

proposal, we have determined that, 

other than the land exempted under 

section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act based 

upon the existence of an approved 

INRMP (see Exemptions, above), the 

lands within the proposed designation 

of critical habitat for any of the four 

DPSs of the foothill yellow-legged frog 

are not owned or managed by DoD or 

DHS. Therefore, we anticipate no 

impact on national security or 

homeland security. 

Consideration of Other Relevant 

Impacts 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

consider any other relevant impacts, in 

addition to economic impacts and 

impacts on national security discussed 

above. To identify other relevant 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
3430 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

impacts that may affect the exclusion 

analysis, we consider a number of 

factors, including whether there are 

approved and permitted conservation 

agreements or plans covering the 

species in the area—such as safe harbor 

agreements (SHAs), candidate 

conservation agreements with 

assurances (CCAAs) or ‘‘conservation 

benefit agreements’’ or ‘‘conservation 

agreements’’ (CBAs) (CBAs are a new 

type of agreement replacing SHAs and 

CCAAs in use after April 2024 (89 FR 

26070; April 12, 2024)) or HCPs—or 

whether there are non-permitted 

conservation agreements and 

partnerships that may be impaired by 

designation of, or exclusion from, 

critical habitat. In addition, we look at 

whether Tribal conservation plans or 

partnerships, Tribal resources, or 

government-to-government 

relationships of the United States with 

Tribal entities may be affected by the 

designation. We also consider any State, 

local, social, or other impacts that might 

occur because of the designation. 

When analyzing other relevant 

impacts of including a particular area in 

a designation of critical habitat, we 

weigh those impacts relative to the 

conservation value of the particular 

area. To determine the conservation 

value of designating a particular area, 

we consider a number of factors, 

including, but not limited to, the 

additional regulatory benefits that the 

area would receive due to the protection 

from destruction or adverse 

modification as a result of actions with 

a Federal nexus, the educational 

benefits of mapping essential habitat for 

recovery of the listed species, and any 

benefits that may result from a 

designation due to State or Federal laws 

that may apply to critical habitat. 

In the case of the four DPSs of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog, the benefits 

of critical habitat include public 

awareness of the presence of foothill 

yellow-legged frog and the importance 

of habitat protection, and, where a 

Federal nexus exists, increased habitat 

protection for the foothill yellow-legged 

frog due to protection from destruction 

or adverse modification of critical 

habitat. Continued implementation of 

an ongoing management plan that 

provides conservation equal to or more 

than the protections that result from a 

critical habitat designation would 

reduce those benefits of including that 

specific area in the critical habitat 

designation. 

After identifying the benefits of 

inclusion and the benefits of exclusion, 

we carefully weigh the two sides to 

evaluate whether the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. 

If our analysis indicates that the benefits 

of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion, we then determine whether 

exclusion would result in extinction of 

the species. If exclusion of an area from 

critical habitat will result in extinction, 

we will not exclude it from the 

designation. 

Private or Other Non-Federal 

Conservation Plans Related to Permits 

Under Section 10 of the Act 

As mentioned above, as part of our 

4(b)(2) analysis, we consider whether 

there are approved and permitted 

conservation agreements or plans 

covering the species in the area such 

SHAs, CCAAs, CBAs or HCPs. Under 

sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of 

the Act, non-federal entities may 

develop these agreements or plans when 

they seek authorization for take that 

may otherwise be prohibited under 

section 9 through an enhancement of 

survival (EOS) or incidental take permit 

(ITP), respectively. 

Property owners seeking an EOS 

permit collaborate with the Service to 

develop a CBA to support the 

application. The EOS permit authorizes 

take associated with implementing the 

agreement and ongoing land 

management activities that provide a net 

conservation benefit to the covered 

species. The CBA replaces two previous 

types of voluntary agreements (SHAs 

and CCAAs) going forward for new 

agreements after May 2024. However, 

permitted SHAs and CCAAs or those 

noticed in the Federal Register prior to 

May 2024 remain in effect. 

For incidental take permits issued 

under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 

applicants are required to develop a 

conservation plan, more commonly 

known as an HCP to support their 

application. ITPs authorize take that is 

incidental to, but not the purpose of, 

carrying out otherwise lawful activities 

provided that the impact of the taking 

is minimized and mitigated to the 

maximum extent practicable. 

For both section 10(a)(1)(A) and 

10(a)(1)(B) permits, we provide 

permittees with assurances. In the case 

of 10(a)(1)(A) permits, we may not 

require additional or different 

conservation measures to be undertaken 

by a permittee without the consent of 

the permittee. In the case of section 

10(a)(1)(B), we will not impose further 

land-, water-, or resource-use 

restrictions, or require additional 

commitments of land, water, or 

finances, beyond those agreed to in the 

HCP. 

We place great value on the 

partnerships that are developed during 

the preparation and implementation of 

conservation plans and agreements. In 

some cases, permittees agree to do more 

for the conservation of the species and 

their habitats on private lands than 

designation of critical habitat would 

provide alone. 

When we undertake a discretionary 

section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis based 

on conservation plans or agreements, we 

anticipate consistently excluding such 

areas if incidental take caused by the 

activities in those areas is covered by 

the permit under section 10 of the Act 

and the plan meets all of the following 

three factors (See the 2016 Policy for 

additional details. Because combining 

types of agreements such as SHAs and 

CCAAs into the term ‘‘CBAs’’ is a recent 

development (see 89 FR 26070; April 

12, 2024), the 2016 Policy did not 

expressly reference CBAs. However, 

because CBAs replace CCAAs and 

SHAs, moving forward we treat CBAs 

similarly to how we treat CCAAs/SHAs/ 

HCPs described below): 

a. The permittee is properly 

implementing the CBA/HCP and is 

expected to continue to do so for the 

term of the agreement. A CBA/HCP is 

properly implemented if the permittee 

is and has been fully implementing the 

commitments and provisions in the 

CBA/HCP, implementing agreement, 

and permit. 

b. The species for which critical 

habitat is being designated is a covered 

species in the CBA/HCP, or very similar 

in its habitat requirements to a covered 

species. The recognition that the Service 

extends to such an agreement depends 

on the degree to which the conservation 

measures undertaken in the CBA/HCP 

would also protect the habitat features 

of the similar species. 

c. The CBA/HCP specifically 

addresses that species’ habitat and 

meets the conservation needs of the 

species in the planning area. 

The proposed critical habitat 

designation includes areas that are 

covered by a joint Federal and State 

habitat conservation plan (HCP) and 

California State natural community 

conservation plan (NCCP) (Santa Clara 

Valley HCP/NCCP) that has been 

approved and implemented for the 

Central Coast DPS of the foothill yellowlegged frog as a covered species and 

assists in local population and habitat 

conservation and restoration (ICF 

International 2012, entire). 

Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation 

Plan/Natural Community Conservation 

Plan 

The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan 

(Plan) was permitted in 2012 and 

provides a framework for promoting the 

protection and recovery of natural 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3431 

resources, including endangered 

species, while streamlining the 

permitting process for planned 

development, infrastructure, and 

maintenance activities (ICF 

International 2012, entire). The foothill 

yellow-legged frog is a covered species 

under the joint Federal and State plan. 

The plan covers a 519,506-ac (210,237- 

ha) area in Santa Clara County in the 

Central California Coast Range and 

includes measures for species 

management and habitat protection. 

Covered activities in the plan fall into 

seven general categories and include 

urban development, in-stream capital 

projects, in-stream operations and 

maintenance, rural capital projects, 

rural operations and maintenance, rural 

development, and conservation strategy 

implementation (i.e., activities within 

the lands managed, enhanced, restored, 

and monitored to conserve the natural 

resources targeted by the plan). 

Measures identified for conservation of 

the foothill yellow-legged frog provided 

in the plan and being implemented 

include land acquisition and protection; 

habitat management; survey and 

monitoring; stream flow management; 

and habitat enhancement, restoration, 

and creation. 

The Santa Clara Valley HCP/NCCP 

has gone through the appropriate 

approval processes from the Service and 

CDFW as well as through necessary 

public participation; the conservation 

actions identified in the plan have been 

implemented and protect, conserve, and 

enhance the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the Central Coast DPS of the foothill 

yellow-legged frog; and the HCP/NCCP 

contains an adaptive management, 

monitoring, and reporting program to 

ensure the conservation measures are 

effective and can be modified in the 

future in response to new information. 

After considering the factors described 

above, we have reason to consider 

excluding the approximately 57,910 ac 

(23,435 ha) of critical habitat within the 

Central Coast DPS that occurs in the 

Santa Clara Valley HCP/NCCP planning 

area from the final designation. 

Summary of Exclusions Considered 

Under 4(b)(2) of the Act 

We have reason to consider excluding 

the following areas under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act from the final critical habitat 

designation for the Central Coast DPS of 

the foothill yellow-legged frog. Table 3 

below provides approximate areas (ac, 

ha) of lands that meet the definition of 

critical habitat but for which we are 

considering possible exclusion under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final 

critical habitat rule. In total, we have 

identified approximately 57,910 ac 

(23,435 ha) of proposed critical habitat 

to consider for exclusion under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act. 

TABLE 3—AREAS CONSIDERED FOR EXCLUSION FOR THE CENTRAL COAST DPS OF THE FOOTHILL YELLOW-LEGGED FROG

BY PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT

Unit 

Areas meeting the 

definition of critical 

habitat, in acres 

(hectares) 

Areas considered 

for possible 

exclusion, in acres 

(hectares) 

Reasons for considering exclusion 

4 ............................................................................ 63,907 (25,862) 6,604 (2,673) Santa Clara Valley HCP/NCCP. 

5 ............................................................................ 40,371 (16,337) 40,386 (16,344) 

6 subunit a ............................................................ 7,772 (3,145) 1,474 (597) 

6 subunit b ............................................................ 9,459 (3,828) 9,446 (3,823) 

Total ............................................................... ................................ 57,910 (23,435) 

In conclusion, for this proposed rule, 

we have reason to consider excluding 

the areas identified above from the final 

designation based on other relevant 

impacts. We specifically solicit 

comments on the inclusion or exclusion 

of such areas. We also solicit comments 

on whether there are potential 

economic, national security, or other 

relevant impacts from designating any 

other particular areas as critical habitat. 

As part of developing the final 

designation of critical habitat, we will 

evaluate the information we receive 

regarding potential impacts from 

designating the areas described above or 

any other particular areas, and we may 

conduct a discretionary exclusion 

analysis to determine whether to 

exclude those areas under authority of 

section 4(b)(2) and our implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. If we 

receive a request for exclusion of a 

particular area and after evaluation of 

supporting information we do not 

exclude, we will fully describe our 

decision in the final rule for this action. 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by E.O.s 12866 and 

12988 and by the Presidential 

Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write 

all rules in plain language. This means 

that each rule we publish must: 

(1) Be logically organized; 

(2) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(3) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(4) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(5) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To 

better help us revise the rule, your 

comments should be as specific as 

possible. For example, you should tell 

us the numbers of the sections or 

paragraphs that are unclearly written, 

which sections or sentences are too 

long, the sections where you feel lists or 

tables would be useful, etc. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

14094) 

Executive Order (E.O.) 14094 

reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 

and E.O. 13563 and states that 

regulatory analysis should facilitate 

agency efforts to develop regulations 

that serve the public interest, advance 

statutory objectives, and are consistent 

with E.O.s 12866, 13563, and 14094. 

Regulatory analysis, as practicable and 

appropriate, shall recognize distributive 

impacts and equity, to the extent 

permitted by law. Executive Order 

13563 emphasizes further that 

regulations must be based on the best 

available science and that the 

rulemaking process must allow for 

public participation and an open 

exchange of ideas. We have developed 

this proposed rule in a manner 

consistent with these requirements. 

Executive Order 12866, as reaffirmed 

by E.O. 13563 and amended by E.O. 

14094, provides that the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
3432 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

(OIRA) in the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) will review all significant 

rules. OIRA has determined that this 

rulemaking action is not significant. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA; title II of Pub. L. 104–121, 

March 29, 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 (i.e., 

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. 

The SBREFA amended the RFA to 

require Federal agencies to provide a 

certification statement of the factual 

basis for certifying that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration, small entities include 

small organizations such as 

independent nonprofit organizations; 

small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; and 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 

whether 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. 

Under the RFA, as amended, and as 

understood in light of recent court 

decisions, Federal agencies are required 

to evaluate the potential incremental 

impacts of rulemaking on those entities 

directly regulated by the rulemaking 

itself; in other words, the RFA does not 

require agencies to evaluate the 

potential impacts to indirectly regulated 

entities. The regulatory mechanism 

through which critical habitat 

protections are realized is section 7 of 

the Act, which requires Federal 

agencies, in consultation with the 

Service, to ensure that any action 

authorized, funded, or carried out by the 

agency is not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. 

Therefore, under section 7, only Federal 

action agencies are directly subject to 

the specific regulatory requirement 

(avoiding destruction and adverse 

modification) imposed by critical 

habitat designation. Consequently, only 

Federal action agencies would be 

directly regulated if we adopt the 

proposed critical habitat designation. 

The RFA does not require evaluation of 

the potential impacts to entities not 

directly regulated. Moreover, Federal 

agencies are not small entities. 

Therefore, because no small entities 

would be directly regulated by this 

rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if 

made final as proposed, the proposed 

critical habitat designation will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

In summary, we have considered 

whether the proposed designation 

would result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. For the above reasons and 

based on currently available 

information, we certify that, if made 

final, the proposed critical habitat 

designation would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small business entities. 

Therefore, an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— 

Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211 (Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) requires agencies 

to prepare statements of energy effects 

when ‘‘to the extent permitted by law’’ 

when undertaking actions identified as 

significant energy actions (66 FR 28355; 

May 22, 2001). Executive Order 13211 

defines a ‘‘significant energy action’’ as, 

among other things, an action that (i) 

meets the definition of a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under E.O. 12866, as 

amended by E.O. 14094; and (ii) is 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. This rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under E.O. 12866 as 

amended by E.O. 14094 (88 FR 21879; 

April 11, 2023). Therefore, this action is 

not a significant energy action, and 

there is no requirement to prepare a 

statement of energy effects for this 

action. 

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 finding: 

(1) This proposed rule would 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, or 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; Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children 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 are not 

likely to destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat under section 7. While 

non-Federal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3433 

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 onto State 

governments. 

(2) We do not believe that this rule 

would significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments because the 

government lands being proposed for 

critical habitat are owned by Santa Clara 

County, the State of California, the 

Bureau of Land Management, and the 

U.S. Forest Service, and none of these 

government entities fits the definition of 

‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’ In 

addition, the designation will not 

produce a Federal mandate of $100 

million or greater in any year, and, 

therefore, 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 and, as 

such, a small government agency plan is 

not required. 

Takings—Executive Order 12630 

In accordance with E.O. 12630 

(Government Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Private 

Property Rights), we have analyzed the 

potential takings implications of 

designating critical habitat for the four 

DPSs of the foothill yellow-legged frog 

in a takings implications assessment. 

The Act does not authorize the Service 

to regulate private actions on private 

lands or confiscate private property as a 

result of critical habitat designation. 

Designation of critical habitat does not 

affect land ownership, or establish any 

closures, or restrictions on use of or 

access to the designated areas. 

Furthermore, the designation of critical 

habitat does not affect landowner 

actions that do not require Federal 

funding or permits, nor does it preclude 

development of habitat conservation 

programs or issuance of incidental take 

permits to permit actions that do require 

Federal funding or permits to go 

forward. However, Federal agencies are 

prohibited from carrying out, funding, 

or authorizing actions that would 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. A takings implications 

assessment has been completed for the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the foothill yellow-legged frog, and 

it concludes that, if adopted, this 

designation of critical habitat does not 

pose significant takings implications for 

lands within or affected by the 

designation. 

Federalism—Executive Order 13132 

In accordance with E.O. 13132 

(Federalism), this proposed rule does 

not have significant federalism effects. 

A federalism summary impact statement 

is not required. In keeping with 

Department of the Interior and 

Department of Commerce policy, we 

requested information from, and 

coordinated development of this 

proposed critical habitat designation 

with, appropriate State resource 

agencies. From a federalism perspective, 

the designation of critical habitat 

directly affects only the responsibilities 

of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no 

other duties with respect to critical 

habitat, either for States and local 

governments, or for anyone else. As a 

result, the proposed rule does not have 

substantial direct effects either on the 

States, or on the relationship between 

the Federal Government and the States, 

or on the distribution of powers and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The proposed 

designation may have some benefit to 

these governments because the areas 

that contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species are more 

clearly defined, and the physical or 

biological features of the habitat 

necessary for the conservation of the 

species are specifically identified. This 

information does not alter where and 

what federally sponsored activities may 

occur. However, it may assist State and 

local governments in long-range 

planning because they no longer have to 

wait for case-by-case section 7 

consultations to occur. 

Where State and local governments 

require approval or authorization from a 

Federal agency for actions that may 

affect critical habitat, consultation 

under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would 

be required. While non-Federal entities 

that receive Federal funding, assistance, 

or permits, or that 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. 

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 

12988 

In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil 

Justice Reform), the Office of the 

Solicitor has determined that the rule 

would not unduly burden the judicial 

system and that it meets the 

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of the Order. We have proposed 

designating critical habitat in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Act. To assist the public in 

understanding the habitat needs of the 

species, this proposed rule identifies the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. The 

proposed areas of critical habitat are 

presented on maps, and the proposed 

rule provides several options for the 

interested public to obtain more 

detailed location information, if desired. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain 

information collection requirements, 

and a submission to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not required. 

We may not conduct or sponsor and you 

are not required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

Regulations adopted pursuant to 

section 4(a) of the Act are exempt from 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and do 

not require an environmental analysis 

under NEPA. We published a notice 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This 

includes listing, delisting, and 

reclassification rules, as well as critical 

habitat designations and speciesspecific protective regulations 

promulgated concurrently with a 

decision to list or reclassify a species as 

threatened. The courts have upheld this 

position (e.g., Douglas County v. 

Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(critical habitat); Center for Biological 

Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2005 WL 2000928 (N.D. Cal. 

Aug. 19, 2005) (concurrent 4(d) rule)). 

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), E.O. 13175 

(Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments), and the 

Department of the Interior’s manual at 

512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 

responsibility to communicate 

meaningfully with federally recognized 

Tribes on a government-to-government 

basis. In accordance with Secretary’s 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
3434 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American 

Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal 

Trust Responsibilities, and the 

Endangered Species Act), we readily 

acknowledge our responsibilities to 

work directly with Tribes in developing 

programs for healthy ecosystems, to 

acknowledge that Tribal lands are not 

subject to the same controls as Federal 

public lands, to remain sensitive to 

Indian culture, and to make information 

available to Tribes. During the 

development of the SSA report for the 

foothill yellow-legged frog, we asked for 

information and concerns from all the 

federally recognized Tribes in the range 

of the species in Oregon and California. 

We did not receive any information 

regarding the foothill yellow-legged frog 

from any Tribe. We will continue to 

work with Tribal entities during the 

development of a final rule for the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

four DPSs of the foothill yellow-legged 

frog. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at https://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Sacramento 

Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are the staff members of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s Species 

Assessment Team and staff from the 

Sacramento and Ventura Fish and 

Wildlife Offices. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. In § 17.11, amend paragraph (h) in 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife under Amphibians by revising 

the entries for ‘‘Frog, foothill yellowlegged [Central Coast DPS]’’, ‘‘Frog, 

foothill yellow-legged [North Feather 

DPS]’’, ‘‘Frog, foothill yellow-legged 

[South Coast DPS]’’, and ‘‘Frog, foothill 

yellow-legged [South Sierra DPS]’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable rules 

*******

AMPHIBIANS

* * * * * * * 

Frog, foothill yellow-legged [Central Coast DPS].Rana boylii ........................ California (All foothill 

yellow-legged frogs 

in the Central Coast 

Range south of San 

Francisco Bay to 

San Benito and 

Fresno Counties).

T 88 FR 59698, 8/29/2023; 50 CFR 

17.43(g);4d 50 CFR 17.95(d).CH

Frog, foothill yellow-legged [North 

Feather DPS].

Rana boylii ........................ California (All foothill 

yellow-legged frogs 

in the North Feather River watershed 

largely in Plumas 

and Butte Counties).

T 88 FR 59698, 8/29/2023; 50 CFR 

17.43(g);4d 50 CFR 17.95(d).CH

Frog, foothill yellow-legged 

[South Coast DPS].

Rana boylii ........................ California (All foothill 

yellow-legged frogs 

in the Coast Range 

from Coastal Monterey County south 

to Los Angeles 

County).

E 88 FR 59698, 8/29/2023; 50 CFR 

17.95(d).CH

Frog, foothill yellow-legged 

[South Sierra DPS].

Rana boylii ........................ California (All foothill 

yellow-legged frogs 

in the Sierra Nevada Mountains 

south of the American River subbasin south to the 

Transverse Range 

in Kern County).

E 88 FR 59698, 8/29/2023; 50 CFR 

17.95(d).CH

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 17.95 in paragraph (d) by 

adding: 

■ a. An entry for ‘‘Foothill YellowLegged Frog (Rana boylii), Central Coast 

DPS’’ after the entry for ‘‘Dusky Gopher 

Frog (Rana sevosa)’’; 

■ b. An entry for ‘‘Foothill YellowLegged Frog (Rana boylii), North Feather 

DPS’’ after the new entry for ‘‘Foothill 

Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii), 

Central Coast DPS’’; 

■ c. An entry for ‘‘Foothill YellowLegged Frog (Rana boylii), South Coast 

DPS’’ after the new entry for ‘‘Foothill 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3435 

Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii), North 

Feather DPS’’; and 

■ d. An entry for ‘‘Foothill YellowLegged Frog (Rana boylii), South Sierra 

DPS’’ after the new entry for ‘‘Foothill 

Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii), South 

Coast DPS’’. 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(d) Amphibians. 

* * * * * 

Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana 

boylii), Central Coast DPS 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Alameda, Fresno, San Benito, Santa 

Clara, Santa Cruz, and Stanislaus 

Counties, California, on the maps in this 

entry. 

(2) Within these areas, the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of foothill yellow-legged 

frog consist of the following 

components: 

(i) Aquatic stream habitat. (A) Stream 

reaches with a hydrological pattern 

(including appropriate stream velocity, 

water depth, water temperature, 

streambed substrate, and geomorphic 

heterogeneity) capable of supporting 

foothill yellow-legged frog breeding and 

rearing. Suitable stream reaches 

typically contain a wide and shallow 

channel morphology, an intermittent 

canopy, and rocky substrate that is 

cobble-sized or larger. These features 

provide habitat for breeding, feeding, 

and reproduction and in some cases 

general aquatic or overwintering habitat 

for the foothill yellow-legged frog. 

(B) Tributary (nonbreeding) habitat 

adjacent to and accessible from breeding 

and rearing habitat. Suitable tributary 

habitats typically contain sources of 

invertebrate prey, intermittent canopy, 

thermally stable microsites, and moist 

overwintering refugia protected from 

scouring winter flows. These refugia 

may include springs, seeps, pools, 

woody debris, root wads, undercut 

banks, clumps of sedges, and rocks. 

(ii) Terrestrial and dispersal habitat. 

(A) Upland habitat adjacent to and 

accessible from breeding, rearing, and 

tributary habitat as identified in 

paragraphs (2)(i)(A) and (B) of this 

entry. Suitable upland habitats typically 

contain sources of invertebrate prey, 

intermittent canopy, thermally stable 

microsites, and moist overwintering 

refugia. These refugia may include 

nonstream pools, woody debris, root 

wads, clumps of sedges, and large 

boulders or debris. 

(B) Dispersal habitat comprising 

permanent or ephemeral water channels 

and adjacent uplands that connect 

breeding and overwintering habitat 

sites. Suitable dispersal habitat does not 

need to hold moisture for extended 

periods. Suitable dispersal habitat 

typically connects areas containing 

intermittent canopy, interstitial spaces 

for sheltering, and sources of 

invertebrate prey. Additionally, suitable 

dispersal habitat is free from large 

physical barriers, hydrological barriers 

(e.g., dams, reservoirs, and rivers with 

highly altered flow regimes), and areas 

with high exposure to predators. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures (such as buildings, 

aqueducts, runways, roads, and other 

paved areas) and the land on which they 

are located existing within the legal 

boundaries on the effective date of the 

final rule. 

(4) Data layers defining map units 

were created using the National 

Hydrography Dataset and California 

Natural Diversity Database occurrence 

records and other survey information. 

The critical habitat units were then 

mapped using Universal Transverse 

Mercator Zone 10N and 11N 

coordinates. The maps in this entry, as 

modified by any accompanying 

regulatory text, establish the boundaries 

of the critical habitat designation. The 

coordinates or plot points or both on 

which each map is based are available 

to the public at https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R8–ES–2023–0157, and at the 

field office responsible for this 

designation. You may obtain field office 

location information by contacting one 

of the Service regional offices, the 

addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 

2.2. 

(5) Unit CC–1a: Central Coast DPS— 

Corral Hollow Creek, Alameda County, 

California. 

(i) Unit CC–1a consists of 4,483 ac 

(1,814 ha) in Alameda County and is 

composed entirely of private ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit CC–1a follows: 

Figure 1 to Central Coast DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (5)(ii) 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
3436 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

(6) Unit CC–1b: Central Coast DPS— 

Lower Arroyo Mocho, Alameda County, 

California. 

(i) Unit CC–1b consists of 7,571 ac 

(3,064 ha) in Alameda County and is 

composed of local government (6 ac (3 

ha)) and private (7,564 ac (3,061 ha)) 

ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit CC–1b follows: 

Figure 2 to Central Coast DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (6)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3437 

(7) Unit CC–1c: Central Coast DPS— 

Upper Arroyo Mocho, Alameda County, 

California. 

(i) Unit CC–1c consists of 4,541 ac 

(1,838 ha) in Alameda County and is 

composed entirely of private ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit CC–1c follows: 

Figure 3 to Central Coast DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (7)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.005</GPH>
3438 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

(8) Unit CC–1d: Central Coast DPS— 

Colorado Creek, Santa Clara and 

Stanislaus Counties, California. 

(i) Unit CC–1d consists of 4,698 ac 

(1,901 ha) in Santa Clara and Stanislaus 

Counties and is composed entirely of 

private ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit CC–1d follows: 

Figure 4 to Central Coast DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (8)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3439 

(9) Unit CC–1e: Central Coast DPS— 

Del Puerto Creek, Stanislaus County, 

California. 

(i) Unit CC–1e consists of 12,395 ac 

(5,016 ha) in Stanislaus County and is 

composed of Federal 414 ac (168 ha)) 

and private (11,981 ac (4,849 ha)) 

ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit CC–1e follows: 

Figure 5 to Central Coast DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (9)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.007</GPH>
3440 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

(10) Unit CC–2: Central Coast DPS— 

Robison Creek, Stanislaus County, 

California. 

(i) Unit CC–2 consists of 6,977 ac 

(2,824 ha) in Stanislaus County and is 

composed of Federal (5,139 ac (2,080 

ha)) and private (1,838 ac (744 ha)) 

ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit CC–2 follows: 

Figure 6 to Central Coast DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (10)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3441 

(11) Unit CC–3: Central Coast DPS— 

Orestimba Creek, Stanislaus County, 

California. 

(i) Unit CC–3 consists of 4,541 ac 

(1,838 ha) in Stanislaus County and is 

composed entirely of private ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit CC–3 follows: 

Figure 7 to Central Coast DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (11)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.009</GPH>
3442 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

(12) Unit CC–4: Central Coast DPS— 

Alameda Creek, Arroyo Hondo, and 

Upper Penitencia, Alameda and Santa 

Clara Counties, California. 

(i) Unit CC–4 consists of 63,907 ac 

(25,862 ha) in Alameda and Santa Clara 

Counties and is composed of State 

(2,828 ac (1,144 ha)), local government 

(1,871 ac (757 ha)), and private (59,208 

ac (23,961 ha)) ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit CC–4 follows: 

Figure 8 to Central Coast DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (12)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3443 

(13) Unit CC–5: Central Coast DPS— 

Coyote Creek, Santa Clara County, 

California. 

(i) Unit CC–5 consists of 40,370 ac 

(16,337 ha) in Santa Clara County and 

is composed of Federal (643 ac (260 

ha)), State (16,251 ac (6,576 ha)), local 

government (255 ac (103 ha)), and 

private (23,222 ac (9,398 ha)) 

ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit CC–5 follows: 

Figure 9 to Central Coast DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (13)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.011</GPH>
3444 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

(14) Unit CC–6a: Central Coast DPS— 

Guadalupe and Rincon Creeks, Santa 

Clara County, California. 

(i) Unit CC–6a consists of 7,772 ac 

(3,145 ha) in Santa Clara County and is 

composed of local government (1,100 ac 

(445 ha)) and private (6,672 ac (2,700 

ha)) ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit CC–6a follows: 

Figure 10 to Central Coast DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (14)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.012</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3445 

(15) Unit CC–6b: Central Coast DPS— 

Llagas Creek, Santa Clara County, 

California. 

(i) Unit CC–6b consists of 9,459 ac 

(3,828 ha) in Santa Clara County and is 

composed entirely of private ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit CC–6b follows: 

Figure 11 to Central Coast DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (15)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.013</GPH>
3446 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

(16) Unit CC–7: Central Coast DPS— 

Soquel and Bridge Creeks, Santa Cruz 

and Santa Clara Counties, California. 

(i) Unit CC–7 consists of 19,490 ac 

(7,887 ha) in Santa Cruz and Santa Clara 

Counties and is composed of State 

(5,689 ac (2,302 ha)) and private (13,800 

ac (5,585 ha)) ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit CC–7 follows: 

Figure 12 to Central Coast DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (16)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.014</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3447 

(17) Unit CC–8: Central Coast DPS— 

Goat Mountain, Fresno and San Benito 

Counties, California. 

(i) Unit CC–8 consists of 63,739 ac 

(25,794 ha) in Fresno and San Benito 

Counties and is composed of Federal 

(38,953 ac (15,764 ha)), State (1,804 (730 

ha)), and private (22,981 ac (9,300 ha)) 

ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit CC–8 follows: 

Figure 13 to Central Coast DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (17)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.015</GPH>
3448 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana 

boylii), North Feather DPS 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Butte and Plumas Counties, 

California, on the maps in this entry. 

(2) Within these areas, the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of foothill yellow-legged 

frog consist of the following 

components: 

(i) Aquatic stream habitat. (A) Stream 

reaches with a hydrological pattern 

(including appropriate stream velocity, 

water depth, water temperature, 

streambed substrate, and geomorphic 

heterogeneity) capable of supporting 

foothill yellow-legged frog breeding and 

rearing. Suitable stream reaches 

typically contain a wide and shallow 

channel morphology, an intermittent 

canopy, and rocky substrate that is 

cobble-sized or larger. These features 

provide habitat for breeding, feeding, 

and reproduction and in some cases 

general aquatic or overwintering habitat 

for the foothill yellow-legged frog. 

(B) Tributary (nonbreeding) habitat 

adjacent to and accessible from breeding 

and rearing habitat. Suitable tributary 

habitats typically contain sources of 

invertebrate prey, intermittent canopy, 

thermally stable microsites, and moist 

overwintering refugia protected from 

scouring winter flows. These refugia 

may include springs, seeps, pools, 

woody debris, root wads, undercut 

banks, clumps of sedges, and rocks. 

(ii) Terrestrial and dispersal habitat. 

(A) Upland habitat adjacent to and 

accessible from breeding, rearing, and 

tributary habitat as identified in 

paragraphs (2)(i)(A) and (B) of this 

entry. Suitable upland habitats typically 

contain sources of invertebrate prey, 

intermittent canopy, thermally stable 

microsites, and moist overwintering 

refugia. These refugia may include 

nonstream pools, woody debris, root 

wads, clumps of sedges, and large 

boulders or debris. 

(B) Dispersal habitat comprising 

permanent or ephemeral water channels 

and adjacent uplands that connect 

breeding and overwintering habitat 

sites. Suitable dispersal habitat does not 

need to hold moisture for extended 

periods. Suitable dispersal habitat 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.016</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3449 

typically connects areas containing 

intermittent canopy, interstitial spaces 

for sheltering, and sources of 

invertebrate prey. Additionally, suitable 

dispersal habitat is free from large 

physical barriers, hydrological barriers 

(e.g., dams, reservoirs, and rivers with 

highly altered flow regimes), and areas 

with high exposure to predators. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures (such as buildings, 

aqueducts, runways, roads, and other 

paved areas) and the land on which they 

are located existing within the legal 

boundaries on the effective date of the 

final rule. 

(4) Data layers defining map units 

were created using the National 

Hydrography Dataset and California 

Natural Diversity Database occurrence 

records and other survey information. 

The critical habitat units were then 

mapped using Universal Transverse 

Mercator Zone 10N and 11N 

coordinates. The maps in this entry, as 

modified by any accompanying 

regulatory text, establish the boundaries 

of the critical habitat designation. The 

coordinates or plot points or both on 

which each map is based are available 

to the public at https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R8–ES–2023–0157, and at the 

field office responsible for this 

designation. You may obtain field office 

location information by contacting one 

of the Service regional offices, the 

addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 

2.2. 

(5) Unit NF–1: North Feather DPS— 

North Fork Feather River and Butte 

Creek, Butte and Plumas Counties, 

California. 

(i) Unit NF–1 consists of 99,433 ac 

(40,239 ha) in Butte and Plumas 

Counties and is composed of Federal 

(30,116 ac (12,188 ha)), State (383 ac 

(155 ha)) and private (68,934 ac (27,897 

ha)) land ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit NF–1 follows: 

Figure 1 to North Feather DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (5)(ii) 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.017</GPH>
3450 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

(6) Unit NF–2: North Feather DPS— 

Middle Fork Feather River, Plumas and 

Butte Counties, California. 

(i) Unit NF–2 consists of 77,145 ac 

(31,219 ha) in Plumas and Butte 

Counties and is composed of Federal 

(69,251 ac (28,025 ha)), State (447 ac 

(181 ha)), and private (7,446 ac (3,013 

ha)) land ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit NF–2 follows: 

Figure 2 to North Feather DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (6)(ii) 

(7) Unit NF–3: North Feather DPS— 

South Fork Feather River, Plumas and 

Butte Counties, California. 

(i) Unit NF–3 consists of 11,186 ac 

(4,527 ac) in Plumas and Butte Counties 

and is composed of Federal (4,645 ac 

(1,880 ha)) and private (6,541 ac (2,647 

ha)) land ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit NF–3 follows: 

Figure 3 to North Feather DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (7)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.018</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3451 

(8) Unit NF–4: North Feather DPS— 

Clear Creek, Butte County, California. 

(i) Unit NF–4 consists of 4,512 ac 

(1,826 ha) in Butte County and is 

composed of Federal (32 ac (13 ha)) and 

private (4,480 ac (1,813 ha)) land 

ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit NF–4 follows: 

Figure 4 to North Feather DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (8)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.019</GPH>
3452 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana 

boylii), South Coast DPS 

(1) A critical habitat unit is depicted 

for Monterey and San Luis Obispo 

Counties, California, on the map in this 

entry. 

(2) Within these areas, the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of foothill yellow-legged 

frog consist of the following 

components: 

(i) Aquatic stream habitat. (A) Stream 

reaches with a hydrological pattern 

(including appropriate stream velocity, 

water depth, water temperature, 

streambed substrate, and geomorphic 

heterogeneity) capable of supporting 

foothill yellow-legged frog breeding and 

rearing. Suitable stream reaches 

typically contain a wide and shallow 

channel morphology, an intermittent 

canopy, and rocky substrate that is 

cobble-sized or larger. These features 

provide habitat for breeding, feeding, 

and reproduction and in some cases 

general aquatic or overwintering habitat 

for the foothill yellow-legged frog. 

(B) Tributary (nonbreeding) habitat 

adjacent to and accessible from breeding 

and rearing habitat. Suitable tributary 

habitats typically contain sources of 

invertebrate prey, intermittent canopy, 

thermally stable microsites, and moist 

overwintering refugia protected from 

scouring winter flows. These refugia 

may include springs, seeps, pools, 

woody debris, root wads, undercut 

banks, clumps of sedges, and rocks. 

(ii) Terrestrial and dispersal habitat. 

(A) Upland habitat adjacent to and 

accessible from breeding, rearing, and 

tributary habitat as identified in 

paragraphs (2)(i)(A) and (B) of this 

entry. Suitable upland habitats typically 

contain sources of invertebrate prey, 

intermittent canopy, thermally stable 

microsites, and moist overwintering 

refugia. These refugia may include 

nonstream pools, woody debris, root 

wads, clumps of sedges, and large 

boulders or debris. 

(B) Dispersal habitat comprising 

permanent or ephemeral water channels 

and adjacent uplands that connect 

breeding and overwintering habitat 

sites. Suitable dispersal habitat does not 

need to hold moisture for extended 

periods. Suitable dispersal habitat 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.020</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3453 

typically connects areas containing 

intermittent canopy, interstitial spaces 

for sheltering, and sources of 

invertebrate prey. Additionally, suitable 

dispersal habitat is free from large 

physical barriers, hydrological barriers 

(e.g., dams, reservoirs, and rivers with 

highly altered flow regimes), and areas 

with high exposure to predators. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures (such as buildings, 

aqueducts, runways, roads, and other 

paved areas) and the land on which they 

are located existing within the legal 

boundaries on the effective date of the 

final rule. 

(4) Data layers defining map units 

were created using the National 

Hydrography Dataset and California 

Natural Diversity Database occurrence 

records and other survey information. 

The critical habitat units were then 

mapped using Universal Transverse 

Mercator Zone 10N and 11N 

coordinates. The maps in this entry, as 

modified by any accompanying 

regulatory text, establish the boundaries 

of the critical habitat designation. The 

coordinates or plot points or both on 

which each map is based are available 

to the public at https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R8–ES–2023–0157, and at the 

field office responsible for this 

designation. You may obtain field office 

location information by contacting one 

of the Service regional offices, the 

addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 

2.2. 

(5) Unit SC–1: South Coast DPS—San 

Carpoforo, Monterey and San Luis 

Obispo Counties, California. 

(i) Unit SC–1 consists of 10,077 ac 

(4,078 ha) in Monterey and San Luis 

Obispo Counties and is composed of 

Federal (2,683 ac (1,086 ha)) and private 

(7,394 ac (2,992 ha)) ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit SC–1 follows: 

Figure to South Coast DPS of the foothill 

yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) 

paragraph (5)(ii) 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.021</GPH>
3454 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana 

boylii), South Sierra DPS 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Amador, Calaveras, Eldorado, 

Fresno, Madera, Mariposa, Tulare, and 

Tuolumne Counties, California, on the 

maps in this entry. 

(2) Within these areas, the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of foothill yellow-legged 

frog consist of the following 

components: 

(i) Aquatic stream habitat. (A) Stream 

reaches with a hydrological pattern 

(including appropriate stream velocity, 

water depth, water temperature, 

streambed substrate, and geomorphic 

heterogeneity) capable of supporting 

foothill yellow-legged frog breeding and 

rearing. Suitable stream reaches 

typically contain a wide and shallow 

channel morphology, an intermittent 

canopy, and rocky substrate that is 

cobble-sized or larger. These features 

provide habitat for breeding, feeding, 

and reproduction and in some cases 

general aquatic or overwintering habitat 

for the foothill yellow-legged frog. 

(B) Tributary (nonbreeding) habitat 

adjacent to and accessible from breeding 

and rearing habitat. Suitable tributary 

habitats typically contain sources of 

invertebrate prey, intermittent canopy, 

thermally stable microsites, and moist 

overwintering refugia protected from 

scouring winter flows. These refugia 

may include springs, seeps, pools, 

woody debris, root wads, undercut 

banks, clumps of sedges, and rocks. 

(ii) Terrestrial and dispersal habitat. 

(A) Upland habitat adjacent to and 

accessible from breeding, rearing, and 

tributary habitat as identified in 

paragraphs (2)(i)(A) and (B) of this 

entry. Suitable upland habitats typically 

contain sources of invertebrate prey, 

intermittent canopy, thermally stable 

microsites, and moist overwintering 

refugia. These refugia may include 

nonstream pools, woody debris, root 

wads, clumps of sedges, and large 

boulders or debris. 

(B) Dispersal habitat comprising 

permanent or ephemeral water channels 

and adjacent uplands that connect 

breeding and overwintering habitat 

sites. Suitable dispersal habitat does not 

need to hold moisture for extended 

periods. Suitable dispersal habitat 

typically connects areas containing 

intermittent canopy, interstitial spaces 

for sheltering, and sources of 

invertebrate prey. Additionally, suitable 

dispersal habitat is free from large 

physical barriers, hydrological barriers 

(e.g., dams, reservoirs, and rivers with 

highly altered flow regimes), and areas 

with high exposure to predators. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures (such as buildings, 

aqueducts, runways, roads, and other 

paved areas) and the land on which they 

are located existing within the legal 

boundaries on the effective date of the 

final rule. 

(4) Data layers defining map units 

were created using the National 

Hydrography Dataset and California 

Natural Diversity Database occurrence 

records and other survey information. 

The critical habitat units were then 

mapped using Universal Transverse 

Mercator Zone 10N and 11N 

coordinates. The maps in this entry, as 

modified by any accompanying 

regulatory text, establish the boundaries 

of the critical habitat designation. The 

coordinates or plot points or both on 

which each map is based are available 

to the public at https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R8–ES–2023–0157, and at the 

field office responsible for this 

designation. You may obtain field office 

location information by contacting one 

of the Service regional offices, the 

addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 

2.2. 

(5) Unit SS–1: South Sierra DPS— 

Rock Creek, Eldorado County, 

California. 

(i) Unit SS–1 consists of 4,348 ac 

(1,760 ha) in Eldorado County and is 

composed of Federal (2,630 ac (1,064 

ha)) and private (1,718 ac (695 ha)) 

ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit SS–1 follows: 

Figure 1 to South Sierra DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (5)(ii) 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3455 

(6) Unit SS–2: South Sierra DPS— 

Chili Bar Reservoir, Eldorado County, 

California. 

(i) Unit SS–2 consists of 4,976 ac 

(2,014 ha) in Eldorado County and is 

composed of Federal (1,245 ac (504 ha)) 

and private (3,732 ac (1,510 ha)) 

ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit SS–2 follows: 

Figure 2 to South Sierra DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (6)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.022</GPH>
3456 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

(7) Unit SS–3: South Sierra DSP— 

South Fork American River–Camp 

Creek, El Dorado County, California. 

(i) Unit SS–3 consists of 42,108 ac 

(17,040 ha) in El Dorado County and is 

composed of Federal (30,894 ac (12,502 

ha)) and private (11,214 ac (4,538 ha)) 

ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit SS–3 follows: 

Figure 3 to South Sierra DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (7)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.023</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3457 

(8) Unit SS–4: South Sierra DPS— 

North Fork Mokelumne River, Amador 

County, California. 

(i) Unit SS–4 consists of 34,751 ac 

(14,063 ha) in Amador County and is 

composed of Federal (16,174 ac (6,546 

ha)) and private (18,577 ac (7,518 ha)) 

ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit SS–4 follows: 

Figure 4 to South Sierra DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (8)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.024</GPH>
3458 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

(9) Unit SS–5: South Sierra DPS—Else 

Creek, Amador County, California. 

(i) Unit SS–5 consists of 4,658 ac 

(1,885 ha) in Amador County and is 

composed of Federal (324 ac (131 ha)), 

State (219 ac (89 ha)), and private (4,114 

ac (1,665 ha)) ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit SS–5 follows: 

Figure 5 to South Sierra DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (9)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.025</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3459 

(10) Unit SS–6: South Sierra DPS— 

Jesus Maria Creek, Calaveras County, 

California. 

(i) Unit SS–6 consists of 4,082 ac 

(1,652 ha) in Calaveras County and is 

composed of Federal (1,606 ac (650 ha)) 

and private (2,476 ac (1,002 ha)) 

ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit SS–6 follows: 

Figure 6 to South Sierra DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (10)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.026</GPH>
3460 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

(11) Unit SS–7a: South Sierra DPS— 

Stanislaus Confluence, Calaveras and 

Tuolumne Counties, California. 

(i) Unit SS–7a consists of 55,832 ac 

(22,595 ha) in Calaveras and Tuolumne 

Counties and is composed of Federal 

(37,548 ac (15,195 ha)), State (2,720 ac 

(1,101 ha)), and private (15,564 ac 

(6,299 ha)) ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit SS–7a follows: 

Figure 7 to South Sierra DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (11)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.027</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3461 

(12) Unit SS–7b: South Sierra DPS— 

Moaning Cave, Calaveras County, 

California. 

(i) Unit SS–7b consists of 3,625 ac 

(1,467 ha) in Calaveras County and is 

composed of Federal (587 ac (238 ha)) 

and private (3,037 ac (1,229 ha)) 

ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit SS–7b follows: 

Figure 8 to South Sierra DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (12)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.028</GPH>
3462 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

(13) Unit SS–8: South Sierra DPS— 

North Fork and Middle Fork Tuolomne 

River, Tuolomne and Mariposa 

Counties, California. 

(i) Unit SS–8 consists of 78,151 ac 

(31,627 ha) in Tuolomne and Mariposa 

Counties and is composed of Federal 

(64,360 ac (26,046 ha)) and private 

(13,791 ac (5,581 ha)) ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit SS–8 follows: 

Figure 9 to South Sierra DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (13)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.029</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3463 

(14) Unit SS–9: South Sierra DPS— 

Moccasin Creek, Tuolomne and 

Mariposa Counties, California. 

(i) Unit SS–9 consists of 8,280 ac 

(3,351 ha) in Tuolomne and Mariposa 

Counties and is composed of Federal 

(4,509 ac (1,825 ha)) and private (3,770 

ac (1,526 ha)) ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit SS–9 follows: 

Figure 10 to South Sierra DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (14)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.030</GPH>
3464 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

(15) Unit SS–10a: South Sierra DPS— 

North Fork Merced River, Mariposa 

County, California. 

(i) Unit SS–10a consists of 15,492 ac 

(6,269 ha) in Mariposa County and is 

composed of Federal (10,467 ac (4,236 

ha)) and private (5,024 ac (2,033 ha)) 

ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit SS–10a follows: 

Figure 11 to South Sierra DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (15)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.031</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3465 

(16) Unit SS–10b: South Sierra DPS— 

Bull Creek, Mariposa County, California. 

(i) Unit SS–10b consists of 12,079 ac 

(4,888 ha) in Mariposa County and is 

composed of Federal (11,087 ac (4,487 

ha)) and private (992 ac (402 ha)) 

ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit SS–10b follows: 

Figure 12 to South Sierra DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (16)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.032</GPH>
3466 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

(17) Unit SS–11: South Sierra DPS— 

Merced River and Sherlock Creek, 

Mariposa County, California. 

(i) Unit SS–11 consists of 16,719 ac 

(6,766 ha) in Mariposa County and is 

composed of Federal (13,267 ac (5,369 

ha)) and private (3,451 ac (1,397 ha)) 

ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit SS–11 follows: 

Figure 13 to South Sierra DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (17)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.033</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3467 

(18) Unit SS–12: South Sierra DPS— 

Jose Creek, Madera and Fresno 

Counties, California. 

(i) Unit SS–12 consists of 10,182 ac 

(4,121 ha) in Madera and Fresno 

Counties and is composed of Federal 

(9,204 ac (3,725 ha)), State (30 ac (12 

ha)), and private (948 ac (384 ha)) 

ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit SS–12 follows: 

Figure 14 to South Sierra DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (18)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.034</GPH>
3468 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

(19) Unit SS–13: South Sierra DPS— 

North Fork Tule River, Tulare County, 

California. 

(i) Unit SS–13 consists of 5,149 ac 

(2,084 ha) in Tulare County and is 

composed of Federal (217 ac (88 ha)) 

and private (4,932 ac (1,996 ha)) 

ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit SS–13 follows: 

Figure 15 to South Sierra DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (19)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.035</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3469 

(20) Unit SS–14: South Sierra DPS— 

Kern River, Tulare County, California. 

(i) Unit SS–14 consists of 7,344 ac 

(2,972 ha) in Tulare County and is 

composed of Federal (7,327 ac (2,965 

ha)) and private (17 ac (7 ha)) 

ownership. 

(ii) Map of Unit SS–14 follows: 

Figure 16 to South Sierra DPS of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana 

boylii) paragraph (20)(ii) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.036</GPH>
3470 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

* * * * * 

Stephen Guertin, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31757 Filed 1–13–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS2EP14JA25.037</GPH>