54106 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AU30 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Designation of 

Critical Habitat for the Southern 

California Distinct Vertebrate 

Population Segment of the Mountain 

Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana muscosa) 

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 the 

endangered southern California distinct 

vertebrate population segment (DPS) of 

the mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana 

muscosa) pursuant to the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

We have determined that approximately 

8,770 ac (3,549 ha) of land containing 

features essential to the conservation of 

the mountain yellow-legged frog exist in 

Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and 

Riverside Counties, CA. We are 

proposing to designate approximately 

8,283 acres (ac) (3,352 hectares (ha)) of 

streams and riparian areas as critical 

habitat within 3 units in southern 

California, further divided into 

subunits: Unit 1 (7 subunits) in the San 

Gabriel Mountains (Los Angeles and 

San Bernardino counties); Unit 2 (3 

subunits) in San Bernardino Mountains 

(San Bernardino County); and Unit 3 (4 

subunits) in the San Jacinto Mountains 

(Riverside County). Lands being 

proposed as critical habitat are under 

Federal, local/state, and private 

ownership; no tribal lands are included 

in this proposed designation. This 

proposed designation includes areas 

currently known to be occupied by the 

southern California DPS of the 

mountain yellow-legged frog, as well as 

several areas that were historically 

occupied, but are currently unoccupied. 

We are proposing to exclude critical 

habitat from approximately 487 ac (197 

ha) of non-Federal lands within existing 

Public/Quasi Public (PQP) lands, 

proposed conceptual reserve design 

lands, and lands targeted for 

conservation within the Western 

Riverside County Multiple Species 

Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) 

Area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

DATES: We will accept comments from 

all interested parties until November 14, 

2005. We must receive requests for 

public hearings, in writing, at the 

address shown in the ADDRESSES section 

by October 28, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, 

you may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposal by 

any one of several methods: 

1. You may submit written comments 

and information to Jim Bartel, Field 

Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 

Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, 

Carlsbad, California 92011. 

2. You may hand-deliver written 

comments to our Office, at the above 

address. 

3. You may send comments by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to 

[FW1CFWO_MYLFPCH@fws.gov]. Please 

also include ‘‘Attn: mountain yellowlegged frog’’ in your e-mail subject 

header and see the Public Comments 

Solicited section below for file format 

and other information about electronic 

filing. 

1. You may fax your comments to 

(760) 431–9624. 

Comments and materials received, as 

well as supporting documentation used 

in the preparation of this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection, 

by appointment, during normal business 

hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 

Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, 

Carlsbad, California 92011 (telephone 

(760) 431–9440). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and 

Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley 

Road, Carlsbad, California 92011, 

(telephone (760) 431–9440; facsimile 

(760) 431–9624). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments Solicited 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposal will be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, comments or suggestions 

from the public, other concerned 

governmental agencies, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested party concerning this 

proposed rule are hereby solicited. 

Comments particularly are sought 

concerning: 

(1) Specific information on the 

southern California distinct vertebrate 

population segment (DPS) of the 

mountain yellow-legged frog: i.e., the 

locations of known occurrences of 

individuals or subpopulations, the 

dispersal behavior and distances of 

adults, juveniles and tadpoles, the 

developmental time of tadpoles and 

their habitat requirements throughout 

the year, genetic information in the 

mountain yellow-legged frog, recreation 

impacts, impacts of non-native 

predators; 

(2) Specific information as to whether 

the physical and biological features we 

have identified essential to its 

conservation are accurate and whether 

they exist on those areas we have 

identified as occupied; 

(3) If those unoccupied areas 

proposed to be designated are all 

essential to the conservation to the 

species; 

(4) The proposed exclusion of habitat 

on non-Federal lands within existing 

Public/Quasi Public (PQP) lands, 

proposed conceptual reserve design 

lands, and lands targeted for 

conservation within the Western 

Riverside County Multiple Species 

Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Please 

provide information demonstrating the 

conservation benefits of including these 

lands exceed the benefits of excluding 

these lands. If the Secretary determines 

the benefits of including the lands 

outweigh the benefits of excluding 

them, they will not be excluded from 

critical habitat; 

(5) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

critical habitat; 

(6) Any foreseeable economic, 

national security, or other potential 

impacts resulting from the proposed 

designation and, in particular, any 

impacts on small entities; and 

(7) Whether our approach to 

designating critical habitat could be 

improved or modified in any way to 

provide for greater public participation 

and understanding, or to assist us in 

accommodating public concerns and 

comments. 

If you wish to comment, you may 

submit your comments and materials 

concerning this proposal by any one of 

several methods (see ADDRESSES). Please 

submit Internet comments to 

[FW1CFWO_MYLFPCH@fws.gov] in 

ASCII file format and avoid the use of 

special characters or any form of 

encryption. Please also include ‘‘Attn: 

mountain yellow-legged frog’’ in your email subject header and your name and 

return address in the body of your 

message. If you do not receive a 

confirmation from the system that we 

have received your Internet message, 

contact us directly by calling our 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office at 

phone number 760/431–944. Please note 

that the Internet address 

[FW1CFWO_MYLFPCH@fws.gov] will be 

closed out at the termination of the 

public comment period. 

Our practice is to make comments, 

including names and home addresses of 

respondents, available for public review 

during regular business hours. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 54107 

Individual respondents may request that 

we withhold their home addresses from 

the rulemaking record, which we will 

honor to the extent allowable by law. 

There also may be circumstances in 

which we would withhold from the 

rulemaking record a respondent’s 

identity, as allowable by law. If you 

wish us to withhold your name and/or 

address, you must state this 

prominently at the beginning of your 

comment. However, we will not 

consider anonymous comments. We 

will make all submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety. 

Comments and materials received will 

be available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the above address. 

Designation of Critical Habitat Provides 

Little Additional Protection to Species 

In 30 years of implementing the Act, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) has found that the designation 

of statutory critical habitat provides 

little additional protection to most listed 

species, while consuming significant 

amounts of available conservation 

resources. The Service’s present system 

for designating critical habitat has 

evolved since its original statutory 

prescription into a process that provides 

little real conservation benefit, is driven 

by litigation and the courts rather than 

biology, limits our ability to fully 

evaluate the science involved, consumes 

enormous agency resources, and 

imposes huge social and economic 

costs). The Service believes that 

additional agency discretion would 

allow our focus to return to those 

actions that provide the greatest benefit 

to the species most in need of 

protection. 

In this current proposed critical 

habitat rule, we have determined that 

the identification and conservation of 

unoccupied habitat is necessary for the 

long-term persistence of the mountain 

yellow-legged frog. In the case of this 

species, because we have determined it 

necessary to propose critical habitat in 

unoccupied areas, the critical habitat 

designation will provide a benefit to the 

species. 

Role of Critical Habitat in Actual 

Practice of Administering and 

Implementing the Act 

While attention to and protection of 

habitat is paramount to successful 

conservation actions, we have 

consistently found that, in most 

circumstances, the designation of 

critical habitat is of little additional 

value for most listed species, yet it 

consumes large amounts of conservation 

resources. Sidle (1987) stated, ‘‘Because 

the Act can protect species with and 

without critical habitat designation, 

critical habitat designation may be 

redundant to the other consultation 

requirements of section 7.’’ Currently, of 

the 1,253 listed species in the U.S. 

under the jurisdiction of the Service, 

only 471 species (38 percent) have 

designated critical habitat. We address 

the habitat needs of all 1,253 listed 

species through conservation 

mechanisms such as listing, section 7 

consultations, the section 4 recovery 

planning process; the section 9 

protective prohibitions of unauthorized 

take, section 6 funding to the States, and 

the section 10 incidental take permit 

process. The Service believes that it is 

these measures that may make the 

difference between extinction and 

survival for many species. 

We note, however, that a recent Ninth 

Circuit judicial opinion, Gifford Pinchot 

Task Force v. United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service, has invalidated the 

Service’s regulation defining destruction 

or adverse modification of critical 

habitat. In response, on December 9, 

2004, the Director issued guidance to be 

used in making section 7 adverse 

modification determinations. This 

critical habitat designation does not use 

the invalidated regulation in our 

consideration of critical habitat’s 

benefits. 

Procedural and Resource Difficulties in 

Designating Critical Habitat 

We have been inundated with 

lawsuits for our failure to designate 

critical habitat, and we face a growing 

number of lawsuits challenging critical 

habitat determinations once they are 

made. These lawsuits have subjected the 

Service to an ever-increasing series of 

court orders and court-approved 

settlement agreements, compliance with 

which now consumes nearly the entire 

listing program budget. This leaves the 

Service with little ability to prioritize its 

activities to direct scarce listing 

resources to the listing program actions 

with the most biologically urgent 

species conservation needs. 

The consequence of the critical 

habitat litigation activity is that limited 

listing funds are used to defend active 

lawsuits, to respond to Notices of Intent 

(NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, 

and to comply with the growing number 

of adverse court orders. As a result, 

listing petition responses, the Service’s 

own proposals to list critically 

imperiled species, and final listing 

determinations on existing proposals are 

all significantly delayed. 

The accelerated schedules of court 

ordered designations have left the 

Service with almost no ability to 

provide for adequate public 

participation or to ensure a defect-free 

rulemaking process before making 

decisions on listing and critical habitat 

proposals due to the risks associated 

with noncompliance with judiciallyimposed deadlines. This in turn fosters 

a second round of litigation in which 

those who fear adverse impacts from 

critical habitat designations challenge 

those designations. The cycle of 

litigation appears endless, is very 

expensive, and in the final analysis 

provides relatively little additional 

protection to listed species. 

The costs resulting from the 

designation include legal costs, the cost 

of preparation and publication of the 

designation, the analysis of the 

economic effects and the cost of 

requesting and responding to public 

comment, and in some cases the costs 

of compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). None 

of these costs result in any benefit to the 

species that is not already afforded by 

the protections of the Act enumerated 

earlier, and they directly reduce the 

funds available for direct and tangible 

conservation actions. 

Background 

Please refer to the final listing rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 2, 2002 (67 FR 44382) for a detailed 

discussion on the taxonomic history and 

description of the southern California 

distinct vertebrate population segment 

(DPS) of the mountain yellow-legged 

frog (Rana muscosa), hereafter referred 

to as the mountain yellow-legged frog. It 

is our intent in this document to 

reiterate and discuss only those topics 

directly relevant to the development 

and designation of critical habitat or 

relevant information obtained since the 

final listing. 

The mountain yellow-legged frog is in 

the family of true frogs, Ranidae, which 

consists of frogs that are more closely 

tied to water bodies for breeding and 

foraging than other frog or toad species. 

Mountain yellow-legged frogs are 

diurnal frogs, occupying rocky and 

shaded streams with cool waters 

originating from springs and snowmelt. 

Many of the streams in which they 

historically occurred have a relatively 

steep gradient with large boulders in the 

streambeds (Stebbins 1951). 

Historically, mountain yellow-legged 

frogs in southern California were 

documented over a wide elevation 

range, from 1,214 ft to 7,513 ft (370 m 

54108 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

to 2,290 m) (Jennings and Hayes 1994a), 

and in a wide variety of wetland 

habitats, including lakes, rivers, creeks, 

ponds, and marshes (Zweifel 1955, 

Mullally 1959, Schoenherr 1976, 

Jennings 1994a, b, Vredenburg et al. 

2005). 

Mountain yellow-legged frogs 

historically occurred in streams on both 

the desert and coastal slopes of the San 

Gabriel, San Bernardino, San Jacinto, 

and Palomar Mountains in Los Angeles, 

San Bernardino, Riverside, and San 

Diego counties (Zweifel 1955). Despite 

the close proximity of the Transverse 

Mountain Ranges to highly populated 

areas such as Los Angeles, Riverside, 

and San Diego, the vertebrate fauna has 

been relatively little studied, 

particularly in the San Gabriel 

Mountains (Jennings 1994). Over 40 

years ago, Schoenherr (1976) and 

Zweifel (1955) described the 

distribution of frogs in the region, but 

their studies were not encompassing; 

e.g. in the San Gabriel Mountains, their 

works were conducted in the southern 

and western areas. Little to no 

observations were collected in the 

1980’s, but during the 1990’s, Jennings 

(1993, 1994, 1995, 1998, 1999) surveyed 

for the mountain yellow-legged frog 

extensively in the region. This work was 

subsequently resumed by USGS, who 

has conducted annual surveys for 

mountain yellow-legged frog in 

southern California since 2000. 

In the most recent USGS survey report 

on the mountain yellow-legged frog in 

southern California, Backlin et al. (2004) 

used historical records to compare the 

locations of where frogs previously were 

found to the locations of the current, 

extant populations and concluded that 

between the 1900’s and today, it is 

evident that the mountain yellow-legged 

frog has disappeared from nearly all of 

its former range in southern California. 

Between 2000 and 2003, USGS, USFS, 

and CDFG conducted extensive surveys 

for mountain yellow-legged frogs at 

their historical locations and other areas 

with suitable habitat. Backlin et al. 

(2004) gave the overall survey results: 

mountain yellow-legged frogs are 

currently known to occur in only 8 areas 

in southern California, and all were 

located in isolated headwater streams 

(Backlin et al. 2004). Most of these 

populations occur above (upstream of) a 

barrier, natural or artificial, which limits 

upstream movement by fish (cf. Backlin 

et al. 2004; A. Backlin, USGS, pers. 

comm. 2005). In the Palomar 

Mountains, where mountain yellowlegged frog previously occurred, no 

recent, exhaustive surveys have been 

conducted (Backlin et al. 2004). 

Additional surveys need to be 

conducted in areas with suitable aquatic 

habitat that includes streams, creeks and 

pools, but also springs, seeps marshes, 

and small tributaries, so that 

undocumented populations are not 

inadvertently overlooked (Backlin et al. 

2004). 

The final listing rule (67 FR 44382) 

described the mountain yellow-legged 

frog as occupying five streams in the 

San Gabriel Mountains: (1) Bear GulchEast Fork San Gabriel River (referred to 

in this rule as San Gabriel River, East 

Fork, Bear Gulch); (2) Vincent GulchEast Fork San Gabriel River (referred to 

in this rule as San Gabriel River, East 

Fork, Vincent Gulch); (3) South Fork-Big 

Rock Creek (referred to in this rule as 

Big Rock Creek, South Fork); (4) Little 

Rock Creek, and (5) Devil’s CanyonWest Fork San Gabriel River. The final 

listing rule also recognized one 

population within the San Bernardino 

Mountains (City Creek-East Fork), and 

one population in the San Jacinto 

Mountains (Fuller Mill Creek (referred 

to in this rule as San Jacinto River, 

North Fork, Fuller Mill Creek)). The 

mountain yellow-legged frog is believed 

to be extirpated from Palomar Mountain 

(Jennings and Hayes 1994a). 

In the proposed and final rules listing 

the southern California DPS of the 

mountain yellow-legged frog as 

endangered, we identified additional 

streams where the DPS had previously 

been known to occur, but were not 

found in surveys conducted in 2001 (64 

FR 71714; 67 FR 44382). These streams 

where mountain yellow-legged frogs 

had been observed included: Alder 

Gulch-East Fork San Gabriel River in the 

San Gabriel Mountains (referred to in 

this rule as San Gabriel River, East Fork, 

Alder Gulch), where they were last seen 

in 1998 (Jennings 1998); the North Fork 

of San Jacinto River, last seen in 1999; 

Hall Canyon (referred to in this rule as 

Indian Creek at Hall Canyon), last seen 

in 1995; and Dark Canyon in the San 

Jacinto Mountains, where frogs have 

been observed in 2005. The population 

in Dark Canyon was recently 

rediscovered in 2003 by biologists from 

the California Department of Fish and 

Game (CDFG) and the San Bernardino 

National Forest (Backlin et al. 2004). 

Prior to the rediscovery of this 

population, the last observation of the 

mountain yellow-legged frog in Dark 

Canyon was in 1999. 

Barton Creek and Day Canyon were 

known to be occupied by the mountain 

yellow-legged frog prior to the listing in 

2002, but were not discussed in either 

the proposed or final listing rules. 

Approximately 50 individual adults 

were observed in Barton Creek, East 

Fork in 1993 (CNDDB 2005), when 

water flowed well in the creek (R. 

McKernan, dir. San Bernardino County 

Museum, pers. comm. 2005). Mountain 

yellow-legged frogs were first observed 

in Day Canyon in 1959 (Los Angeles 

County Museum), and re-sighted there 

in 1994 (CNDDB 2005). In 2003, the 

USGS conducted a single visit survey of 

a portion of Day Canyon, and did not 

locate any mountain yellow-legged 

frogs, but did note the occurrence of 

rainbow trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss) 

(Backlin et al. 2004). 

In summary, we identified the 

following streams as occupied at the 

time of listing: (a) In the San Gabriel 

Mountains: the East Fork of the San 

Gabriel River including Bear Gulch (67 

FR 44382), Prairie Creek (64 FR 71714), 

Vincent Gulch (64 FR 71714, 67 FR 

44382), Alder Creek—East Fork (64 FR 

71714; referred to here as Alder Gulch), 

Devil’s Canyon (64 FR 71714, 67 FR 

44382), Big Rock Creek (67 FR 44382) 

and Little Rock Creek (64 FR 71714, 67 

FR 44382); (b) In the San Bernardino 

Mountains: the East Fork, City Creek (64 

FR 71714, 67 FR 44382) which is 

currently assumed to be unoccupied; (c) 

In the San Jacinto Mountains: four 

tributaries in the upper reaches of the 

North Fork, San Jacinto River on Mount 

San Jacinto: Dark Canyon (64 FR 71714, 

67 FR 44382), Hall Canyon (64 FR 

71714, 67 FR 44382; referred to here as 

Indian Creek at Hall Canyon), Fuller 

Mill Creek (64 FR 71714, 67 FR 44382), 

and the main North Fork, San Jacinto 

River (64 FR 71714). 

Subsequent to listing the species, we 

identified the following additional 

streams as also occupied: (a) In the San 

Gabriel Mountains: the East Fork of the 

San Gabriel River: the main stem of the 

San Gabriel River, East Fork at the 

confluence of Fish Fork to below the 

confluence of Iron Fork, the lower 

reaches of the tributaries Iron Fork and 

Fish Fork, and Day Canyon in San 

Bernardino National Forest; (b) in the 

San Bernardino Mountains: the East 

Fork of Barton Creek (San Bernardino 

National Forest), and the East Fork of 

City Creek, and; (c) in the San Jacinto 

Mountains: an unnamed side tributary 

of the North Fork of the San Jacinto 

River in Dark Canyon. 

This rule also proposes some streams 

that were historically occupied and 

currently assumed to be unoccupied, 

because we believe these streams are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. These are: (a) In the San Gabriel 

Mountains (Angeles National Forest): 

Bear Creek (located north of the West 

Fork of the San Gabriel River), and the 

East Fork of Iron Fork, a tributary to the 

East Fork of the San Gabriel River; (b) 

In the San Bernardino Mountains: the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 54109 

upper reaches of the North Fork of 

Whitewater River (San Bernardino 

National Forest); and (c) In the San 

Jacinto Mountains (San Bernardino 

National Forest): Tahquitz Creek 

(uppermost reaches, including Willow 

Creek tributary), and Andreas Creek 

(uppermost reaches) both within the 

San Jacinto Wilderness area. 

As discussed in the final listing rule 

(67 FR 44382), Jennings and Hayes 

(1994) estimated that mountain yellowlegged frogs have been extirpated from 

more than 99 percent of their previously 

documented range in southern 

California. The mechanisms causing the 

declines of ranid frogs in the western 

United States are not well understood 

and are certain to vary somewhat among 

species. The two most common and 

well-supported hypotheses for 

widespread extirpation of western ranid 

frogs are: (1) Past habitat destruction 

related to activities such as logging, 

mining, and habitat conversions for 

water development, irrigated 

agriculture, and commercial 

development (Hayes and Jennings 1986, 

61 FR 25813); and (2) non-native 

predators and competitors such as 

introduced trout and bullfrogs (Hayes 

and Jennings 1986, Bradford 1989, 

Knapp 1996, Kupferberg 1997). There is 

now a growing body of evidence that the 

mountain yellow-legged frog is 

incompatible with non-native trout, 

bullfrog and crayfish (Hayes and 

Jennings 1986, Bradford 1989, Bradford 

et al. 1994, Knapp and Matthews 2000, 

Knapp et al 2003, Backlin et al. 2004, 

Vredenburg 2004). 

Studies of the distributions of 

introduced salmonids (rainbow trout 

and brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis) 

and mountain yellow-legged frogs have 

shown that introduced trout have had 

negative impacts on mountain yellowlegged frogs over much of the Sierra 

Nevada (Bradford 1989, Knapp 1996, 

Knapp and Matthews 2000). Vredenburg 

(2002) demonstrated that this is due 

primarily to predation on tadpoles. 

Trout are known predators of ranid frogs 

(Hayes and Jennings 1986, Backlin et al. 

2004), and there is evidence that 

introduced trout restrict the distribution 

and abundance of mountain yellowlegged frogs (Bradford 1989, Bradford et 

al 1994, Knapp and Matthews 2000, 

Knapp et al. 2003, Backlin et al. 2004). 

Today, non-native trout persist at seven 

of the eight known locations where the 

mountain yellow-legged frog occurs in 

southern California (Backlin et al. 2004, 

Stewart et al. 2000). Further, Bradford 

(1989) and Bradford et al. (1993) 

concluded that introduced trout 

eliminate many populations of 

mountain yellow-legged frogs and the 

presence of trout in intervening streams 

sufficiently isolates other frog 

populations such that recolonization 

after stochastic (random) local 

extirpations is essentially impossible. 

Virtually all streams in the mountains of 

southern California contain populations 

of introduced rainbow trout, and, until 

recently, trout were routinely released 

in several of the occupied streams. The 

CDFG, which operates the Mojave and 

Fillmore fish hatcheries, has stated that 

no stocked sites and areas accessible to 

stocked fish overlap with areas where 

the mountain yellow-legged frog is 

known to occur (Service in litt. 2005). 

The CDFG has also been working with 

the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to refrain 

from stocking certain streams and to 

assess the potential construction of 

barriers. In their latest report on 

mountain yellow-legged frog, the USGS 

(Backlin et al. 2004) recommend 

continuing trout removal efforts in all 

streams where mountain yellow-legged 

frog occur in southern California, and 

expanding these efforts also to the West 

Fork of City Creek. Conservation of this 

species may require management of 

non-native trout populations within 

proposed critical habitat and continued 

protection of those lands proposed for 

critical habitat that do not contain nonnative trout. 

Two pathogens are of primary 

concern for the conservation of 

mountain yellow-legged frogs in 

southern California. The ‘‘red-leg’’

disease contributed to the loss of a 

Sierra Nevada population (Bradford 

1991). Another pathogen that is of 

concern to scientists studying 

amphibian declines is the chytrid 

fungus (Batrachochytrium 

dendrobatidis). Chytrid fungus may be 

seriously affecting amphibians around 

the world, and has recently been 

discovered on larval and recently 

metamorphosed mountain yellowlegged frogs in the Sierra Nevada 

Mountains (Fellers et al. 2001). 

Currently, chytrid fungal disease does 

not seem to be plaguing the remaining 

populations (Backlin et al. 2004). 

In addition to the threats posed by the 

presence of non-native trout and 

pathogens, some recreational activities, 

which involve human activity in or 

adjacent to streams where the species is 

still extant, have also been identified as 

potentially negatively impacting the 

mountain yellow-legged frogs (Stewart 

et al. 2000). For example, logging 

activity, recreational mining, or heavy 

trampling may alter and/or decrease the 

presence of habitat structure within a 

stream, alter pool substrate, erode 

stream banks, or reduce riparian 

vegetation, negatively affecting various 

life history stages and essential 

behaviors of the mountain yellowlegged frog. Conservation of this species 

may require special management in 

areas where heavy recreational use 

overlaps with occupied habitat. 

Chance, catastrophic events which, 

while normal for the environment in 

which the frog lives, greatly endanger 

the remaining, localized populations; 

i.e. fires, droughts, and floods. The area 

has experienced floods in winter 1968–

69, which decimated many of the frog 

populations formerly abundant in the 

region (Jennings and Hayes 1994a, b). 

Drought conditions have prevailed for 

long periods during the years 1995–

2004, with 2002 the height of the 

drought, and several major fires have 

occurred (1997, 2003; Backlin et al. 

2004). However, to alleviate the most 

immediate threats to the southern 

California mountain yellow-legged frog, 

it is possible to reduce or eradicate 

exotic species, prevent direct human 

impacts and take precautions to prevent 

the spread of diseases (Backlin et al. 

2004). Alleviating the most pressing 

threats in the occupied areas will allow 

those populations to expand into 

currently unoccupied areas which will 

also be managed and protected allowing 

even greater population expansion to 

such an extent that naturally occurring 

threats will not pose as great a danger. 

Previous Federal Actions 

Please refer to the final listing rule for 

a summary of previous Federal actions 

prior to the listing of the southern 

California of the mountain yellowlegged frog as endangered July 2, 2002 

(67 FR 44382). At the time of listing, we 

concluded that designating critical 

habitat was prudent; however, we 

deferred the critical habitat designation 

to allow us to concentrate our limited 

resources on higher priority critical 

habitat designations and other listing 

actions, while allowing us to put in 

place protections needed for the 

conservation of the southern California 

mountain yellow-legged frog without 

further delay. This action was consistent 

with section 4(b)(6)(C)(i) of the Act, 

which states that final listing decisions 

may be issued without concurrent 

designation of critical habitat if it is 

necessary for the conservation of the 

species that the listing determination be 

promptly published (67 FR 44382). 

On August 19, 2004, the Center for 

Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit in 

the U.S. District Court for the Central 

District of California challenging the 

Service’s failure to designate critical 

habitat for the southern California 

mountain yellow-legged frog (Case No. 

EDCV 04–01041–VAP). On December 

54110 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

20, 2004, the District Court granted the 

Center’s motion for summary judgment 

and ordered the Service to publish a 

proposed critical habitat rule for the 

mountain yellow-legged frog by 

September 1, 2005, and a final critical 

habitat rule by September 1, 2006. This 

proposed rule complies with the Court’s 

order. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as—(i) the specific areas 

within the geographic area occupied by 

a species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features (I) essential to the conservation 

of the species and (II) that may require 

special management considerations or 

protection; and (ii) specific areas 

outside the geographic area occupied by 

a species at the time it is listed, upon 

a determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use 

of all methods and procedures that are 

necessary to bring an endangered or a 

threatened species to the point at which 

listing under the Act is no longer 

necessary. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

prohibition against destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

with regard to actions carried out, 

funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency. Section 7 requires consultation 

on Federal actions that are likely to 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. The 

designation of critical habitat does not 

affect land ownership or establish a 

refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 

other conservation area. Such 

designation does not allow government 

or public access to private lands. 

To be included in a critical habitat 

designation, the habitat within the area 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing must first have features that are 

‘‘essential to the conservation of the 

species.’’ Critical habitat designations 

identify, to the extent known using the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available, habitat areas that provide for 

the essential life cycle needs of the 

species (i.e., areas on which are found 

the primary constituent elements 

(PCEs), as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)). 

Habitat occupied at the time of listing 

may be included in critical habitat only 

if the essential features (PCEs) are 

actually present thereon and may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. Thus, we 

do not include areas where existing 

management is sufficient to protect and 

manage the habitat in a manner equal to 

the protections provided by the 

designation and consistent with the 

court’s direction in Gifford Pinchot. Our 

interpretation of that requirement 

pending a new rulemaking is included 

in the Director’s December 9, 2004, 

memorandum, referenced in the 

preamble. (As discussed below, such 

areas may also be excluded from critical 

habitat pursuant to section 4(b)(2).) 

Accordingly, when the best available 

scientific and commercial data do not 

demonstrate that the conservation needs 

of the species so require, we will not 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographic area occupied by 

the species at the time of listing. 

Specific areas outside the geographic 

area occupied by a species at the time 

it is listed may only be included in a 

critical habitat designation if the 

Secretary determines that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. In this rule, we have proposed 

for inclusion in the critical habitat 

designation some areas not known to be 

occupied at the time of listing which we 

have determined are essential for the 

conservation of the species. 

The Service’s Policy on Information 

Standards Under the Endangered 

Species Act, published in the Federal 

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

and Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–

554; H.R. 5658) and the associated 

Information Quality Guidelines issued 

by the Service, provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that decisions made 

by the Service represent the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available. They require Service 

biologists to the extent consistent with 

the Act and with the use of the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. When determining which areas 

to designate as critical habitat, a primary 

source of information is generally the 

listing rule for the species. Additional 

information sources include the 

recovery plan for the species, articles in 

peer-reviewed journals, conservation 

plans developed by States and counties, 

scientific status surveys and studies, 

biological assessments, or other 

unpublished materials and expert 

opinion or personal knowledge. All 

information is used in accordance with 

the provisions of Section 515 of the 

Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 

(Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 5658) and the 

associated Information Quality 

Guidelines issued by the Service. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. Habitat 

is often dynamic, and species may move 

from one area to another over time. 

Furthermore, we recognize that 

designation of critical habitat may not 

include all of the habitat areas that may 

eventually be determined to be 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. Conversely, local conservation 

actions may occur that provide for 

special management and protection 

equal to that of critical habitat, 

removing the necessity of designation. 

For these reasons, critical habitat 

designations do not signal that habitat 

outside the designation is unimportant 

or may not be required for recovery of 

the mountain yellow-legged frog, or that 

the critical habitat designation itself is 

immutable. 

Areas that support populations of the 

mountain yellow-legged frog in 

southern California, but outside the 

critical habitat designation will 

continue to be subject to conservation 

actions that may be implemented under 

section 7(a)(1), and to the regulatory 

protections afforded by the section 

7(a)(2) jeopardy standard and the 

section 9 take prohibition, as 

determined on the basis of the best 

available information at the time of the 

action. We specifically anticipate that 

federally funded or assisted projects 

affecting listed species outside their 

designated critical habitat areas may 

still result in jeopardy findings in some 

cases. Similarly, critical habitat 

designations made on the basis of the 

best available information at the time of 

designation will not control the 

direction and substance of future 

recovery plans, habitat conservation 

plans, or other species conservation 

planning efforts particularly if new 

information available to these planning 

efforts calls for a different outcome. 

Methods 

As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of 

the Act, we used the best scientific and 

commercial data available in 

determining areas of habitat that contain 

features essential to the conservation of 

the mountain yellow-legged frog. This 

includes information from the proposed 

listing rule (64 FR 71714), final listing 

rule (67 FR 44382), data from research 

and survey observations published in 

peer-reviewed articles, site visits, 

regional Geographic Information System 

(GIS) layers, soil, and species coverages, 

and data compiled in the California 

Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 54111 

We have also reviewed available 

information that pertains to the ecology, 

natural history, and habitat 

requirements of this species. This 

material included information and data 

in reports submitted during section 7 

consultations; research published in 

peer-reviewed articles and technical 

reports by the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) and the USFS; and regional GIS 

coverages. We are not proposing to 

designate as critical habitat any areas 

outside of the geographic area presently 

occupied by the species in the San 

Gabriel, San Bernardino and San Jacinto 

mountains; however, the area proposed 

for designation includes areas for which 

we have no data demonstrating current 

occupancy, but for which we have 

historic occupancy data. 

Primary Constituent Elements 

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

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12, in determining which areas to 

propose as critical habitat, we are 

required to base critical habitat 

determinations on the best scientific 

and commercial data available and to 

identify those physical and biological 

features (primary constituent elements 

(PCEs)) that are essential to the 

conservation of the species, and that 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. These 

include, but are not limited to: space for 

individual and population growth and 

for normal behavior; food, water, air, 

light, minerals, or other nutritional or 

physiological requirements; cover or 

shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, 

and rearing (or development) of 

offspring. 

The specific primary constituent 

elements essential for the conservation 

of the southern California mountain 

yellow-legged frog are derived from the 

abiotic and biotic needs of the species 

as described below. 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth and for Normal Behavior 

The permanent water sources such as 

streams, rivers, perennial creeks, 

permanent plunge pools within 

intermittent creeks, and pools are 

needed for individual and population 

growth. These permanent water sources 

(PCE #1) provide breeding sites and 

shelter for the mountain yellow-legged 

frog. Permanent water sources providing 

for perennial flows are needed for egglaying and tadpole growth and survival, 

and must provide adequate water 

quality for adult and offspring of the 

mountain yellow-legged frog. Such 

water sources and their associated 

riparian and upland habitat also provide 

habitat for aquatic invertebrates that are 

used as a food source by adult mountain 

yellow-legged frogs, and for the benthic 

algae and diatoms that are fed upon by 

larval frogs. 

Food, Water, Air, Light, or Other 

Nutritional or Physiological 

Requirements 

A wide variety of invertebrates 

including beetles (Coleoptera), ants 

(Formididae), bees (Apoidea), wasps 

(Hymenoptera), flies (Diptera), true bugs 

(Hemiptera), and dragonflies (Odonata) 

have been found in the stomachs of 

adult mountain yellow-legged frogs 

(Long 1970). Terrestrial insects and 

adult stages of aquatic insects may be 

the preferred food for adult mountain 

yellow-legged frog (Bradford 1983); 

larger frogs consume more aquatic true 

bugs probably because of their more 

aquatic behavior (Jennings and Hays 

1994). 

The riparian zone, with the associated 

vegetation canopy (PCE #2), is necessary 

to maintain the prey base needed for the 

nutritional requirements of the 

mountain yellow-legged frog. Larvae 

graze on algae and diatoms in the silt 

along rocky bottoms in streams and 

ponds (Zeiner et al. 1988). An open or 

semi-open canopy of riparian vegetation 

(canopy overstory not exceeding 85 

percent) is needed to ensure that 

adequate sunlight reaches the stream to 

allow for basking behavior and for 

photosynthesis by benthic algae and 

diatoms that are food resources for 

larval mountain yellow-legged frog. 

Cover or Shelter 

Mountain yellow-legged frogs are 

preyed upon by the western terrestrial 

garter snake (Thamnophis elegans), 

Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus 

cyanocephalus), Clark’s nutcrackers 

(Nucifraga columbiana), and coyotes 

(Canis latrans) (USFS 2002). Pools with 

bank overhangs, downfall logs or 

branches, and/or rocks (PCEs #1 and #2) 

provide cover from predators for 

mountain yellow-legged frogs. 

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, and 

Rearing of Offspring 

In southern California, the mountain 

yellow-legged frog occupies streams in 

the chaparral belt (Zweifel 1955), and 

cool and cold, rocky, mountain 

watercourses shaded by trees, rocks, and 

other shelter, where the flow comes 

from springs and snowmelt (Jennings 

and Hayes 1994b) (PCEs #1 and #2). 

California fan palms (Washingtonia 

filifera), and mesquite (Prosopis spp.) 

dominate the mountain yellow-legged 

frog’s habitat at lower elevations, and, in 

other areas, habitat is dominated by 

white alders (Alnus rhombifolia), 

willows, sycamore, conifers and maples 

(Jennings and Hayes 1994b, Backlin et 

al. 2004). Open gravel banks and rocks 

projecting above the water may provide 

sunning posts (Zweifel 1955). Many of 

the streams in which they occurred 

historically and currently occupy have a 

relatively steep gradient and large 

boulders in the stream beds (Stebbins 

1951). Although knowledge pertaining 

to the specific habitat requirements of 

mountain yellow-legged frogs in 

southern California is limited, the 

presence of water year-round is known 

to be necessary for both reproduction 

and for hydration of juveniles and 

adults. In southern California, mountain 

yellow-legged frogs historically ranged 

from 1,214 ft to 7546 ft (370 m to 2,300 

m) in elevation (Jennings and Hayes 

1994a, 1994b). 

Historic and Geographic Distribution of 

the Species 

The occupied streams that are 

proposed for designation contain 

physical and biological features that are 

representative of the historic and 

geographical distribution of the species. 

The unoccupied streams that are 

proposed for designation were all 

historically occupied and will decrease 

the degree of fragmentation within the 

current geographic distribution of the 

DPS. 

Primary Constituent Elements 

Pursuant to our regulations, we are 

required to identify primary constituent 

elements essential to the conservation of 

the mountain yellow-legged frog, 

together with the proposed designation 

of critical habitat that contains features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. In identifying primary 

constituent elements, we used the best 

available scientific and commercial data 

and information. Although the physical 

ranges described below may not capture 

all of the variability that is inherent in 

natural systems, these ranges best 

represent the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the southern California DPS of the 

mountain yellow-legged frog in the 

occupied areas proposed for 

designation. In order to conserve this 

species, we believe that it will be 

necessary to designate critical habitat in 

areas currently unoccupied by the 

species, please see our discussion of 

Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat 

and Unit Descriptions sections below 

for further discussion of unoccupied 

habitat. 

The primary constituent elements 

determined to be essential to the 

conservation of the southern California 

54112 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

mountain yellow-legged frog are the 

following: 

1. Water source(s) found between 

1,214 ft (370 m) to 7,546 ft (2,300 m) in 

elevation that are permanent, to ensure 

that aquatic habitat for the species is 

available year-round. Water sources 

include, but are not limited to streams, 

rivers, perennial creeks (or permanent 

plunge pools within intermittent 

creeks), pools (i.e., a body of impounded 

water that is contained above a natural 

dam) and other forms of aquatic habitat. 

The water source should maintain a 

natural flow pattern including periodic 

natural flooding. Aquatic habitats that 

are used by mountain yellow-legged frog 

for breeding purposes must maintain 

water during the entire tadpole growth 

phase (which can be from 1–4 years 

duration). During periods of drought, or 

less than average rainfall, these breeding 

sites may not hold water long enough 

for individuals to complete 

metamorphosis, but they would still be 

considered essential breeding habitat in 

wetter years. Further, the aquatic habitat 

should include: 

a. Bank and pool substrates consisting 

of varying percentages of soil or silt, 

sand, gravel cobble, rock, and boulders; 

b. Water chemistry with a pH 

generally 6.6 to 9, dissolved oxygen 

varying from 23 to 28 percent and water 

temperatures during summer (June 

through August) ranging between 4.0 

and 30.3 degrees Celsius; 

c. Streams or stream reaches between 

known occupied sites that can function 

as corridors for adults and frogs for 

movement between aquatic habitats 

used as breeding and/or foraging sites. 

2. Riparian habitat and upland 

vegetation (e.g. ponderosa pine, 

montane hardwood-conifer, montane 

riparian woodlands, and chaparral) 

extending 262 feet (80 m) from each side 

of the centerline of each identified 

stream and its tributaries, that provides 

areas for feeding and movement of 

mountain yellow-legged frog, with a 

canopy overstory not exceeding 85 

percent that allows sunlight to reach the 

stream and thereby providing basking 

areas for the species. 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

We are proposing to designate critical 

habitat on lands that we have 

determined to contain habitat with 

features essential to the conservation of 

the mountain yellow-legged frog. These 

areas have sufficient primary 

constituent elements described above to 

enable the mountain yellow-legged frog 

to carry out its essential life processes. 

The currently occupied habitat for the 

mountain yellow-legged frog is highly 

limited and isolated. The population 

estimates are all extremely small, with 

no stream having an estimated 

population size exceeding 100 breeding 

adults, and an overall total estimate of 

approximately 183 adults surviving in 

2003 (including City Creek, East Fork; 

Backlin et al. 2004). This DPS is at a 

high risk of extinction and is highly 

susceptible to stochastic events (Backlin 

et al. 2004). As such, all occupied areas 

are proposed as critical habitat. 

We have defined occupied proposed 

critical habitat as: (a) Those streams 

known to be occupied by the mountain 

yellow-legged frog at the time of listing 

(1987–2002); (b) the riparian, upland 

and aquatic habitats 262 ft (80 m) from 

the centerline of the stream including 

tributaries; and (c) aquatic habitats 

within 4,905 ft (1,495 m) upstream from 

the upstream-most occurrence and 4,905 

ft (1,495 m) downstream from the 

downstream-most occurrence on the 

main stem of the river or creek known 

to be occupied, including any tributary 

that flows into it (see the following 

sections for explanation of the scientific 

basis for the chosen values). To 

delineate the proposed units of 

occupied critical habitat, we plotted on 

maps all occurrences records of 

mountain yellow-legged frog as points 

and polygons along streams that were 

occupied at the time of listing. We then 

delineated the riparian and upland areas 

that mountain yellow-legged frogs use 

bordering the stream, as well as the 

upstream and downstream range of 

movement, as defined under (c) above. 

Occupied by the Mountain YellowLegged Frog at the Time of Listing 

We used the proposed and final 

listing rules; reports prepared by the 

USGS, the USFS; the California 

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 

the CNDDB, researchers, and 

consultants; and available information 

to determine the location of specific 

areas within the geographical area 

occupied by the southern California 

mountain yellow-legged frog at the time 

of listing (‘‘occupied at the time of 

listing’’ is defined as the time period 

1987–2002). 

Width of Riparian and Upland Habitats 

Along Streams Occupied by Mountain 

Yellow-Legged Frog 

We estimated the width of riparian 

and upland habitats occupied by adults 

based on a study of movement ecology 

of mountain yellow-legged frogs in the 

Sierra Nevada Mountains (Pope and 

Matthews 2001). The study, in which a 

total of 581 adult frogs were marked, 

included 5 stream segments and 11 

lakes and ponds. The movement of 

mountain yellow-legged frogs 

throughout the entire annual period of 

activity (mid-late July to mid-late 

October) was recorded over two 

successive seasons (1997 and 1998). Of 

these marked frogs, 82 frogs made 

overland movements between water 

bodies that were not connected by 

aquatic pathways (straight line distance 

between lake 4 and lake 6 was 216 ft (66 

m), straight line distance between lake 

5 and stream 41 was 466 ft (142 m), and 

overland distance between lake 5 and 

unnamed lake was 1,378 ft (420 m). 

Based on these results, 72 frogs traveled 

a minimum distance of 216 ft (66 m), 9 

frogs traveled a minimum distance of 

466 ft (142 m), and 1 frog traveled 1,378 

ft (420 m). The weighted mean overland 

distance traveled by mountain yellowlegged frogs was approximately 259 ft 

(79 m). 

We applied this weighted mean 

overland distance (rounded up to 262 ft 

(80 m)) to determine the width of the 

riparian and upland habitats along 

streams occupied by the mountain 

yellow-legged frog in southern 

California. We also reviewed the 

preliminary results of an unpublished 

study that examined mountain yellowlegged frog movements in the Sierra 

Nevada Mountains (Knapp in litt. 2005). 

This study included observations of 

movement between Marmot Lake and 

Frog Lake (not connected by a stream) 

of at least 8,858 ft (2,700 m) by 3 frogs 

in 2003 and 6 frogs in 2004. In 

comparison to Knapp’s study, our 262 ft 

(80 m) width is a conservative estimate 

of the riparian and upland habitats 

occupied by the mountain yellowlegged frog. 

Length of Streams Occupied by the 

Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog 

We estimated the length of stream 

occupied by mountain yellow-legged 

frog adults (upstream and downstream 

distances from occurrences) based on 

review of several studies that give data 

on mountain yellow-legged frog 

movements (Pope and Matthews 2001, 

Knapp in litt. 2005, Backlin et al. 2004, 

Vredenburg 2005). However, there are 

no definitive published studies on the 

upstream and downstream movements 

of mountain yellow-legged frog and we 

extracted portions of these studies that 

specifically identified stream 

movement. In their study of movement 

ecology of mountain yellow-legged frog, 

Pope and Matthews (2001) reported a 

tagged female that was recaptured in a 

lake 3,281 ft (1,000 m) southeast of the 

study area, where a one-way trip 

requires a minimum of 1,968 ft (600 m) 

of travel in a fast-flowing stream. For 

streams in southern California, Backlin 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 54113 

et al. (2004) reported a range of 

distances between approximately 131 ft 

(40 m) to 4,902 ft (1,494 m). In the Sierra 

Nevada Mountains, Knapp (in litt. 2005) 

reported dispersal along a stream that 

connects Marmot Lake and Cony Lake (a 

distance of approximately 2,953 ft (900 

m)) by 12 frogs in 2003 and 46 frogs in 

2004. Knapp (in litt. 2005) also reported 

movement of 3 frogs in 2003 and 1 frog 

in 2004 of approximately 11,811 ft 

(3,580 m) between Marmot Lake and No 

Good Lake that included both dispersal 

along a stream and overland movement. 

Finally, we received verbal information 

(Dr. V. Vredenburg, University of 

California-Berkeley, pers. comm. 2005) 

that mountain yellow-legged frog 

tadpoles have been recovered 

approximately 5,905 ft (1,800 m) 

downstream from where they were 

tagged in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. 

Given the variability and sources of 

the available information on stream 

dispersal distances for mountain 

yellow-legged frogs, we are unable to 

calculate or estimate an average stream 

dispersal distance. Instead, we have 

defaulted to use the observed distance 

of 4,905 ft (1,495 m) that an adult 

mountain yellow-legged frog moved 

along City Creek, East Fork in the San 

Bernardino Mountains. While this 

observation represents the longest 

dispersal distance reported by Backlin 

et al. (2004) for the southern California, 

it is less than half the longest dispersal 

distance observed thus far in the Sierra 

Nevada Mountains (3,580 m; Knapp in 

litt. 2005). We believe the observation 

from City Creek represents the best 

available information to define occupied 

upstream and downstream reaches for 

the following reasons: (1) This dispersal 

distance connects known occurrences 

that occur along a stream or in 

populations that occur in tributaries; (2) 

this dispersal distance is specific to and 

representative of the southern California 

populations of the mountain yellowlegged frog; (3) movement distances 

between 131 ft (40 m) to 4,902 ft (1,494 

m) that were identified by Backlin et al. 

(2004) represent home range movements 

and reflect the high site fidelity 

displayed by mountain yellow-legged 

frog and are therefore not representative 

of dispersal patterns (Backlin et al. 

2004); and 4) this distance is less than 

the maximum dispersal distances for 

stream and overland movements 

identified by Knapp (in litt. 2005; 

maximum distance was 3,580 m) for 

adults and by Vredenburg (pers. comm. 

2005; maximum distance was 1,800 m) 

for tadpoles, and likely represents a 

conservative estimate of the upstream 

and downstream habitat occupied by 

the mountain yellow-legged frog in 

southern California. 

We are also proposing to designate 

critical habitat on lands that were 

historically occupied by the mountain 

yellow-legged frog, but are not known to 

be currently occupied. These subunits 

were all occupied within the past 45 

years, contain features essential to the 

conservation of the species, and are 

considered essential for the 

conservation of the southern California 

DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog. 

These additional sites were selected 

based in part on comments and 

information given by herpetologists and 

experts on the southern California DPS 

of the mountain yellow-legged frog and 

by biologists from various management 

agencies (USGS, CDFG, USFS), who 

provided their knowledge of the area in 

terms of anthropogenic activity level, 

current habitat suitability for the species 

(survey data), and management 

potential. At this time, based on the best 

available information, we have 

determined that without these 

unoccupied areas managed and 

protected for the mountain yellowlegged frog, conservation of the species 

will not be possible in the foreseeable 

future. 

The criteria used for selecting the 

additional sites were the following: 

(1) Streams where the habitat contains 

the necessary PCEs (e.g., characteristics 

such as perennial water flow, pools, 

riffles, runs, riparian and upland 

habitat, banks with rocks or substrate); 

(2) Streams where the habitat has 

been characterized as ‘‘suitable’’ for 

mountain yellow-legged frog by USGS, 

CDFG and USFS in their survey reports 

(i.e., contains habitat which meets 

additional, more specific characteristics 

that allow for a range of the species’

biological needs, such as containing 

sites for breeding, feeding, sheltering, 

and other essential mountain yellowlegged frog behavioral patterns); 

(3) Streams that were known to be 

occupied by the species within the past 

50 years, and where the habitat has not 

changed appreciably during that time 

(thus allowing for the assumption that 

previous occupancy still provides good 

indication of the known suitability of 

the site for the species’ biological 

needs); 

(4) Streams that have potential for 

current occupancy by mountain yellowlegged frog (i.e., no conclusive evidence 

is available that the species is currently 

completely absent from the site due to 

few, incomplete, or no surveys having 

been conducted there recently, and the 

habitat has not changed appreciably); 

(5) Streams that are in remote 

locations (i.e., geographically distant 

from areas with heavy anthropogenic 

activities, such as vehicular traffic, 

human recreation, dredging, trout 

stocking, water regulation, pollution); 

(6) Streams that are not currently 

stocked with non-native aquatic species; 

(7) Streams where threats to the 

species either no longer exist, or are few 

and could be easily alleviated (e.g., by 

shifting current human recreational use 

patterns, and/or by trout removal) 

through voluntary cooperative 

conservation measures; 

(8) Streams where there is significant 

potential for re-occupation by the 

species, either by natural means through 

dispersal from currently occupied sites 

(i.e., located within 5 km of a currently 

occupied site), or by future reintroduction efforts. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protections 

As we undertake the process of 

designating critical habitat for a species, 

we first evaluate lands defined by those 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species pursuant to section 3(5)(A) of 

the Act. Secondly, we evaluate lands 

defined by those features to assess 

whether they may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. Threats to those features that 

define important habitat (primary 

constituent elements) for the mountain 

yellow-legged frog include the direct 

and indirect impacts of some human 

recreation activities, and watershed 

management practices, water diversions 

from streams, fire management 

practices, and hazardous materials spills 

along roadways adjacent to streams. 

Recreational activities (e.g. camping, 

hiking, fishing, and recreational mining) 

are cited as factors that may have 

contributed to the decline of mountain 

yellow-legged frog in the San Gabriel, 

San Bernardino, and San Jacinto 

mountains (USFS 2002). In areas 

occupied by frogs, human use in and 

along streams can disrupt the lives of 

eggs, larvae, and adult frogs (Jennings 

1995), and change the character of the 

stream (e.g., sediment and water 

quality), its bank and associated 

vegetation in ways that make sections of 

the stream less suitable as habitat for 

frogs. For example, logging activity, 

recreational mining, or heavy trampling 

may alter and/or decrease the presence 

of habitat structure within a stream such 

as bank overhangs, downed logs or 

branches, and rocks or may alter pool 

substrate, thereby reducing or 

eliminating available foraging, resting, 

breeding or egg-laying sites, and 

increasing suspended sediments and 

turbidity (PCE #1). Human activities 

54114 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

associated with heavy recreational use 

could also erode or denude stream 

banks or shores, reduce the extent of 

riparian vegetation, potentially reduce 

the available prey base for frogs, alter 

the amount of stream shade, and 

increase sedimentation within stream 

channels due to exposed soils, and 

impact water quality (e.g. temperature, 

pH) (PCEs #1 and 2). Changes due to 

human recreation could contribute to 

adverse changes to the habitat that 

result in local extinctions where these 

activities occur in close proximity to 

mountain yellow-legged frog 

populations (Jennings 1995, Backlin et 

al. 2001). Heavy recreational use is 

specifically cited as a potential threat in 

the area of Bear Gulch and Vincent 

Gulch, the San Gabriel River—East Fork, 

Little Rock Creek, Fuller Mill Creek, and 

Dark Canyon and recreational mining is 

cited as a potential threat in the East 

Fork San Gabriel (Jennings 1994, 1995, 

1998, 1999, USFS 2002). However, due 

to the proximity of the San Bernardino, 

San Gabriel and San Jacinto mountains 

to large urban centers and resulting high 

recreational use of these areas, there is 

potential for recreational impacts to all 

of the areas being proposed as critical 

habitat. 

Watershed management activities 

such as forest thinning or clearing for 

public safety or fire prevention (e.g., 

fuel load management) may also impact 

the physical and biological features 

determined to be essential for 

conservation of the species. Depending 

on the extent of alteration and the 

proximity to streams, forest thinning or 

clearing may alter streambed and 

riparian characteristics in ways that 

make sections of the stream less suitable 

as habitat for frogs. For example, 

thinning or clearing adjacent to streams 

could increase flooding and 

sedimentation within stream channels 

(Jennings 1998) due to exposed soils, 

impacting water quality (e.g. turbidity 

and pH (PCEs #1). Alterations to 

riparian vegetation could reduce the 

prey-base available for mountain 

yellow-legged frogs (PCE #2). At the 

same time, the presence of unnaturally 

high canopy cover or dense riparian 

vegetation could decrease the amount of 

basking areas available (PCE #2) and 

render the habitat unsuitable for 

mountain yellow-legged frog. Water 

diversion, such as water removal from 

the drainage system occupied by the 

species could reduce water levels and 

decrease the quality and extent of 

suitable breeding, wintering and 

foraging sites, and reduce the prey-base 

availability. The use of herbicides or 

other fire retardant chemicals to reduce 

fuel loads may impact water quality if 

used upslope or above a stream (PCE 

#1). Hazardous material spills along 

roads that cross streams are also a 

potential threat impacting water quality 

(PCE #1). Little Rock Creek, East Fork 

City Creek, Dark Canyon, Fuller Mill 

and Hall Canyon are cited as having 

potentially high canopy cover and/or 

dense riparian vegetation within the 

watershed and having potential for a 

hazardous material spills due to an 

adjacent roadway (USFS 2002). 

The USFS prepared the Mountain 

Yellow-Legged Frog Conservation 

Assessment and Strategy: Angeles and 

San Bernardino National Forests 

(Strategy) (USFS 2002). This Strategy 

provides a framework for conservation 

actions to assist in the recover and 

conservation of the mountain yellowlegged frog and identifies the following 

management actions necessary to reduce 

impacts to mountain yellow-legged frog 

habitat from (1) recreation: Closing, 

rerouting or reconstructing 

unauthorized trails; closing parking 

areas used for unauthorized trail access; 

removing campsites and picnic tables 

adjacent to occupied creeks; installing 

signing at trailheads and along access 

points to promote understanding of the 

species’ biology and habitat 

requirements; (2) high fuel loads: 

Developing plans for fuels reductions in 

the watershed which will examine 

potential riparian treatment of high 

canopy or dense vegetation; and (3) 

hazardous materials spills: developing 

an action plan for prevention, 

notification, and containment of spills 

before they enter the stream or its 

tributaries. 

Some of the conservation actions 

outlined in the Strategy have been 

implemented. For example, the USFS 

closed camp sites adjacent to Dark 

Canyon/North Fork San Jacinto River in 

May 2001 and acquired approximately 

60 ac (24 ha) of mountain yellow-legged 

frog habitat on in the headwaters of 

Fuller Mill Creek (USFS 2002) to protect 

a discontinuous stretch of habitat 

previously under private ownership. 

However, recreational activities that 

may impact habitat for the mountain 

yellow-legged frog continue to occur in 

or adjacent to other occupied sites. Also, 

we are not currently aware of the 

development of management plans to 

protect specific streams from potential 

impacts related to fuels reduction or 

hazardous spills. However, these issues 

may be addressed in the USFS’s 

updated Forest Plan covering the 

Angeles and San Bernardino National 

Forests. The USFS is currently 

consulting with the Service under 

section 7 of the Act on this updated 

plan. One of the goals of the 2004 draft 

Forest Plan is to establish critical 

biological zones that include the most 

important areas on the Angeles and San 

Bernardino National Forests to manage 

for the protection of imperiled species, 

including the mountain yellow-legged 

frog (USFS 2004). The revised draft 

Forest Plan is currently undergoing 

policy and agency review. Thus, the 

stream segments that are being proposed 

as critical habitat may or may not 

require special management 

considerations or protection as 

discussed above, depending on the 

provisions of the final management 

plans. Because we do not know the final 

disposition of these plans, we cannot 

make a determination as to whether 

they provide similar protections as a 

critical habitat determination would 

provide under the standards of Gifford 

Pinchot. Thus we are proposing 

designation of these streams. 

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation 

We have determined that 

approximately 8,770 ac (3,549 ha) of 

land containing features essential to the 

conservation of the mountain yellowlegged frog exists in Los Angeles, San 

Bernardino, and Riverside counties. Of 

this total, we are proposing to designate 

8,283 ac (3,352 ha) of land as critical 

habitat within three critical habitat units 

(further divided into subunits): Unit 1 

(with 7 subunits) in the San Gabriel 

Mountains (Los Angeles and San 

Bernardino counties), Unit 2 (with 3 

subunits) in San Bernardino Mountains 

(San Bernardino County), and Unit 3 

(with 4 subunits) in the San Jacinto 

Mountains (Riverside County). The 

remaining 487 ac (197 ha) are managed 

and protected under the completed 

Western Riverside County Multiple 

Species Habitat Conservation Plan 

(MSHCP) and to the extent that these 

areas meet the definition of critical 

habitat pursuant to section 3(5)(A)(i)(II), 

it is our intention to exclude these areas 

from critical habitat designation 

pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

(see Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act section for a detailed discussion). 

The proposed critical habitat units 

and subunits for the mountain yellowlegged frog in southern California, and 

their approximate sizes, are shown in 

Table 1. The unit and subunit names 

reflect the locations of the streams 

which constitute each unit. Table 2 

provides information about 

landownership within each subunit 

being proposed. 

The critical habitat units and their 

subunits described below are our best 

assessment, at this time, of the areas of 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 54115 

habitat with features essential for the 

conservation of the mountain yellowlegged frog. Each of these proposed 

critical habitat areas provides sufficient 

primary constituent elements to support 

essential mountain yellow-legged frog 

behaviors and life history requirements 

and one or more of them may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. 

TABLE 1. Areas of habitat determined 

to contain features essential for the 

conservation of the mountain yellowlegged frog and the approximate area 

encompassed by each proposed critical 

habitat unit. All units were historically 

occupied, see footnotes for current 

occupancy data and if the unit was 

occupied at the time of listing. [Area 

estimates reflect all land within critical 

habitat unit boundaries.] 

Critical habitat unit 

number/subunit 

letter 

Critical habitat unit/subunit Acres Hectares Occupancy * 

1 ............................ SAN GABRIEL MOUNTAINS UNIT (Angeles and San Bernardino National 

Forests, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties).

A ..................... San Gabriel River, East Fork (main stem, including Bear Gulch, Vincent 

Gulch, Alder Gulch, and other tributaries).

2,474 1,001 OTL, CO 

B ..................... Big Rock Creek, South Fork ............................................................................. 625 253 OTL, CO 

C ..................... Little Rock Creek ............................................................................................... 615 249 OTL, CO 

D ..................... Devil’s Canyon .................................................................................................. 279 113 OTL, CO 

E ..................... Day Canyon Creek ............................................................................................ 635 257 CO 

F ..................... San Gabriel River, East Fork, Iron Fork ........................................................... 373 151

G .................... Bear Creek (off San Gabriel River, West Fork) ................................................ 116 47 

2 ............................ SAN BERNARDINO MOUNTAINS UNIT (San Bernardino National Forest, 

San Bernardino County) 

A ..................... City Creek; (the tributaries East Fork and West Fork) ..................................... 1,386 561 OTL 

B ..................... Barton Creek, East Fork ................................................................................... 193 78 CO 

C ..................... Whitewater River, North Fork (upper reaches) ................................................. 74 30 

3 ............................ SAN JACINTO MOUNTAINS UNIT (San Bernardino National Forest, Riverside County).

A ..................... San Jacinto River, North Fork (the tributaries Black Mountain Creek, Fuller 

Mill Creek, Dark Canyon).

919 372 OTL, CO 

B ..................... Indian Creek (at Hall Canyon) .......................................................................... 126 51 OTL, CO 

C ..................... Tahquitz Creek (upper reaches, including Willow Creek tributary) .................. 358 145 

D ..................... Andreas Creek (upper reaches) ........................................................................ 109 44 

........................ Total ............................................................................................................... 8,283 3,352 

* OTL = Occupied at the Time of Listing; CO = Currently Occupied. 

TABLE 2. Approximate proposed 

critical habitat area (ac (ha)) by County 

and land ownership. Estimates reflect 

the total area within critical habitat unit 

boundaries. 

County Federal * Local/state Private Total 

Angeles ...................................................................................................................... 4,483 ac ...... 0 ac ............. 0 ac ............. 4,483 ac. 

(1,814 ha) .... (0 ha) ........... (0 ha) ........... (1,814 ha). 

San Bernardino .......................................................................................................... 2,169 ac ...... 0 ac ............. 119 ac ......... 2,288 ac. 

(878 ha) ....... (0 ha) ........... (48 ha) ......... (926 ha). 

Riverside .................................................................................................................... 1,301 ac ...... 211 ac ......... 0 ac ............. 1,404 ac. 

(526 ha) ....... (86 ha) ......... (0 ha) ........... (568 ha). 

Total .................................................................................................................... 7,953 ac ...... 211 ac ......... 119 ac ......... 8,283 ac. 

(3,218 ha) .... (86 ha) ......... (48 ha) ......... (3,353 ha). 

* Federal lands include U.S. Forest Service and other Federal land. 

We present below a general 

description of the overall range followed 

by a description of the units within each 

of the three mountain ranges the species 

occupies, and describe reasons why 

each area within those units contains 

habitat with features that are essential 

for the conservation of the mountain 

yellow-legged frog. 

Unit Descriptions 

As discussed in the Critical Habitat 

section above, we believe that all lands 

proposed as critical habitat are 

important for the persistence of the 

mountain yellow-legged frog for the 

following reasons: 

(1) The range of the mountain yellowlegged frog in southern California has 

been reduced to less than 1 percent of 

its original area (i.e., extirpated from 99 

percent of its former range as estimated 

by a review of historical records 

Jennings and Hayes (1994)), with the 

remaining occupied habitat limited and 

fragmented; 

(2) The population estimates for each 

stream are extremely small, with no 

estimate exceeding 100 breeding adults, 

and a approximate total of only 183 

surviving adults for the entire southern 

California range (this sum includes the 

City Creek, East Fork population, which 

has not recently been observed; Backlin 

et al. 2004); 

(3) Existing small populations are at a 

high risk of extinction due to stochastic 

events (Backlin et al. 2004) or 

deterministic events (Skelly et al. 1999); 

(4) Existing small populations are 

susceptible to other threats, including 

presence of non-native trout, and 

human recreation; 

Of the 14 subunits being proposed as 

critical habitat, 5 were historically 

54116 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

occupied but are not known to be 

occupied at the time of listing (subunits 

1F, 1G, 2C, 3C, 3D). These subunits 

were occupied recently (within the past 

45 years) and the stream and riparian 

habitat within each has not changed 

appreciably (Jennings 1993, 1994, 1995, 

1998, 1999; Jennings and Hayes 1994a, 

b; Backlin et al. 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004). 

Each of these subunits thus contains 

habitat with features important for the 

conservation of the species. Because of 

the necessity of population increase or 

augmentation for the continued survival 

of this species, these areas may serve as 

important re-introduction sites, 

particularly in the San Bernardino and 

San Jacinto Mountains, where the 

number of known occurrences has 

decreased to one and two limited areas, 

respectively. Even then, one of the two 

known populations in the San 

Bernardino Mountains (City Creek) have 

experienced a recent fire (2003) and 

subsequent flooding and were not 

observed in 2004 (Backlin et al. 2004). 

We are proposing additional areas 

historically occupied, but not identified 

in the listing rule, nor known to be 

currently occupied, for the following 

reasons: 

(1) The current, overall population 

size of the mountain yellow-legged frog 

is at such a low level, it must increase 

in order to insure long-term survival of 

this DPS (cf. Backlin et al. 2004). While 

the occupied units provide habitat for 

current populations, additional units 

will provide habitat for population 

augmentation either through natural 

means, or by re-introduction, thus 

reducing threats due to naturally 

occurring events; 

(2) Population augmentation either 

through natural means, or by reintroduction into the additional 

subunits may serve to decrease the risk 

of extinction of the species through 

stochastic events, such as fires or 

disease as the current, isolated 

populations are each at high risk of 

extirpation from such stochastic events 

(Backlin et al. 2004), particularly 

because of their small sizes and 

restricted ranges; 

(3) Population augmentation either 

through natural means, or by reintroduction into the additional 

subunits may increase the viability of 

the occupied subunits as well as of the 

existence of the mountain yellow-legged 

frog in southern California as a whole 

(increase the persistence likelihood at 

the local population level and of this 

DPS range wide); 

(4) Additional subunits will serve to 

decrease the degree of fragmentation of 

the current geographic distribution of 

the mountain yellow-legged frog within 

each of the three mountain ranges, or 

i.e., increase the connectivity between 

streams that are known to be currently 

occupied; 

(5) Additional subunits are proposed 

in areas occupied in the near past and 

located within the historical range of the 

species such that they will serve as 

corridors between currently occupied 

sites. Most proposed unoccupied 

subunits lie within 1.5–5 km of an 

occupied site, the only exception is 

subunit 2C (in historically occupied 

Whitewater River). Although subunit 2C 

is unlikely to serve as a corridor 

between currently occupied areas, this 

subunit is the only representative area 

of southeastern desert slope and of the 

San Gorgonio Mountains, and ensures 

representation of the full geographical 

distribution of the mountain yellowlegged frog not otherwise represented by 

the currently occupied sites; 

(6) There is potential for these areas 

to be currently occupied, as survey 

efforts in these areas have been limited. 

No conclusive evidence is available for 

current complete absence of mountain 

yellow-legged frogs at any of these sites 

due to few, incomplete, or no surveys 

having been conducted there recently. 

Although the species is described as 

highly aquatic but not as solitary 

(Vredenburg 2005), the species 

detectability is generally low (cf. 

Backlin et al. 2004), particularly if the 

population occurs in low numbers. 

Possible surveys may have missed 

sightings, as shown by repeated surveys 

in Dark Canyon and other areas where 

there are also confirmed historical 

sightings, followed by repeated annual 

reports of no occurrences for up to three 

years, with subsequent population ‘‘rediscovery’’ (cf. USGS, CDFG, USFS, 

survey reports 1990–2005); 

(7) The additional subunits may offer 

habitat that is superior to that in the 

occupied subunits (i.e., the potential 

viability of frogs in unoccupied subunits 

may be higher) due to the fact that the 

selected additional subunits contain 

fewer more easily treatable threats in 

general, than the occupied units. 

The Service is currently working on a 

recovery plan to implement the 

reintroduction of frogs into these ‘‘not 

known to be occupied subunits’’ with 

all stakeholders. 

All of the streams segments being 

proposed as critical habitat contain 

sufficient primary constituent elements 

essential to the mountain yellow-legged 

frog. We based this determination on 

site specific information contained in 

recent survey and technical reports and 

other available literature. We also based 

this determination on the fact that lands 

being proposed as critical habitat are 

owned and managed by the U.S. Forest 

Service and have not been subject to 

urban development or extensive 

recreational development that might 

have resulted in large-scale habitat 

destruction or alteration. The Angeles 

and San Bernardino National Forests 

focus on recreational and commercial 

land use and therefore, allow, at most, 

small-scale grazing or timber operations 

at this time (USFS 2004). 

Critical Habitat Unit 1: San Gabriel 

Mountains Unit 

This unit is comprised solely of USFS 

lands and lies entirely within the San 

Gabriel Mountains of the Angeles and 

San Bernardino National Forests in Los 

Angeles and San Bernardino counties. 

This unit is composed of stream 

segments within 7 subunits (1A–1G) of 

which 4 subunits (1A–1D) were known 

to be occupied at the time of listing; 1 

subunit (1E) was found to be occupied 

subsequent to the listing rule, and 2 

subunits (1F, 1G) are assumed to be 

unoccupied but were historically 

occupied. 

The populations in Unit 1 represent 

the northern and western-most known 

distribution of the southern California 

mountain yellow-legged frog. Both 

Subunit 1 (Bear Gulch on the East Fork 

of the San Gabriel River) and Subunit 2 

(South Fork of Big Rock Creek) 

represent areas with the two largest 

known remaining breeding populations 

throughout the entire range of the 

species (Backlin et al. 2004a), and these 

areas encompass habitat with features 

that are essential for the conservation of 

the mountain yellow-legged frog. 

Other subunits in Unit 1, such as 

Vincent Gulch, Little Rock Creek, and 

Devil’s Canyon also contain features 

essential for the conservation of the 

southern California mountain yellowlegged frog. Further, these three 

populations maintain the continuity of 

distribution throughout the San Gabriel 

Mountains and thereby reduce the risk 

of losing any isolated population from a 

stochastic, catastrophic event. Although 

these areas apparently support smaller 

adult populations than Bear Gulch and 

Big Rock Creek, mountain yellow-legged 

frogs have occurred in these areas since 

the early 1900’s. They may contain 

important summer or winter habitat for 

frogs from nearby areas, and may also be 

a source of breeding animals to the 

larger population, and are therefore 

likely to contain resources important for 

the continued survival of the remaining 

populations of mountain yellow-legged 

frog. 

The following habitat description for 

this region is given by Jennings (1993). 

The San Gabriel Mountains are, in 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 54117 

general, largely composed of 

metamorphic rock that has been uplifted 

and recently eroded, thus resulting on 

steep slopes with thin soil layers. The 

vegetation that covers much of the area 

is California chaparral, although Jeffrey 

pine (Pinus jeffreyi) is found at the 

elevations over 6,900 ft (2,104 m). The 

larger watercourses contain riparian 

woodlands consisting mainly of white 

alder (Alnus rhombifolia), canyon live 

oaks (Quercus chrysolepis), California 

sycamores (Platanus racemosa) and 

willows (Salix spp.), while on the 

surrounding hillsides there is big cone 

spruce (Pseudotsuga macrocarpa) and 

some incense cedar (Calocedrus 

decurrens) on surrounding hillsides. 

Prior to 1970, the mountain yellowlegged frog was the most abundant and 

widely distributed frog in the Angeles 

National Forest (Zweifel 1955, 

Schoenherr 1976, Jennings 1993). 

However, recent surveys (Backlin et al. 

2004) have only been able to locate this 

species in four areas within the Angeles 

National Forest; these areas are disjunct 

and widely separated both 

geographically, but also by paved roads. 

The reason(s) for the drastic decline in 

the abundance of mountain yellowlegged frogs on the Forest area remain 

unclear (Jennings 1993). The areas 

historically occupied by all three ranid 

species (foothill yellow-legged frog, 

California red-legged frog, mountain 

yellow-legged frog) in the southern 

portion of the San Gabriel Mountains 

are now heavily impacted by water 

regulation or diversion, off-road vehicle 

use, recreation (swimming, fishing, day 

use, camping), and in some areas, 

recreational placer gold mining 

(dredging; Jennings 1993). In addition, 

rainbow trout and bullfrogs (Rana 

catesbeiana) have been introduced into 

their habitat (Jennings 1999); both these 

non-native species act as predators or 

resource competitors for numerous 

Ranid species (Hayes and Jennings 

1986, Backlin et al. 2004). 

Subunit 1A: San Gabriel River East 

Fork, (Angeles National Forest) 

The East Fork of the San Gabriel River 

flows north to south, through remote, 

mountainous terrain that lies north of 

the West Fork of the San Gabriel River 

in the Angeles National Forest, Los 

Angeles County. It lies within the 

44,000 ac (17,807 ha) Sheep Mountain 

Wilderness Area. This subunit includes 

the following stream reaches in the 

upper section of the East Fork of the San 

Gabriel River: Bear Gulch, Vincent 

Gulch, Fish Fork, Iron Fork, and Alder 

Gulch. 

In the main stem of the East Fork of 

the San Gabriel River, mountain yellowlegged frogs have been observed as early 

as 1933, from as far south as Heaton 

Flats and as far north as the headwaters 

at Prairie Fork, Vincent Gulch, and Bear 

Gulch, where there are extant 

populations. The largest of these occurs 

in Bear Gulch, with an estimated 54 

adults for 2001–2003 (95% confidence 

interval 33–93). In 2003, 61 adults, 76 

tadpoles, and just one egg mass were 

found in Bear Gulch. In neighboring 

Vincent Gulch, mountain yellow-legged 

frogs have been observed as early as 

1933 (California Academy of Sciences), 

but in 2003 contained only about 2 

adults and 11 first-year larvae (Backlin 

et al. 2004). Jennings (1993) stated that 

the trail and/or campgrounds that occur 

at the mouth of Vincent Gulch should 

be re-routed. In adjacent Prairie Fork, 

mountain yellow-legged frogs have been 

observed since 1982, but were not 

located during surveys in 1998 and 

2000; there is a campground located 

here and trout occur (Jennings, Backlin 

et al. 2004). The populations in the area 

of this unit has experienced a number 

of major climatic events, such as 

devastating flooding that occurred 

throughout Southern California in the 

years 1968–69, when mountain yellowlegged frog populations seemed to be 

greatly reduced (Jennings and Hayes 

1994b) while the area of the headwaters 

of the San Gabriel River, East Fork were 

severely burned in 1997 (Jennings 

1999). 

Threats to the species and its habitat 

in this subunit include the presence of 

non-native trout, potential water 

diversion, and human recreation, 

including recreational mining (USFS 

2002). There have been proposals for 

water removal from the upper part of 

the drainage area above Vincent and 

Bear Gulch for the winter recreation on 

Blue Ridge, and increased siltation load 

from fire burns (in 1999) and from 

people recreating in the streams 

(Jennings 1999). South of these 

headwater streams, most areas of the 

East Fork of the San Gabriel River 

contain non-native trout (Backlin et al. 

2004). The main stem of this river, 

where mountain yellow-legged frog was 

observed as early as 1933, has been 

stocked with trout near its base (near 

Heaton Flats) 52 times between 1947 

and 1998 (Backlin et al. 2004). The 

Alder Gulch tributary to the East Fork 

of the San Gabriel River has not been 

surveyed extensively, but it contains 

habitat suitable to the mountain yellowlegged frog, which was known to occur 

here at least from 1994 to 1998. 

Rainbow trout were stocked in this 

stream twice between 1940 and 1969, 

and the trout persist today (Backlin et 

al. 2004). Stream segments in this 

subunit may require special 

management consideration or protection 

such as relocation of hiking trails or 

picnic areas or other access limitations 

in or near sensitive areas, additional 

monitoring of authorized mining 

activities, and removal of non-native 

trout species. 

Subunit 1B: Big Rock Creek, South Fork 

(Angeles National Forest) 

In the South Fork of Big Rock Creek, 

the mountain yellow-legged frog occurs 

at the uppermost reaches of the 

tributaries, below which rainbow trout 

occur. The number of frogs here is 

almost 10 times greater than in Little 

Rock Creek (Backlin et al. 2004). The 

breeding adult population of mountain 

yellow-legged frog in the South Fork of 

Big Rock Creek between 2000 and 2003 

was estimated at 27–74 (Backlin et al. 

2004). Big Rock Creek, along with Bear 

Gulch (subunit 1A), represents the 

largest adult breeding populations 

throughout the range of the species. 

Threats to the species and its habitat 

in this subunit include the presence of 

non-native trout (USFS 2002; Backlin et 

al. 2004) and human recreation. In 2002, 

recent severe drought conditions caused 

nearly the entire creek to dry such that 

only a few shallow pools remained 

below the area where the frogs occur; 

these contained an estimated number of 

trout between 20 and 100 fish in each 

(Backlin et al. 2004). By 2003, the 

drought conditions had greatly reduced 

the trout in the reaches below the frogs, 

providing opportunity for successful 

trout removal, and trout barrier 

implementation (Backlin et al. 2004). By 

late 2003, approximately 3 individuals 

were found to occur about 1 km 

downstream from where the bulk of the 

population occurs, where only one was 

found in previous years; it is 

hypothesized that these individuals 

could establish and persist given little to 

no trout (Backlin et al. 2004). There is 

currently no fish barrier to prevent trout 

from re-colonizing the upper reaches in 

years with heavier water flow, such as 

2005. The main stem of Big Rock Creek 

has been stocked with trout 51 times 

between 1947–1998, and the South Fork 

of Big Rock Creek stocked 4 times from 

1948–1953 (Backlin et al. 2004). Little 

documented information on recreational 

impacts to mountain yellow-legged frog 

habitat in this subunit exists, but the 

subunit borders near a campground, 

hiking trails and there are several roads 

close by (e.g., Angeles Crest Highway). 

Further, due to the proximity of the San 

Gabriel Mountains to large urban 

centers and resulting high recreational 

use of these areas, we believe that 

54118 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

recreation occurs to some extent within 

this subunit. As a result of these threats, 

the stream segments in this subunit may 

require special management 

consideration or protection such as 

relocation of hiking trails or other access 

limitations in or near sensitive areas and 

removal of non-native trout. 

Subunit 1C: Little Rock Creek (Angeles 

National Forest) 

Little Rock Creek is a long, desertflowing drainage that contains 

substantial arroyo toad (Bufo 

californicus) population in the lower 

reaches, where camping and OHV use 

are popular activities (Stephenson and 

Calcarone 1999). Here, the mountain 

yellow-legged frog once ranged from its 

headwaters, and throughout the entire 

length of this stream to where it empties 

northwest into the Mojave. This stream, 

where mountain yellow-legged frog 

were observed as early as 1911, has a 

reservoir at its base where non-native 

trout have been stocked 51 times 

between 1947 and 1998 (Backlin et al. 

2004). Today, the current population is 

estimated at approximately 9 

individuals, and believed to exist only 

at its headwaters at the highest 

elevations of the stream (Backlin et al. 

2004), although the side tributaries have 

been little studied. 

Threats to the species and its habitat 

in Little Rock Creek include the 

presence of non-native trout, human 

recreation, and hazard materials spills 

(USFS 2002). Rock climbing and hiking 

are common activities in the upper 

headwaters of Little Rock Creek, near 

the Angeles Crest Highway, where this 

unit occurs (Stephenson and Calcarone 

1999). An unofficial trail has been 

blazed to a popular rock-climbing area 

and follows the creek where the frogs 

occur (USFS 2002). The USGS has 

recommended that this trail be diverted 

away from the stream to avoid 

disturbance to the frogs and habitat 

pollution and both the USFS and USGS 

have identified the need for educational 

signs to promote understanding of the 

mountain yellow-legged frog biology/ 

ecology and its habitat requirements 

(USFS 2002; Backlin et al. 2004). 

Additional special management that 

may be required to minimize the threat 

of recreational activities includes 

closing, rerouting or reconstructing 

unauthorized trails; closing parking 

areas used for unauthorized trail access; 

relocating campsites and picnic tables 

adjacent to occupied creeks and removal 

of non-native trout detrimental to the 

mountain yellow-legged frog. The 

potential for hazardous materials spills 

is also a threat to the habitat within this 

subunit that may require special 

management such as developing an 

action plan for prevention, notification, 

and containment of spills before they 

enter the stream or its tributaries (USFS 

2002). There have also been requests for 

water removal for ski operations in the 

uppermost reaches, which can 

potentially dewater the stream (Service 

1999, 2002; Stewart et al. 2000). 

Little Rock Creek, with its extant 

mountain yellow-legged frog 

population, is a site chosen by the USGS 

to conduct a manipulation experiment 

in order to study the effects of trout 

removal on the establishment behavior 

of frogs. This was because trout are 

known predators of ranid frogs (Hayes 

and Jennings 1986, Backlin et al. 2004), 

and there is evidence that introduced 

trout restrict the distribution and 

abundance of mountain yellow-legged 

frogs (Bradford 1989, Bradford et al 

1994, Knapp and Matthews 2000, 

Knapp et al. 2003, Backlin et al. 2004). 

The project area encompasses the 

uppermost reaches of the creek, where 

it is divided into three consecutive 

sections by natural fish barriers. The 

first barrier is a natural waterfall, above 

which the main frog population occurs; 

below it are rainbow trout, and few 

mountain yellow-legged frog sightings 

have been recorded there regularly 

(Backlin et al. 2004). Further 

downstream, where there are only trout, 

a second natural barrier was enhanced 

by USFS in 2003 to prevent upstream 

movement by trout. Trout have been 

experimentally removed between the 

waterfall and the enhanced barrier on an 

annual basis (2002 to present) by 

electro-shocking and dip netting 

(Backlin et al. 2004). In 2002, 900 trout 

were removed, in 2003, 90 were 

removed, while in 2004, approximately 

250 trout—mostly young of the year—

were removed (T. Hovey, CDFG, pers. 

comm. 2005). Results from this 

experiment are thus inconclusive as the 

experiment is as yet incomplete: 

removal efforts have significantly 

depleted the trout population, but have 

not yet completely removed the trout 

from that section of the stream. 

Subunit 1D: Devil’s Canyon (Angeles 

National Forest) 

Devil’s Canyon is a rugged area within 

the San Gabriel Wilderness, which 

covers an area of 36,215 ac (14,667 ha) 

and varies in elevation from 1,600 to 8, 

200 ft. The lower elevations are covered 

with dense chaparral, which rapidly 

changes to pine and fir-covered slopes. 

Although wilderness permits are not 

required, Devil’s Canyon has been 

relatively unstudied with regard to 

vertebrate resources. Because this area 

difficult to access, it was surveyed only 

once by USGS in 2003 (Backlin et al. 

2004), although the habitat has been 

characterized as excellent (Jennings 

1993). The breeding adult population of 

mountain yellow-legged frog in Devil’s 

Canyon between 2000 and 2003 was 

estimated at 20 (Backlin et al. 2004). 

Threats to the species and its habitat 

within this subunit include the presence 

of non-native trout and human 

recreation. We do not currently have 

documented information on recreational 

impacts to mountain yellow-legged frog 

habitat in this subunit. However, due to 

the proximity of the San Gabriel 

Mountains to large urban centers and 

resulting high recreational use of these 

areas, we believe that recreation occurs 

to some extent within this subunit. 

Therefore, the stream segments that are 

being proposed as critical habitat in this 

subunit may require special 

management consideration or protection 

such as relocation of hiking trails or 

other access limitations in or near 

sensitive areas and the removal of nonnative trout. 

Subunit 1E: Day Canyon (San 

Bernardino National Forest) 

Day Canyon/Day Creek occurs on the 

southeastern slope of the San Gabriel 

Mountains, and it flows southward off 

of Cucamonga Peak and empties into a 

large wash area above lowlands to the 

north of Los Angeles. The terrain is 

steep and characterized by extensive 

rock/boulder fields and limited soil 

development (USFS 2002). Although the 

mountain yellow-legged frog was first 

observed here in 1959 (Los Angeles 

County Museum), Day Canyon has not 

been surveyed extensively, i.e., only 5 

times since 1997. Surveys in 2003 failed 

to locate any frogs (Backlin, et al., 2004), 

but did find rainbow trout in 2002; both 

years were drought years. 

This subunit represents the 

southernmost area in the San Gabriel 

Mountains that was occupied at the 

time of listing. Rainbow trout have been 

observed in this canyon (Myers and 

Wilcox 1999), and therefore pose a 

threat to the species and its habitat 

within this subunit. Further, human 

recreational impacts such as shooting, 

dumping (including automobiles) and 

recreation (swimming, picnicking, etc.) 

have been documented for a number 

drainages in the San Gabriel Mountains 

where mountain yellow-legged frog 

have been known to occur, including 

Day Canyon (Myers and Wilcox 1999). 

Further, this subunit drains into an area 

in close proximity to large urban 

centers, and we believe that recreation 

occurs regularly to some extent within 

this subunit. Therefore, the stream 

segments that are being proposed as 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 54119 

critical habitat in this subunit may 

require special management 

consideration or protection such as 

relocation of hiking trails or other access 

limitations in or near sensitive areas and 

removal of non-native trout. 

Subunit 1F: San Gabriel River, East 

Fork, Iron Fork (Angeles National 

Forest) 

The two streams, Iron Fork and the 

South Fork of Iron Fork drain into the 

San Gabriel East Fork, and had 

apparently healthy populations of 

dozens of individuals from at least 1947, 

through 1975, and in 1994 (Ford 1975; 

Jennings 1994). However, since then, 

the area has been surveyed only in 2001 

(Backlin, et al., 2002), presumably due 

to the difficulty of access, and its steep 

terrain. The upper reaches of this unit 

are difficult to access, but the survey by 

USGS found that it contains habitat 

suitable for the mountain yellow-legged 

frog (A. Backlin, USGS, pers. comm. 

2005). This subunit is important since it 

connects to the East Fork of the San 

Gabriel River near the important 

existing frog populations, while it is 

also located on the western side of the 

river, less than 5 km away from the Big 

Rock Creek. Iron Fork is thus important 

as it may constitute an important 

pathway between these two largest 

populations, while its inaccessibility 

and steepness may make it a refugia for 

frogs from trout; it is possible that frogs 

still occur in this area, particularly in 

the upper reaches as this area has not 

been recently surveyed on foot (Backlin, 

pers. comm.). 

While we have information that these 

stream reaches were historically 

occupied, reaches within this subunit 

were not known to be occupied by 

mountain yellow-legged frog at the time 

of listing and are not currently known 

to be occupied. However, this subunit is 

important since it connects to the East 

Fork of the San Gabriel River near the 

important existing frog populations, and 

it is located on the western side of the 

river, less than 5 km away from the Big 

Rock Creek. Iron Fork is thus important 

as it may constitute an important 

pathway between these two largest 

populations, while its inaccessibility 

and steepness may make it a refugia for 

frogs from trout; it is possible that frogs 

still occur in this area, particularly in 

the upper reaches as this area has not 

been recently surveyed on foot (A. 

Backlin, USGS, pers. comm. 2005). 

Threats to the species and its habitat 

within this subunit include the presence 

of non-native trout and human 

recreation. We do not have documented 

information on recreational impacts to 

mountain yellow-legged frog habitat in 

this subunit. However, due to the 

proximity of the San Gabriel Mountains 

to large urban centers and resulting high 

recreational use of these areas, we 

believe that recreation occurs to some 

extent within this subunit. This subunit 

may constitute an important alternative 

site for future mountain yellow-legged 

frog re-introductions in this region. 

Subunit 1G: Bear Creek, Upper Reaches 

(Off San Gabriel River, West Fork; 

Angeles National Forest) 

Bear Creek lies within the San Gabriel 

Wilderness Area and is accessible by an 

11-mile trail, with trailheads on 

Highway 39, on the eastern border of the 

Wilderness. Mountain yellow-legged 

frog were first observed in the Bear 

Creek area in 1959 (Schoenherr 1976), 

and while the stream has only been 

surveyed twice since (Jennings 1993; 

Backlin, et al., 2003). However, frogs 

may have been missed here due to the 

detectability of the species as shown by 

repeated surveys in Dark Canyon and 

other areas where there are also 

confirmed historical sightings, and 

repeated annual reports of no 

occurrences for up to three years, that is, 

until the populations are subsequently 

‘‘re-discovered.’’ Bear Creek is known to 

contain habitat suitable for the frog 

(described as excellent by Jennings 

1994, 1999) and its upper reaches are 

located less than one mile east of Devil’s 

Canyon, where an extant population of 

frogs was observed in 2005 (A. Backlin, 

USGS, pers. comm. 2005). 

Threats to the species and its habitat 

within this subunit include the presence 

of non-native trout and recreational 

activities in its southern reaches. We do 

not have documented information on 

recreational impacts to mountain 

yellow-legged frog habitat in this 

subunit. However, due to the proximity 

of the San Gabriel Mountains to large 

urban centers and resulting high 

recreational use of these areas, we 

believe that recreation occurs to some 

extent within this subunit. Stream 

reaches within this subunit were not 

known to be occupied by mountain 

yellow-legged frog at the time of listing 

(1987–2002) and are not currently 

known to be occupied. However this 

subunit is, may be important as a 

potential reintroduction site for 

mountain yellow-legged frog in this 

region. 

Critical Habitat Unit 2: San Bernardino 

Mountains Unit 

This unit is composed of stream 

segments within 3 subunits (2A–2C) of 

which 1 subunit (2A) was known to be 

occupied at the time of listing but 

currently assumed unoccupied, 1 

subunit (2B) was found to be occupied 

subsequent to the listing determination, 

and 1 subunit (2C) is not known to be 

currently occupied but was historically 

occupied. This unit is located in the San 

Bernardino Mountains within the 

boundaries the San Bernardino National 

Forest in San Bernardino County. 

Subunit 2A: City Creek 

This subunit contains portions of both 

the west and east forks of City Creek in 

an unpopulated area of the San 

Bernardino Mountains where 

recreational pressure is very low. 

Backlin et al. (2003) identified suitable 

habitat for the mountain yellow-legged 

frog in 2003. The City Creek, West Fork 

has been surveyed less frequently than 

City Creek, East Fork but both adults 

and tadpoles have been observed at the 

confluence of the two streams and 

below the confluence as well (USFS and 

CDFG reports, 1998, 1999). The 

breeding adult population of mountain 

yellow-legged frog in City Creek, East 

Fork between 2002 and 2003 was 

estimated at 50 (confidence interval = 

22–127; Backlin et al. 2004), 

representing one of the largest of the 

known populations of mountain yellowlegged frog in southern California. 

Threats to the species and its habitat 

within this subunit include the presence 

of non-native trout, potentially high fuel 

loads, and the potential for hazardous 

spills along Highway 330 (USFS 2002). 

Non-native brown trout have been 

stocked 11 times between 1949 and 

1979 (Backlin, et al., 2004). Threats to 

the species in this subunit also include 

temporary habitat alteration resulting 

from flood and fire events. In 2003, the 

Old Fire burned the front range of the 

San Bernardino National Forest, 

including the watershed for City Creek, 

with subsequent run-off and scouring in 

late fall 2003. In addition, fire and 

debris deposition in December 2003 

may have decimated much of the fish 

and frog populations here, although it is 

possible that some frogs survived 

(Backlin, et al., 2004). In 2004, 11 

juvenile frogs were salvaged from the 

East Fork and taken to the Los Angeles 

Zoo’s captive rearing facility, where the 

juvenile frogs currently thrive (Dr. R. 

Smith, pers. comm. 2004). In their latest 

report, USGS (Backlin, et al., 2004) 

recommends that these individuals be 

bred in captivity and new populations 

established in the wild from egg masses 

or tadpoles, in areas determined to be 

historically occupied where suitable 

conditions can be rendered through 

habitat restoration. 

As a result of the 2003 fire, and the 

2005 floods, parts of City Creek, East 

Fork may not currently contain all of the 

54120 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

primary constituent elements essential 

for the mountain yellow-legged frog, 

and hydrologists expect that the 

sediments will have been scoured and 

transported downstream. However, the 

portion of the creek north of Highway 

32 contained many pools and the 

riparian habitat seemed intact, although 

the banks themselves were rocky and 

now lack soil substrate (Dr. E. Pierce, 

Service, pers. obs. 2004). Thus, at least 

in the northern portion of this creek, at 

least one or more of the primary 

constituent elements still exist. Over 

time, natural processes will restore the 

habitat; i.e., the bank substrates and 

other original conditions. CDFG, USFS, 

USGS, CRES, and the Service are 

developing a long-term plan to 

potentially return the progeny of these 

10 remaining frogs to City Creek-East 

Fork. Prior to the flooding, East Fork of 

City Creek supported approximately 50 

adult frogs and was considered one of 

the three largest populations of the 

southern California mountain yellowlegged frog, however surveys since the 

floods have failed to yield additional 

frogs. 

We consider this subunit to be 

unoccupied but essential to the 

conservation of the species because 

while the habitat does not currently 

contain sufficient PCEs we expect it to 

recover naturally from a natural event 

and because: (1) The habitat previously 

supported a large adult population; (2) 

this population was one of only two 

known occurrences in the San 

Bernardino Mountains; and (3) this 

stream would be the most likely 

candidate to reintroduce the progeny of 

the mountain yellow-legged frog held at 

the Los Angeles Zoo. 

Stream segments that are being 

proposed as critical habitat in this 

subunit may require special 

management consideration or protection 

such removal of non-native trout 

species, restoration of habitat altered 

during recent fires and floods, the 

development of an action plan for 

prevention, notification, and 

containment of spills before they enter 

the stream or its tributaries, and 

management of riparian vegetation in 

areas of high canopy cover or dense 

vegetation. 

Subunit 2B: Barton Creek, East Fork 

The East Fork of Barton Creek drains 

from the north-facing slope of the San 

Bernardino Mountain Wilderness area, 

off Shields Peak, and joins with Frog 

Creek to form the main stem of Barton 

Creek. The terrain is characterized by 

low relief, moderate to extensive soil 

development, and partly closed canopy 

(USFS 2002). In 1993, approximately 50 

adults were observed in this creek 

during a year when the creek was 

flowing well (CNDDB; R. McKernan, dir. 

San Bernardino County Museum, pers. 

obs.). Approximately 50 individual 

adults were observed here in 1993 

(CNDDB 2005), a year of significant 

precipitation. 

Threats to the species and its habitat 

within this subunit include the presence 

of non-native brown trout, some habitat 

degradation due to urban development, 

and human recreation. The area above 

State Highway 38 and above Jenks Lake 

Road has a number of permanent 

dwellings or other structures, and has 

evidence of human disturbance. The 

main Barton Creek stem has been 

stocked with non-native trout six times 

between 1940 and 1955 (Backlin, et al., 

2004). Stream segments that are being 

proposed as critical habitat may require 

special management consideration or 

protection such as relocation of hiking 

trails or other access limitations in or 

near sensitive areas, restoration of 

habitat in disturbed areas, and removal 

of non-native trout. 

Subunit 2C: Whitewater River, North 

Fork (Upper Reaches) 

This portion of Whitewater River, 

which flows southward, occurs in the 

San Bernardino Wilderness area, on 

USFS lands. The first collection of the 

species was made on the desert slope 

between Cabezon and Whitewater in 

1908. Subsequent fieldwork revealed 

mountain yellow-legged frog in 

Whitewater River in 1959, and while it 

has not been re-located, surveys have 

only been conducted 2001 and 2003, 

and only in the lower reaches of the 

river. 

This area contains sufficient features 

such that we consider the area to be 

essential to the conservation of the 

species (A. Backlin, USGS, pers. comm. 

2004). Stream reaches within this 

subunit were not known to be occupied 

by mountain yellow-legged frog at the 

time of listing (1987–2002) and are not 

currently known to be occupied. 

However, this area at least historically 

contained the southeastern most known 

population of mountain yellow-legged 

frog in the San Bernardino Mountains 

(A. Backlin, USGS, pers. comm. 2004). 

This subunit may constitute a potential 

re-introduction site for the mountain 

yellow-legged frog in this region. 

Threats to the species and its habitat 

within this subunit include the presence 

of non-native trout and human 

recreation. Rainbow trout observed 2003 

in the lower reaches; the river has been 

stocked with non-native trout two times 

between 1950 and 1967 (Backlin, et al., 

2004). Currently, we do not have 

documented information on recreational 

impacts to mountain yellow-legged frog 

habitat in this subunit. However, due to 

the proximity of the San Bernardino 

Mountains to large urban centers and 

resulting high recreational use of these 

areas, we believe that recreation occurs 

to some extent within this subunit. 

Critical Habitat Unit 3: San Jacinto 

Mountains Unit 

The San Jacinto Mountains Unit is 

composed of stream segments within 4 

subunits (3A–3D) of which 2 subunits 

(3A & 3B) were known to be occupied 

at the time of listing and 2 subunits (3C 

& 3D) are not known to be currently 

occupied, but were historically 

occupied. This unit is located in the San 

Jacinto Mountains in the San 

Bernardino National Forest, Riverside 

County. 

Subunit 3A: San Jacinto River, North 

Fork (the Tributaries Black Mountain 

Creek, Fuller Mill Creek, and Dark 

Canyon 

These populations represent the 

southernmost distribution of the 

mountain yellow-legged frog. In 2003, 

Fuller Mill Creek (9 adults) represented 

approximately 5 percent of the 

estimated population of 183 adults 

(Backlin, et al., 2004) and is the largest 

remaining population in the San Jacinto 

Mountains. In 2003, 11 adults, 54 

juveniles, and 18 first-year larvae were 

recorded from Dark Canyon (Backlin et 

al. 2004). Dark Canyon (54 juveniles) 

represented approximately 42 percent of 

the 128 juvenile mountain yellowlegged frog captured in 2003, although 

the small sample may not represent the 

true demographics of this population 

(Backlin et al. 2004). Dark Canyon, and 

its upper reaches, has been surveyed 

little (i.e. it was surveyed only once in 

2003 because this area difficult to 

access) (Backlin et al. 2004). Both Fuller 

Mill Creek and Dark Canyon represent 

important sources of reproductive 

potential for the low population of the 

mountain yellow-legged frog and to 

maintain populations in the San Jacinto 

Mountains and minimize the risk of 

losing any population from a stochastic 

catastrophic event. The North Fork San 

Jacinto River at Black Mountain Creek 

was not known occupied at the time of 

listing, but has been surveyed rarely 

since 1994. The North Fork San Jacinto 

River has been stocked with non-native 

trout 36 times between 1948 and 1984 

(Backlin, et al., 2004). 

Threats to the species and its habitat 

in this subunit include the presence of 

non-native trout, human recreation, and 

potentially high fuel loads (USFS 2002). 

Therefore stream segments within this 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 54121 

subunit may require special 

management consideration or protection 

such removal of non-native trout 

species, rerouting or reconstructing 

hiking trails or some recreational 

facilities located adjacent to occupied 

creeks, installing signing at trailheads 

and along access points to promote 

understanding of the species’ biology 

and habitat requirements, and 

management of riparian vegetation in 

areas of high canopy cover or dense 

vegetation. 

Subunit 3B: Indian Creek (at Hall 

Canyon) 

In Indian Creek at Hall Canyon, 

mountain yellow-legged frogs have been 

observed since as early as 1908 (Lake 

Fulmor). Lake Fulmor has been stocked 

with non-native trout at least 24 times 

between 1957 and 1984 (Backlin, et al., 

2004). Since then, they have been 

observed in 1927, in the 1950’s and 

again in 1995 (CNDDB). Although 

extensive surveys have not been 

conducted here in the 2000s, water 

levels in these streams have apparently 

been very low due to drought 

conditions. The mountain yellow-legged 

frog was last observed in Hall Canyon in 

1995. North Fork San Jacinto River and 

Hall Canyon constitute two of the four 

(50 percent) known occurrences of the 

mountain yellow-legged frog observed 

in the San Jacinto Mountains since 

1995. Thus, these streams are important 

for the persistence of the mountain 

yellow-legged frog. 

Threats to the mountain yellowlegged frog in this subunit include the 

potential presence of non-native trout 

and potentially high fuel loads (USFS 

2002) and some human recreation 

activities. Therefore stream segments 

within this subunit may require special 

management consideration or protection 

such removal of non-native trout 

species, closing, rerouting or 

reconstructing campgrounds, hiking 

trails or picnic tables adjacent to 

occupied creeks, installing signage at 

trailheads, removal of non-native trout, 

and management of riparian vegetation 

in areas of high canopy cover or dense 

vegetation. 

Subunit 3C: Tahquitz Creek (Upper 

Reaches, Including Willow Creek 

Tributary) 

The headwaters of this extensive river 

occur within the San Jacinto Wilderness 

area, where the subunit is located 

entirely. It flows from Mount San 

Jacinto eastward and empties near Palm 

Springs. The habitat has been 

characterized as suitable (Backlin et al. 

2004). Mountain yellow-legged frogs 

were located in this stream as early as 

1905, throughout the early 1900s and as 

late as 1970. Surveys of this currently 

unoccupied stream have been 

infrequent in recent years, due to its 

extensive length and ruggedness; the 

upper reaches and lower reaches have 

been survey four times in the 2000s, but 

not the mid-sections. Brown trout were 

found during recent surveys, and 

records show that the river was stocked 

with non-native trout 36 times between 

1948 and 1984 (Backlin, et al., 2004). 

Threats to the species and its habitat 

in this subunit include trampling of 

habitat due to cows (CDFG survey 

comments, 2001) and the presence of 

non-native trout. In general, this stream 

has a low level of human recreational 

pressure. Tahquitz Creek may constitute 

an important alternative site for future 

mountain yellow-legged frog reintroductions in this region. 

Subunit 3D: Andreas Creek (Upper 

Reaches) 

The headwaters of this river also 

occur within the San Jacinto Wilderness 

area, where the Sub-unit is located 

entirely, and flows from Mount San 

Jacinto eastward and empties near Palm 

Springs. Mountain yellow-legged frog 

were found in this currently unoccupied 

site as early as 1941, and as late as 1978 

and were thought to persist there still in 

1994 (Jennings and Hayes 1994b). 

Although Andreas Creek also has a low 

level of human recreational pressure, it 

has been stocked with non-native trout 

9 times between 1949 and 1968 (Backlin 

et al. 2004). The stream habitat has been 

identified as suitable for the mountain 

yellow-legged frog (Backlin, et al., 

2004). The headwaters of both Andreas 

Creek and Tahquitz Creek occur 

relatively close to the upper drainage of 

the currently known population in the 

North Fork of San Jacinto, and may 

therefore constitute an important 

alternative site for future mountain 

yellow-legged frog re-introductions. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7 of the Act requires Federal 

agencies, including the Service, to 

ensure that actions they fund, authorize, 

or carry out are not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. In our 

regulations at 50 CFR 402.2, we define 

destruction or adverse modification as 

‘‘a direct or indirect alteration that 

appreciably diminishes the value of 

critical habitat for both the survival and 

recovery of a listed species. Such 

alterations include, but are not limited 

to: Alterations adversely modifying any 

of those physical or biological features 

that were the basis for determining the 

habitat to be critical.’’ We are currently 

reviewing the regulatory definition of 

adverse modification in relation to the 

conservation of the species, and are 

relying on the statutory provisions of 

the Act in evaluating the effects of 

Federal actions on proposed critical 

habitat, pending further regulatory 

guidance. More detail on how we are 

currently interpreting this portion of the 

Act can be found in the Fish and 

Wildlife Service Director’s December 9, 

2004, memorandum, titled: Application 

of the ‘‘Destruction or Adverse 

Modification’’ Standard under Section 

7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act. 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to evaluate their actions with respect to 

any species that is proposed or listed as 

endangered or threatened and with 

respect to its critical habitat, if any is 

proposed or designated. Regulations 

implementing this interagency 

cooperation provision of the Act are 

codified at 50 CFR part 402. 

Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to confer with us on 

any action that is likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of a proposed 

species or result in destruction or 

adverse modification of proposed 

critical habitat. Conference reports 

provide conservation recommendations 

to assist the agency in eliminating 

conflicts that may be caused by the 

proposed action. We may issue a formal 

conference report if requested by a 

Federal agency. Formal conference 

reports on proposed critical habitat 

contain an opinion that is prepared 

according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if critical 

habitat were designated. We may adopt 

the formal conference report as the 

biological opinion when the critical 

habitat is designated, if no substantial 

new information or changes in the 

action alter the content of the opinion 

(see 50 CFR 402.10(d)). The 

conservation recommendations in a 

conference report are advisory. 

If a species is listed or critical habitat 

is designated, section 7(a)(2) requires 

Federal agencies to ensure that activities 

they authorize, fund, or carry out are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of such a species or to destroy 

or adversely modify its critical habitat. 

If a Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency (action 

agency) must enter into consultation 

with us. Through this consultation, the 

action agency ensures that their actions 

do not destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

result in the destruction or adverse 

54122 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

modification of critical habitat, we also 

provide reasonable and prudent 

alternatives to the project, if any are 

identifiable. ‘‘Reasonable and prudent 

alternatives’’ are defined at 50 CFR 

402.02 as alternative actions identified 

during consultation that can be 

implemented in a manner consistent 

with the intended purpose of the action, 

that are consistent with the scope of the 

Federal agency’s legal authority and 

jurisdiction, that are economically and 

technologically feasible, and that the 

Director believes would avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent 

alternatives can vary from slight project 

modifications to extensive redesign or 

relocation of the project. Costs 

associated with implementing a 

reasonable and prudent alternative are 

similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions in instances where critical 

habitat is subsequently designated and 

the Federal agency has retained 

discretionary involvement or control 

over the action or such discretionary 

involvement or control is authorized by 

law. Consequently, some Federal 

agencies may request re-initiation of 

consultation or conference with us on 

actions for which formal consultation 

has been completed, if those actions 

may affect designated critical habitat or 

adversely modify or destroy proposed 

critical habitat. 

Federal activities that may affect the 

mountain yellow-legged frog or its 

critical habitat will require section 7 

consultation. Activities on private or 

State lands requiring a permit from a 

Federal agency, such as a permit from 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(Corps) under section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act, a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit 

from the Service, or some other Federal 

action, including funding (e.g., Federal 

Highway Administration or Federal 

Emergency Management Agency 

funding), will also continue to be 

subject to the section 7 consultation 

process. Federal actions not affecting 

listed species or critical habitat and 

actions on non-Federal and private 

lands that are not federally funded, 

authorized, or permitted do not require 

section 7 consultation. 

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

to briefly evaluate and describe in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat those 

activities involving a Federal action that 

may destroy or adversely modify such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. Activities that may destroy 

or adversely modify critical habitat may 

also jeopardize the continued existence 

of the mountain yellow-legged frog. 

Federal activities that, when carried out, 

may adversely affect critical habitat for 

the mountain yellow-legged frog 

include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Sale, exchange, or lease of lands 

managed by the USFS or other Federal 

agencies. The sale, exchange, or lease of 

these lands could result in reduced 

management and conservation efforts to 

conserve the mountain yellow-legged 

frog; 

(2) Regulation of activities affecting 

waters of the United States by the Corps 

under section 404 of the Clean Water 

Act; 

(3) Regulation of water flows, water 

delivery, damming, diversion, stream 

channelization, water transfers, 

diversion, impoundment, groundwater 

withdrawal, or irrigation activities that 

causes barriers or deterrents to 

dispersal, inundates or drains habitat, or 

significantly converts habitat by the 

USFS, Bureau of Reclamation, Corps or 

other Federal agencies; 

(4) Regulation of grazing, recreation, 

mining, or logging by the USFS or other 

Federal agencies. Mining, grazing, 

logging, land clearing, and recreational 

activities in or adjacent to the aquatic 

habitat could degrade, reduce, fragment 

or eliminate the habitat necessary for 

the growth and reproduction of the 

mountain yellow-legged frog. 

(5) Funding and implementation of 

disaster relief projects by the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) and the Natural Resource 

Conservation Service’s (NRCS) 

Emergency Watershed Program, 

including erosion control, flood control, 

stream bank repair to reduce the risk of 

loss of property. Such program activities 

could adversely affect breeding and 

non-breeding aquatic habitats of the 

subspecies by channelization or 

hardening of stream courses, removal of 

riparian vegetation used by the 

mountain yellow-legged frog for 

foraging or shelter; 

(6) Funding and regulation of new 

road construction, paved areas, or road 

improvements by the Federal Highways 

Administration, the USFS, or other 

agencies. Road construction or 

improvement activities can adversely 

affect the mountain yellow-legged frog 

through creation of barriers to dispersal 

and increased traffic volume resulting in 

direct mortality, removal or alteration of 

aquatic habitat or hydrology necessary 

for growth and reproduction; 

(7) Clearing of riparian vegetation by 

the USFS or other Federal agencies. 

These activities may lead to changes in 

water flows, levels, and quality that may 

potentially degrade or eliminate habitats 

for the mountain yellow-legged frog; 

(8) Promulgation of air and water 

quality standards under the Clean Air 

Act and the Clean Water Act, and the 

clean up of toxic waste and superfund 

sites under the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act by the EPA; 

(9) Discharges that may significantly 

alter water quality, chemistry, or 

temperature or significantly increase 

sediment deposition within the streams 

and other aquatic habitats used by the 

mountain yellow-legged frog. These 

discharges may alter water quality 

beyond the tolerances of the mountain 

yellow-legged frog adults, larvae, or 

eggs. 

All lands proposed for designation as 

critical habitat lie within the geographic 

range of the southern California of the 

mountain yellow-legged frog in the San 

Bernardino, San Jacinto, and San 

Gabriel mountains. This proposed 

designation includes areas currently 

known to be occupied by the species, as 

well as several areas that were 

historically occupied, but where current 

occupancy is not known and assumed to 

be unoccupied. The occupied units are 

known to be used for foraging, 

sheltering, breeding, egg-laying, growth 

of larvae and juveniles, intra-specific 

communication, basking, dispersal, and 

migration. Federal agencies already 

consult with us on activities in areas 

currently occupied by the mountain 

yellow-legged frog, or if the species may 

be affected by the action, to ensure that 

their actions do not jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species. In 

the event critical habitat is designated, 

Federal agencies would need to ensure 

that their actions do not destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. For 

these areas where current occupancy 

has not been verified, we are only 

proposing to designate federally 

managed land as critical habitat. Thus, 

we do not anticipate substantial 

additional regulatory protection will 

result from the proposed critical habitat 

designation for areas known to be 

occupied by mountain yellow-legged 

frog, although consultation may need to 

be reinitiated. For those areas not 

currently known to be occupied by 

mountain yellow-legged frog, the Forest 

Service or other Federal agencies would 

need to consult with the Service under 

section 7(a)(2) of the Act. 

If you have questions regarding 

whether specific activities may 

constitute adverse modification of 

critical habitat in California, contact the 

Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 54123 

Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section). 

Requests for copies of the regulations on 

listed plants and wildlife and inquiries 

about prohibitions and permits may be 

addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Branch of Endangered Species, 

911 NE 11th Ave, Portland, OR 97232 

(telephone (503) 231–2063; facsimile 

(503)— 231–6243. 

Application of 3(5)(A) and Exclusions 

Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines 

critical habitat as the specific areas 

within the geographic area occupied by 

the species at the time of listing on 

which are found those physical and 

biological features (i) essential to the 

conservation of the species and (ii) 

which may require special management 

considerations or protection. Therefore, 

areas within the geographic area 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing that do not contain the features 

essential for the conservation of the 

species are not, by definition, critical 

habitat. Similarly, areas within the 

geographic area occupied by the species 

at the time of listing that do not require 

special management or protection also 

are not, by definition, critical habitat. To 

determine whether an area requires 

special management, we first determine 

if the essential features located there 

generally require special management to 

address applicable threats. If those 

features do not require special 

management, or if they do in general but 

not for the particular area in question 

because of the existence of an adequate 

management plan or for some other 

reason, then the area does not require 

special management. 

We consider a current plan to provide 

adequate management or protection if it 

meets two criteria: (1) The plan provides 

management, protection or 

enhancement to the PCEs at least 

equivalent to that provided by a critical 

habitat designation; and (2) the Service 

has reasonable expectation the 

management, protection or 

enhancement actions will continue for 

the foreseeable future. 

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

critical habitat shall be designated, and 

revised, on the basis of the best 

available scientific data after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, 

national security impact, and any other 

relevant impact of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. An 

area may be excluded from critical 

habitat if it is determined that the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying a particular area 

as critical habitat, unless the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. 

In our critical habitat designations, we 

use both the provisions outlined in 

sections 3(5)(A) and 4(b)(2) of the Act to 

evaluate those specific areas that we are 

consider proposing designating as 

critical habitat as well as for those areas 

that are formally proposed for 

designation as critical habitat. Lands we 

have found do not meet the definition 

of critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) 

or have excluded pursuant to section 

4(b)(2) include those covered legally 

operative HCPs that cover the species. 

There are no tribal lands or lands owned 

by the Department of Defense within the 

areas proposed as critical habitat for the 

mountain yellow-legged frog in 

southern California. 

Relationship of Critical Habitat to 

Approved Habitat Conservation Plans 

(HCPs) 

To the extent that these areas meet the 

definition of critical habitat pursuant to 

section 3(5)(A) of the Act, we are 

proposing to exclude critical habitat 

from approximately 487 ac (197 ha) of 

non-Federal lands within existing 

Public/Quasi Public (PQP) lands, 

proposed conceptual reserve design 

lands, and lands targeted for 

conservation within the Western 

Riverside County Multiple Species 

Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) 

Area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

Non-Federal lands we are proposing to 

exclude from critical habitat include 

lands on Mount San Jacinto State Park 

owned by the California Department of 

Parks and Recreation (approximately 

205 ac (83 ha)), private lands along 

Fuller Mill Creek (approximately 141 ac 

(57 ha)), lands owned by the County of 

Riverside Regional Parks and Open 

Space District at the confluence of 

Fuller Mill Creek and Dark Canyon 

(approximately 87 ac (35 ha)), and lands 

owned by the University of California at 

the James San Jacinto Mountains 

Reserve (approximately 54 ac (22 ha)). 

The mountain yellow-legged frog is a 

covered species under the completed 

Western Riverside County MSHCP, and 

all but 141 ac (57 ha) of the 487 ac (197) 

of essential habitat identified within the 

MSHCP occur on reserve lands which 

will be conserved through the 

provisions of the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP. All private lands 

identified as essential mountain yellowlegged frog habitat occur on lands 

identified within the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP as Additional Reserve 

Lands. These Additional Reserve Lands 

must all be purchased by Riverside 

County as part of the HCP and will, over 

time, also be conserved through the 

provisions of the MSHCP. Therefore, all 

lands identified as essential habitat will 

be conserved. All essential habitat 

identified within the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP falls in an area defined 

in the MSHCP as the San Jacinto 

Mountains Bioregion Core Area, within 

the MSHCP Conservation Area. This 

Core Area primarily occurs within the 

San Bernardino National Forest. This 

area includes the current known 

populations as well as suitable and 

historically occupied mountain yellowlegged frog habitat. 

In addition to conserving all lands 

identified as essential habitat, the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP also 

identified 30,927 ac (12,516 ha) of 

modeled habitat for the mountain 

yellow-legged frog, far exceeding the 

487 ac (197 ha) proposed for exclusion, 

and includes the following speciesspecific conservation objectives for this 

modeled habitat: Objective 1: Include 

within the MSHCP Conservation Area at 

least 335 ac (136 ha) of primary 

breeding habitat above 370 m (riparian 

scrub woodland and forest) within the 

San Jacinto Mountains. Primary 

breeding habitat for the yellow-legged 

frog includes aquatic habitats with 

gently sloping shore margins that 

receive some sunlight, and clear cool 

water; Objective 2: Include within the 

MSHCP Conservation Area the Core 

Areas above 370 m at the North Fork of 

the San Jacinto River (including Dark 

Canyon), Hall Canyon, and Fuller Mill 

Creek and other perennial water streams 

in the San Jacinto Mountains; Objective 

3: Include within the MSHCP 

Conservation Area at least 32,399 ac 

(13,111 ha) of the secondary wooded 

habitat above 1,214 ft (370 m) (oak 

woodlands and forests and montane 

coniferous forest) within the North Fork 

of the San Jacinto River (including Dark 

Canyon), Hall Canyon, and Fuller Mill 

Creek and other perennial water streams 

in the San Jacinto Mountains; Objective 

4: Surveys for this species will be 

conducted as part of the project review 

process for public and private projects 

within the amphibian species survey 

area where suitable habitat is present 

(see Amphibian Species Survey Area 

Map, Figure 6–3 of the MSHCP, Volume 

I). Mountain yellow-legged frog 

localities identified as a result of survey 

efforts shall be conserved in accordance 

with procedures described within 

Section 6.3.2, MSHCP, Volume 1; 

Objective 5: Within the MSHCP 

Conservation Area, Reserve Managers 

shall maintain or, if feasible, restore 

ecological processes (with particular 

emphasis on removing non-native 

predatory fish and bullfrogs) within 

54124 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

occupied habitat and suitable new areas 

within the Criteria Area. At a minimum, 

these areas will include areas above 

1,214 ft (370 m) at the North Fork of the 

San Jacinto River (including Dark 

Canyon), Fuller Mill Creek, and Hall 

Canyon above Lake Fulmor; and 

Objective 6: Within the MSHCP 

Conservation Area, maintain successful 

reproduction as measured by the 

presence/absence of tadpoles, egg 

masses, or juvenile frogs once a year for 

the first five years after permit issuance 

and then as determined by the Reserve 

Management Oversight Committee as 

described in Section 6.6 (but not less 

frequently than every 8 years). 

In the MSHCP, the mountain yellowlegged frog is considered an Additional 

Survey Needs and Procedures species. 

Until such time that the Additional 

Reserve Lands are assembled and 

conservation objectives for this species 

are met, surveys for the mountain 

yellow-legged frog will be conducted as 

part of the project review process for 

public and private projects where 

suitable habitat is present for the species 

within the ‘‘Mountain Yellow-legged 

Frog Amphibian Survey Area’’ (referred 

to here as Survey Area). Populations 

detected as a result of survey efforts will 

be avoided according to the procedures 

outlined in the Additional Survey 

Needs and Procedures (Section 6.3.2 of 

the Plan; i.e., 90 percent of portions of 

property with long-term conservation 

value will be avoided until the species 

conservation objectives are met). For 

those locations found to contain large 

numbers of individuals or otherwise 

determined to be important to the 

overall conservation of the species, the 

Plan allows flexibility to acquire these 

locations for inclusion into the 

Additional Reserve Lands (Section 6, 

pp. 6–70). In addition, we anticipate 

that implementation of the Riparian/ 

Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools policy 

(Chapter 6) will assist in providing some 

protection to this species’ habitat by 

avoiding and/or minimizing direct 

impacts to riparian, riverine, and vernal 

pool habitats. 

The Permittees will implement 

management and monitoring practices 

within the Additional Reserve Lands 

including surveys for the mountain 

yellow-legged frog. Cooperative 

management and monitoring are 

anticipated on PQP Lands. Within the 

MSHCP Conservation Area, Reserve 

Managers will determine if successful 

reproduction is occurring as measured 

by the presence/absence of tadpoles, egg 

masses, or juvenile frogs once a year for 

the first five years after permit issuance, 

and then as determined by the Reserve 

Managers Oversight Committee, but not 

less frequently than every eight years. 

Surveys for the mountain yellow-legged 

frog will be conducted at least every 

eight years to verify occupancy at a 

minimum of 75 percent of the known 

locations. If a decline in the distribution 

of the mountain yellow-legged frog is 

documented below this threshold, 

management measures will be triggered, 

as appropriate, to meet the speciesspecific objectives identified in Section 

9, Table 9.2 of the MSHCP. Other 

management activities listed in Section 

5 will be conducted to benefit the 

mountain yellow-legged frog within the 

MSHCP Conservation Area. Within 

occupied habitat and suitable new areas, 

Reserve Managers will maintain 

ecological and hydrological processes, 

with particular emphasis on removing 

non-native predatory fish and bullfrogs. 

At a minimum, these areas will include 

areas above 1,214 ft (370 m) at the North 

Fork of the San Jacinto River (including 

Dark Canyon), Fuller Mill Creek, and 

Hall Canyon above Lake Fulmor 

(Section 5, Table 5.2 of the MSHCP). 

As previously stated, all essential 

habitat will be conserved and managed 

with implementation of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP. Consistent 

with the MSHCP, development could 

occur in up to an estimated 8,094 ac 

(3,275 ha) (26 percent) of MSHCP 

modeled mountain yellow-legged frog 

habitat. This habitat may have been 

historically occupied and may be 

impacted by urban development, water 

diversion/flood control projects, fill of 

aquatic habitat, construction projects, 

sand and gravel mining practices, 

recreation, and other urban and 

agricultural activities. In our biological 

opinion we did not anticipate that any 

individual frogs would be taken as a 

result of permit issuance, and should 

frogs be located during required surveys 

in the Survey Area, 90 percent of those 

portions of the property that provide 

long-term conservation will be avoided 

until it is demonstrated that 

conservation goals for the mountain 

yellow-legged frog are met. 

(1) Benefits of Inclusion 

A benefit of including an area within 

a critical habitat designation is the 

education of landowners and the public 

regarding the potential conservation 

value of these areas. The inclusion of an 

area as critical habitat may focus and 

contribute to conservation efforts by 

other parties by clearly delineating areas 

of high conservation values for certain 

species. However, we believe that this 

educational benefit has largely been 

achieved for the mountain yellowlegged frog. The public outreach and 

environmental impact reviews required 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act for the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP provided significant 

opportunities for public education 

regarding the conservation of the areas 

occupied by the mountain yellowlegged frog DPS. The Western Riverside 

County MSHCP identifies specific 

populations (Fuller Mill Creek and Dark 

Canyon) of the mountain yellow-legged 

frog for conservation. Therefore, we 

believe the education benefits which 

might arise from a critical habitat 

designation have largely already been 

generated as a result of the significant 

outreach for the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP. The County of 

Riverside Regional Parks and Open 

Space District and the James San Jacinto 

Mountains Reserve are aware of the 

conservation value of their lands for the 

mountain yellow-legged frog and 

designation of these lands as critical 

habitat would not provide an additional 

education benefit to these landowners. 

The USFS has acquired private lands 

along Fuller Mill Creek for the 

conservation of the mountain yellowlegged frog. Moreover, in our final 

listing rule (67 FR 44382) we noted that 

the mountain yellow-legged frog occurs 

on private lands along Fuller Mill Creek. 

Private landowners along Fuller Mill 

Creek may also already recognize the 

conservation value of their lands for the 

mountain yellow-legged frog based on 

the outreach resulting from the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP, land 

acquisition efforts by the USFS, and 

identification of these private lands in 

the listing rule for the mountain yellowlegged frog. 

Another benefit of including an area 

within a critical habitat designation is 

the protection provided by section 

7(a)(2) of the Act that directs Federal 

agencies to ensure that their actions do 

not result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. The 

designation of critical habitat may 

provide a different level of protection 

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

mountain yellow-legged frog that is 

separate from the obligation of a Federal 

agency to ensure that their actions are 

not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the endangered species. 

Under the Gifford Pinchot decision, 

critical habitat designations may 

provide greater benefits to the recovery 

of a species than was previously 

believed, but it is not possible to 

quantify this benefit at present. 

However, the protection provided is still 

a limitation on the harm that occurs as 

opposed to a requirement to provide a 

conservation benefit. We completed a 

section 7 consultation on the issuance of 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 54125 

the section 10(a)(1)(B) permit for the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP on 

June 22, 2004, and concluded that the 

mountain yellow-legged frog was 

adequately conserved and the issuance 

of the permit would not jeopardize the 

continued existence of this DPS. In our 

biological opinion, we anticipated that 

up to 8,094 acres of mountain-yellow 

legged frog habitat within the Plan Area 

would become unsuitable for this 

species. Based on implementation of the 

survey requirements and various 

policies of the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP, we anticipate that zero 

mountain yellow-legged frogs will be 

taken as a result of the issuance of the 

section 10(a)(1)(B) permit. 

The areas excluded as critical habitat 

are currently occupied by the species. If 

these areas were designated as critical 

habitat, any actions with a Federal 

nexus which might adversely affect the 

critical habitat would require a 

consultation with us, as explained 

previously, in Effects of Critical Habitat 

Designation section. However, 

inasmuch as this area is currently 

occupied by the species, consultation 

for Federal activities which might 

adversely impact the species or would 

result in take would be required even 

without the critical habitat designation. 

Primary constituent elements in these 

areas would be protected from 

destruction or adverse modification by 

federal actions using a conservation 

standard based on the Ninth Circuit 

Court’s decision in Gifford Pinchot. This 

requirement would be in addition to the 

requirement that proposed Federal 

actions avoid likely jeopardy to the 

species’ continued existence. However, 

inasmuch as nine of the fourteen 

subunits are occupied by the mountain 

yellow-legged frog, consultation for 

activities which may adversely affect 

the species, including possibly 

significant habitat modification (see 

definition of ‘‘harm’’ at 50 CFR 17.3), 

would be required, even without the 

critical habitat designation. The 

requirement to conduct such 

consultation would occur regardless of 

whether the authorization for incidental 

take occurs under either section 7 or 

section 10 of the Act. 

For the subunits that are not known 

to be occupied, there is still a 

requirement for a Federal agency to 

make an effect determination, and in the 

case of an effect, ensure that their 

Federal actions are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species. For those subunits that are 

not known to be occupied, the 

designation of critical habitat would 

provide a benefit by clearly indicating to 

Federal action agencies the need to 

consider the effects of their proposed 

activity on designated critical habitat 

and not just on the presence or absence 

of the mountain yellow-legged frog. In 

the case of subunits not known to be 

occupied that have been identified in 

this rule as providing for the long-term 

persistence and recovery of the species, 

the Service would evaluate the 

proposed Federal action using a 

conservation standard based on the 

Ninth Circuit Court’s decision in Gifford 

Pinchot. However, the 487 ac (197 ha) 

of non-Federal lands excluded from 

critical habitat are occupied by the 

mountain yellow-legged frog. None of 

the lands within the subunits that are 

not known to be occupied are excluded 

from critical habitat pursuant to section 

4(b)(2) of the Act. This particular point 

is significant because, as we note earlier 

in the rule, where critical habitat is 

designated in unoccupied areas, it 

provides a benefit to the species. 

The inclusion of these 487 ac (197 ha) 

of non-Federal land as critical habitat 

would provide some additional Federal 

regulatory benefits for the species 

consistent with the conservation 

standard based on the Ninth Circuit 

Court’s decision in Gifford Pinchot. A 

benefit of inclusion would be the 

requirement of a Federal agency to 

ensure that their actions on these nonFederal lands do not likely result in 

jeopardizing the continued existence of 

the species or result in the destruction 

or adverse modification of critical 

habitat. This additional analysis to 

determine destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat is likely 

to be small because the lands are not 

under Federal ownership and any 

Federal agency proposing a Federal 

action on these 487 ac (197 ha) of nonFederal lands would likely consider the 

conservation value of these lands as 

identified in the Western Riverside 

County MSHCP and take the necessary 

steps to avoid jeopardy or the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. 

As discussed below, however, we 

believe that designating any non-Federal 

lands within existing PQP lands, 

proposed conceptual reserve design 

lands, and on lands targeted for 

conservation within the Western 

Riverside County MSCHP Plan Area as 

critical habitat would provide little 

additional educational and Federal 

regulatory benefits for the species. 

Because the excluded areas are 

occupied by the species, there must be 

consultation with the Service over any 

action which may affect these 

populations or that would result in take. 

The additional educational benefits that 

might arise from critical habitat 

designation have been largely 

accomplished through the public review 

and comment of the environmental 

impact documents which accompanied 

the development of the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP and the 

recognition by some of the landowners 

of the presence of the endangered 

mountain yellow-legged frog and the 

value of their lands for the conservation 

and recovery of the species (County of 

Riverside Regional Parks and Open 

Space District, California Department of 

Parks and Recreation, and University of 

California at the James San Jacinto 

Mountains Reserve. 

For 30 years prior to the Ninth Circuit 

Court’s decision in Gifford Pinchot, the 

Fish and Wildlife Service equated the 

jeopardy standard with the standard for 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. However, in Gifford 

Pinchot the court noted the government, 

by simply considering the action’s 

survival consequences, was reading the 

concept of recovery out of the 

regulation. The court, relying on the 

CFR definition of adverse modification, 

required the Service to determine 

whether recovery was adversely 

affected. The Gifford Pinchot decision 

arguably made it easier to reach an 

‘‘adverse modification’’ finding by 

reducing the harm, affecting recovery, 

rather than the survival of the species. 

However, there is an important 

distinction: section 7(a)(2) limits harm 

to the species either through take or 

critical habitat. It does not require 

positive improvements or enhancement 

of the species status. Thus, any 

management plan which considers 

enhancement or recovery as the 

management standard will always 

provide more benefit than the critical 

habitat designation. 

(2) Benefits of Exclusion 

The benefit of excluding the 487 ac 

(197 ha) of non-Federal land as critical 

habitat includes relieving private 

landowners, County of Riverside, 

California Department of Parks and 

Recreation, University of California, and 

Federal agencies from any additional 

regulatory burden that might be 

imposed by a critical habitat designation 

consistent with the conservation 

standard based on the Ninth Circuit 

Court’s decision in Gifford Pinchot. The 

County of Riverside and the other local 

jurisdictions invested a significant 

amount of time and money to complete 

the Western Riverside County MSHCP 

with the expectation that the permitting 

for future development projects would 

be streamlined. A benefit of excluding 

these 487 ac (197 ha) would be to 

reduce any additional regulatory burden 

54126 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

(e.g., time and cost to comply with the 

reinitiation which could be triggered by 

the designation of critical habitat) or 

avoid the negative perception of 

increased regulation resulting from the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

mountain yellow-legged frog. Another 

benefit from excluding these lands is to 

maintain the partnerships developed 

among private landowners, County of 

Riverside, State of California, and the 

Service to implement the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP. Instead of 

using limited funds to comply with 

administrative consultation and 

designation requirements which can not 

provide protection beyond what is 

currently in place, the landowners 

within the 487 acres (197 ha) of land 

excluded from critical habitat could 

instead use their limited funds for the 

conservation of this species. 

(3) Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the 

Benefits of Inclusion 

We have reviewed and evaluated 

excluding critical habitat from 

approximately 487 ac (197 ha) of nonFederal lands within existing PQP 

lands, proposed conceptual reserve 

design lands, and lands targeted for 

conservation within the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP for the 

mountain yellow-legged frog. Based on 

this evaluation, we find that the benefits 

of exclusion (avoid increased regulatory 

costs which could result from including 

those lands in this designation of 

critical habitat and direct limited 

funding to conservation actions with 

partners) of the lands containing 

features essential to the conservation of 

the mountain yellow-legged frog within 

the Western Riverside County MSHCP 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion 

(limited educational and regulatory 

benefits, which are largely otherwise 

provided for under the MSHCP) of 

portions of subunits 3A and 3B within 

the San Jacinto Mountains Unit as 

critical habitat. The benefits of inclusion 

of these 487 ac (197 ha) of non-Federal 

lands as critical habitat are lessened 

because of the significant level of 

conservation provided to the mountain 

yellow-legged frog under the Western 

Riverside MSHCP (conservation of core 

biological areas, avoidance of impacts 

through additional survey requirements, 

and management that likely exceed any 

conservation value provided by a 

critical habitat designation). In contrast, 

the benefits of exclusion of these 487 ac 

(197 ha) of non-Federal lands as critical 

habitat are increased because of the high 

level of cooperation by the County of 

Riverside and State of California to 

conserve this species and this 

partnership exceeds any conservation 

value provided by a critical habitat 

designation. The Western Riverside 

County MSHCP will conserve all 

essential habitat, thereby providing 

equivalent protection to the PCEs as a 

critical habitat designation to identified 

essential habitat. In addition to 

conserving all essential habitat, the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP also 

provides for the management of all 

essential habitat and species-specific 

conservation objectives for all modeled 

mountain yellow-legged frog habitat 

within the Plan Area, therefore the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP 

provides more benefit than critical 

habitat designation. 

(4) Exclusion Will Not Result in 

Extinction of the Species 

We believe that exclusion of these 

non-Federal lands within portions of 

Subunits A and B of the San Jacinto 

Mountains Unit will not result in 

extinction of the mountain yellowlegged frog since these lands will be 

conserved and managed for the benefit 

of this species pursuant to the Western 

Riverside County MSHCP. The Western 

Riverside MSHCP includes specific 

conservation objectives, survey 

requirements, avoidance and 

minimization measures, and 

management for the mountain yellowlegged frog that exceed any conservation 

value provided as a result of a critical 

habitat designation. Moreover, the 487 

ac (197 ha) represents approximately 

four percent of the 8,290 ac (3,355 ha) 

of land proposed as critical habitat in 

this rule. While the populations in 

Fuller Mill Creek and Hall Canyon are 

important to the overall conservation of 

the species, the exclusion of portions of 

these populations will not result in the 

extinction of the species since the 

populations in the San Gabriel 

Mountains and San Bernardino are still 

proposed as critical habitat. In fact, the 

populations in the San Gabriel 

Mountains are larger than the 

populations at Fuller Mill Creek and 

Dark Canyon in the San Jacinto 

Mountains Unit. 

The jeopardy standard of section 7 

and routine implementation of habitat 

conservation through the section 7 

process, also provide assurances that the 

species will not go extinct. In addition, 

the species is protected from take under 

section 9 of the Act. The exclusion 

leaves these protections unchanged 

from those that would exist if the 

excluded areas were designated as 

critical habitat. 

Critical habitat is being designated for 

the mountain yellow-legged frog in 

other areas that will be accorded the 

protection from adverse modification by 

federal actions using the conservation 

standard based on the Ninth Circuit 

Court’s decision in Gifford Pinchot. 

Additionally, the species occurs on 

lands protected and managed either 

explicitly for the species, or indirectly 

through more general objectives to 

protect natural values, this factor acting 

in concert with the other protections 

provided under the Act for these lands 

absent designation of critical habitat on 

them, and acting in concert with 

protections afforded each species by the 

remaining critical habitat designation 

for the species, lead us to find that 

exclusion of these 487 ac (197 ha) 

within the Western Riverside County 

MSHCP will not result in extinction of 

the mountain yellow-legged frog. 

Economic Analysis 

An analysis of the economic impacts 

of proposing critical habitat for the 

mountain yellow-legged frog is being 

prepared. We will announce the 

availability of the draft economic 

analysis as soon as it is completed, at 

which time we will seek public review 

and comment. At that time, copies of 

the draft economic analysis will be 

available for downloading from the 

Internet at http://carlsbad.fws.gov, or by 

contacting the Carlsbad Fish and 

Wildlife Office directly (see ADDRESSES

section). 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek 

the expert opinions of at least three 

appropriate and independent specialists 

regarding this proposed rule. The 

purpose of such review is to ensure that 

our critical habitat designation is based 

on scientifically sound data, 

assumptions, and analyses. We will 

send these peer reviewers copies of this 

proposed rule immediately following 

publication in the Federal Register. We 

will invite these peer reviewers to 

comment, during the public comment 

period, on the specific assumptions and 

conclusions regarding the proposed 

designation of critical habitat. 

We will consider all comments and 

information received during the 

comment period on this proposed rule 

during preparation of a final 

rulemaking. Accordingly, the final 

decision may differ from this proposal. 

Public Hearings 

The Act provides for one or more 

public hearings on this proposal, if 

requested. Requests for public hearings 

must be made in writing at least 15 days 

prior to the close of the public comment 

period. We will schedule public 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 54127 

hearings on this proposal, if any are 

requested, and announce the dates, 

times, and places of those hearings in 

the Federal Register and local 

newspapers at least 15 days prior to the 

first hearing. 

Clarity of the Rule 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write regulations and notices 

that are easy to understand. We invite 

your comments on how to make this 

proposed rule easier to understand, 

including answers to questions such as 

the following: (1) Are the requirements 

in the proposed rule clearly stated? (2) 

Does the proposed rule contain 

technical jargon that interferes with the 

clarity? (3) Does the format of the 

proposed rule (grouping and order of 

the sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing, and so forth) aid or 

reduce its clarity? (4) Is the description 

of the notice in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of the preamble 

helpful in understanding the proposed 

rule? (5) What else could we do to make 

this proposed rule easier to understand? 

Send a copy of any comments on how 

we could make this proposed rule easier 

to understand to: Office of Regulatory 

Affairs, Department of the Interior, 

Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20240. You may e-mail 

your comments to this address: 

Exsec@ios.doi.gov. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12866, this document is a significant 

rule in that it may raise novel legal and 

policy issues, but it is not anticipated to 

have an annual effect on the economy 

of $100 million or more or affect the 

economy in a material way. Due to the 

tight timeline for publication in the 

Federal Register, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has not 

formally reviewed this rule. We are 

preparing a draft economic analysis of 

this proposed action, which will be 

available for public comment, to 

determine the economic consequences 

of designating the specific area as 

critical habitat. This economic analysis 

also will be used to determine 

compliance with Executive Order 

12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act, and Executive Order 

12630. 

Within these areas, the types of 

Federal actions or authorized activities 

that we have identified as potential 

concerns are listed above in the section 

on Section 7 Consultation. The 

availability of the draft economic 

analysis will be announced in the 

Federal Register and in local 

newspapers so that it is available for 

public review and comments. The draft 

economic analysis can be obtained from 

the Internet Web site at http:// 

carlsbad.fws.gov or by contacting the 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 

directly (see ADDRESSES section). 

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

et seq.) 

Our assessment of economic effect 

will be completed prior to final 

rulemaking based upon review of the 

draft economic analysis prepared 

pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the ESA 

and E.O. 12866. This analysis is for the 

purposes of compliance with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act and does not 

reflect our position on the type of 

economic analysis required by New 

Mexico Cattle Growers Assn. v. U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service 248 F.3d 1277 

(10th Cir. 2001). 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), 

whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effects of the rule on small 

entities (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 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to 

require Federal agencies to provide a 

statement of the factual basis for 

certifying that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

At this time, the Service lacks the 

available economic information 

necessary to provide an adequate factual 

basis for the required RFA finding. 

Therefore, the RFA finding is deferred 

until completion of the draft economic 

analysis prepared pursuant to section 

4(b)(2) of the ESA and E.O. 12866. This 

draft economic analysis will provide the 

required factual basis for the RFA 

finding. Upon completion of the draft 

economic analysis, the Service will 

publish a notice of availability of the 

draft economic analysis of the proposed 

designation and reopen the public 

comment period for the proposed 

designation for an additional 60 days. 

The Service will include with the notice 

of availability, as appropriate, an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis or a 

certification that the rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

accompanied by the factual basis for 

that determination. The Service has 

concluded that deferring the RFA 

finding until completion of the draft 

economic analysis is necessary to meet 

the purposes and requirements of the 

RFA. Deferring the RFA finding in this 

manner will ensure that the Service 

makes a sufficiently informed 

determination based on adequate 

economic information and provides the 

necessary opportunity for public 

comment. 

Executive Order 13211 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

an Executive Order (E.O. 13211) on 

regulations that significantly affect 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

Executive Order 13211 requires agencies 

to prepare Statements of Energy Effects 

when undertaking certain actions. This 

proposed rule to designate critical 

habitat for the mountain yellow-legged 

frog is not a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866, and it is 

not expected to significantly affect 

energy supplies, distribution, or use. 

Therefore, this action is not a significant 

energy action and no Statement of 

Energy Effects is required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501), 

the Service makes the following 

findings: 

(a) This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, 

tribal governments, or the private sector 

and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or tribal governments’’

with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a 

condition of Federal assistance.’’ It also 

excludes ‘‘a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates 

to a then-existing Federal program 

under which $500,000,000 or more is 

provided annually to State, local, and 

tribal governments under entitlement 

authority,’’ if the provision would 

‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of 

assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or 

otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

54128 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

funding,’’ and the State, local, or tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child 

Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services 

Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation 

State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption 

Assistance, and Independent Living; 

Family Support Welfare Services; and 

Child Support Enforcement. ‘‘Federal 

private sector mandate’’ includes a 

regulation that ‘‘would impose an 

enforceable duty upon the private 

sector, except (i) a condition of Federal 

assistance or (ii) a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program.’’

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities 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. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply; nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above on to State 

governments. 

(b) We do not believe that this rule 

will significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments because the lands 

proposed for designation as critical 

habitat are on Federal lands within the 

Cleveland National Forest. As such, 

Small Government Agency Plan is not 

required. We will, however, further 

evaluate this issue as we conduct our 

economic analysis and revise this 

assessment if appropriate. 

Federalism 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132, the rule does not have significant 

Federalism effects. A Federalism 

assessment is not required. In keeping 

with DOI and Department of Commerce 

policy, we requested information from, 

and coordinated development of, this 

proposed critical habitat designation 

with appropriate State resource agencies 

in California. The designation of critical 

habitat in areas currently occupied by 

the mountain yellow-legged frog 

imposes no additional restrictions to 

those currently in place and, therefore, 

has little incremental impact on State 

and local governments and their 

activities. The designation may have 

some benefit to these governments in 

that the areas that contain features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species are more clearly defined, and 

the primary constituent elements of the 

habitat necessary to the survival of the 

species are specifically identified. While 

making this definition and 

identification does not alter where and 

what federally sponsored activities may 

occur, it may assist these local 

governments in long-range planning 

(rather than waiting for case-by-case 

section 7 consultations to occur). 

Civil Justice Reform 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988, the Office of the Solicitor has 

determined that the rule does not 

unduly burden the judicial system and 

meets the requirements of sections 3(a) 

and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have 

proposed designating critical habitat in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Endangered Species Act. This proposed 

rule uses standard property descriptions 

and identifies the primary constituent 

elements within the designated areas to 

assist the public in understanding the 

habitat needs of the mountain yellowlegged frog. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. This rule will not 

impose recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements on State or local 

governments, individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

It is our position that, outside the 

Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses as 

defined by the NEPA in connection with 

designating critical habitat under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended. We published a notice 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

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

assertion was upheld in the courts of the 

Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. 

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

1995), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and the Department of 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. We 

have determined that there are no tribal 

lands that contain habitat with features 

essential for the conservation of the 

southern California of the mountain 

yellow-legged frog. Therefore, no tribal 

lands have been included in the areas 

proposed as critical habitat for this 

population segment. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking is available upon 

request from the Field Supervisor, 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

ADDRESSES section). 

Author(s) 

The primary author of this package is 

the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

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—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

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

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

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

‘‘frog, mountain yellow-legged’’ under 

‘‘AMPHIBIANS’’ to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 54129 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate population 

where endangered or 

threatened 

Status When listed Critical 

habitat 

Special 

Common name Scientific name rules 

* * * * * * * 

AMPHIBIANS 

* * * * * * * 

Frog, mountain yellowlegged (southern 

California DPS).

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

* * * * * * * 

3. In § 17.95(d), add an entry for 

‘‘Mountain yellow-legged frog’’ under 

‘‘AMPHIBIANS’’ in the same order as 

this species appears in the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in 

§ 17.11(h) to read as follows: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(d) Amphibians. 

* * * * * 

MOUNTAIN YELLOW-LEGGED FROG 

(Rana muscosa) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and 

Riverside counties, California, on the 

maps below. 

(2) The primary constituent elements 

of critical habitat for the mountain 

yellow-legged frog are the habitat 

components that provide: 

(i) Water source(s) found between 

1,214 ft (370 m) to 7,546 ft (2,300 m) in 

elevation that are permanent, to ensure 

that aquatic habitat for the species is 

available year-round. Water sources 

include, but are not limited to streams, 

rivers, perennial creeks (or permanent 

plunge pools within intermittent 

creeks), pools (i.e., a body of impounded 

water that is contained above a natural 

dam) and other forms of aquatic habitat. 

The water source should maintain a 

natural flow pattern including periodic 

natural flooding. Aquatic habitats that 

are used by mountain yellow-legged frog 

for breeding purposes must maintain 

water during the entire tadpole growth 

phase (which can be from 1–4 years 

duration). During periods of drought, or 

less than average rainfall, these breeding 

sites may not hold water long enough 

for individuals to complete 

metamorphosis, but they would still be 

considered essential breeding habitat in 

wetter years. Further, the aquatic habitat 

should include: 

a. Bank and pool substrates consisting 

of varying percentages of soil or silt, 

sand, gravel cobble, rock, and boulders; 

b. Water chemistry with a pH 

generally 6.6 to 9, dissolved oxygen 

varying from 23 to 28 percent and water 

temperatures during summer (June 

through August) ranging between 4.0 

and 30.3 degrees Celsius; 

c. Streams or stream reaches between 

known occupied sites that can function 

as corridors for adults and frogs for 

movement between aquatic habitats 

used as breeding and/or foraging sites. 

(ii) Riparian habitat and upland 

vegetation (e.g., ponderosa pine, 

montane hardwood-conifer, montane 

riparian woodlands, and chaparral) 

extending 262 feet (80 m) from each side 

of the centerline of each identified 

stream and its tributaries, that provides 

areas for feeding and movement of 

mountain yellow-legged frog, with a 

canopy overstory not exceeding 85 

percent that allows sunlight to reach the 

stream and thereby providing basking 

areas for the species. 

(3) Critical Habitat Map Units—Data 

layers defining map units were created 

on a base of USGS 7.5’ quadrangles, and 

critical habitat units were then mapped 

using Universal Transverse Mercator 

(UTM) coordinates. 

(4) Note: Map 1 (index map of critical 

habitat units for the southern California 

distinct population segment of the mountain 

yellow-legged frog) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

54130 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


EP13SE05.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 54131 

(5) Unit 1: San Gabriel Mountains, Los 

Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, 

California. From USGS 1:24,000 

quadrangle maps Crystal Lake, 

Cucamonga Peak, Mount San Antonio 

Valyermo, and Waterman Mountain, 

California. 

(i) Subunit 1A: San Gabriel River (East 

Fork), Angeles National Forest, Los 

Angeles County, California. Land 

bounded by the following Universal 

Transverse Mercator (UTM) North 

American Datum of 1927 (NAD27) 

coordinates (E, N): 434100, 3803300; 

434400, 3803300; 434400, 3803100; 

434300, 3803100; 434300, 3802900; 

434200, 3802900; 434200, 3802800; 

434100, 3802800; 434100, 3802600; 

434000, 3802600; 434000, 3802500; 

433800, 3802500; 433800, 3802200; 

433700, 3802200; 433700, 3801900; 

433600, 3801900; 433600, 3801800; 

433800, 3801800; 433800, 3801900; 

434200, 3801900; 434200, 3802000; 

434400, 3802000; 434400, 3802100; 

434500, 3802100; 434500, 3802300; 

434600, 3802300; 434600, 3802500; 

434700, 3802500; 434700, 3802800; 

434800, 3802800; 434800, 3802900; 

434900, 3802900; 434900, 3803000; 

435100, 3803000; 435100, 3802700; 

435000, 3802700; 435000, 3802600; 

434900, 3802600; 434900, 3802200; 

434800, 3802200; 434800, 3802100; 

434700, 3802100; 434700, 3801900; 

434600, 3801900; 434600, 3801800; 

434400, 3801800; 434400, 3801700; 

434000, 3801700; 434000, 3801600; 

433400, 3801600; 433400, 3801500; 

433300, 3801500; 433300, 3801400; 

433400, 3801400; 433400, 3801300; 

433500, 3801300; 433500, 3800400; 

433900, 3800400; 433900, 3800500; 

434000, 3800500; 434000, 3800600; 

434200, 3800600; 434200, 3800500; 

434300, 3800500; 434300, 3800600; 

434500, 3800600; 434500, 3800900; 

434600, 3800900; 434600, 3801200; 

434700, 3801200; 434700, 3801500; 

434800, 3801500; 434800, 3801600; 

434900, 3801600; 434900, 3801800; 

435000, 3801800; 435000, 3801900; 

435100, 3801900; 435100, 3802000; 

435200, 3802000; 435200, 3802100; 

435300, 3802100; 435300, 3802200; 

435400, 3802200; 435400, 3802300; 

435500, 3802300; 435500, 3802400; 

435800, 3802400; 435800, 3802200; 

435700, 3802200; 435700, 3802100; 

435600, 3802100; 435600, 3802000; 

435500, 3802000; 435500, 3801900; 

435400, 3801900; 435400, 3801800; 

435300, 3801800; 435300, 3801700; 

435200, 3801700; 435200, 3801600; 

435100, 3801600; 435100, 3801500; 

435000, 3801500; 435000, 3801100; 

434900, 3801100; 434900, 3800900; 

435000, 3800900; 435000, 3800800; 

435100, 3800800; 435100, 3800700; 

435200, 3800700; 435200, 3800400; 

435500, 3800400; 435500, 3800600; 

435600, 3800600; 435600, 3800800; 

435700, 3800800; 435700, 3800900; 

435900, 3800900; 435900, 3801200; 

436000, 3801200; 436000, 3801300; 

436100, 3801300; 436100, 3801600; 

436400, 3801600; 436400, 3801700; 

436800, 3801700; 436800, 3801400; 

436300, 3801400; 436300, 3801100; 

436200, 3801100; 436200, 3801000; 

436100, 3801000; 436100, 3800900; 

436200, 3800900; 436200, 3800700; 

436100, 3800700; 436100, 3800600; 

435800, 3800600; 435800, 3800300; 

435900, 3800300; 435900, 3800200; 

436100, 3800200; 436100, 3800100; 

436300, 3800100; 436300, 3800000; 

436200, 3800000; 436200, 3799800; 

436100, 3799800; 436100, 3799900; 

435900, 3799900; 435900, 3800000; 

435800, 3800000; 435800, 3800100; 

435100, 3800100; 435100, 3800200; 

435000, 3800200; 435000, 3800300; 

434900, 3800300; 434900, 3800600; 

434800, 3800600; 434800, 3800400; 

434600, 3800400; 434600, 3800300; 

434100, 3800300; 434100, 3800100; 

433200, 3800100; 433200, 3800000; 

433300, 3800000; 433300, 3799800; 

433400, 3799800; 433400, 3799200; 

433600, 3799200; 433600, 3798800; 

433500, 3798800; 433500, 3798700; 

433400, 3798700; 433400, 3798600; 

433300, 3798600; 433300, 3798500; 

433200, 3798500; 433200, 3797600; 

433100, 3797600; 433100, 3797400; 

433000, 3797400; 433000, 3797300; 

432800, 3797300; 432800, 3797200; 

432900, 3797200; 432900, 3797000; 

432800, 3797000; 432800, 3796400; 

433000, 3796400; 433000, 3796500; 

433100, 3796500; 433100, 3796600; 

433200, 3796600; 433200, 3796700; 

433400, 3796700; 433400, 3796600; 

433600, 3796600; 433600, 3796700; 

433700, 3796700; 433700, 3796800; 

433800, 3796800; 433800, 3796900; 

434200, 3796900; 434200, 3797000; 

434500, 3797000; 434500, 3796900; 

434600, 3796900; 434600, 3796700; 

434000, 3796700; 434000, 3796500; 

433800, 3796500; 433800, 3796400; 

434000, 3796400; 434000, 3796300; 

434100, 3796300; 434100, 3796200; 

434300, 3796200; 434300, 3796100; 

434400, 3796100; 434400, 3796000; 

434600, 3796000; 434600, 3795600; 

434500, 3795600; 434500, 3795800; 

434300, 3795800; 434300, 3795900; 

434100, 3795900; 434100, 3796000; 

433900, 3796000; 433900, 3796100; 

433600, 3796100; 433600, 3796200; 

433500, 3796200; 433500, 3796300; 

433200, 3796300; 433200, 3796200; 

433000, 3796200; 433000, 3796100; 

432900, 3796100; 432900, 3796000; 

432800, 3796000; 432800, 3795900; 

433000, 3795900; 433000, 3795800; 

433200, 3795800; 433200, 3795700; 

433300, 3795700; 433300, 3795600; 

433600, 3795600; 433600, 3795500; 

433800, 3795500; 433800, 3795400; 

433900, 3795400; 433900, 3795300; 

434000, 3795300; 434000, 3795200; 

434100, 3795200; 434100, 3795100; 

434200, 3795100; 434200, 3795000; 

434100, 3795000; 434100, 3794900; 

434000, 3794900; 434000, 3795000; 

433800, 3795000; 433800, 3795100; 

433700, 3795100; 433700, 3795200; 

433600, 3795200; 433600, 3795300; 

433400, 3795300; 433400, 3795400; 

433100, 3795400; 433100, 3795500; 

433000, 3795500; 433000, 3795600; 

432800, 3795600; 432800, 3795700; 

432500, 3795700; 432500, 3795500; 

432400, 3795500; 432400, 3795400; 

432500, 3795400; 432500, 3795300; 

432700, 3795300; 432700, 3795200; 

432800, 3795200; 432800, 3795100; 

433100, 3795100; 433100, 3795000; 

433200, 3795000; 433200, 3794800; 

433400, 3794800; 433400, 3794700; 

433600, 3794700; 433600, 3794600; 

433500, 3794600; 433500, 3794400; 

433400, 3794400; 433400, 3794500; 

433200, 3794500; 433200, 3794600; 

433000, 3794600; 433000, 3794800; 

432900, 3794800; 432900, 3794900; 

432600, 3794900; 432600, 3795000; 

432500, 3795000; 432500, 3795100; 

432300, 3795100; 432300, 3795200; 

432000, 3795200; 432000, 3795100; 

432100, 3795100; 432100, 3795000; 

432000, 3795000; 432000, 3794900; 

431900, 3794900; 431900, 3794800; 

431800, 3794800; 431800, 3794500; 

431600, 3794500; 431600, 3794400; 

431500, 3794400; 431500, 3794100; 

431600, 3794100; 431600, 3794000; 

431700, 3794000; 431700, 3793600; 

431600, 3793600; 431600, 3793400; 

431400, 3793400; 431400, 3793900; 

431300, 3793900; 431300, 3794600; 

431400, 3794600; 431400, 3794700; 

431500, 3794700; 431500, 3795000; 

431600, 3795000; 431600, 3795300; 

431100, 3795300; 431100, 3795100; 

430600, 3795100; 430600, 3795200; 

430200, 3795200; 430200, 3795400; 

430100, 3795400; 430100, 3795500; 

430200, 3795500; 430200, 3795600; 

430400, 3795600; 430400, 3795500; 

430700, 3795500; 430700, 3795400; 

430800, 3795400; 430800, 3795300; 

430900, 3795300; 430900, 3795600; 

431100, 3795600; 431100, 3795900; 

431000, 3795900; 431000, 3796600; 

431100, 3796600; 431100, 3796900; 

431000, 3796900; 431000, 3797000; 

431100, 3797000; 431100, 3797200; 

431200, 3797200; 431200, 3797000; 

431300, 3797000; 431300, 3796500; 

431200, 3796500; 431200, 3796100; 

54132 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

431300, 3796100; 431300, 3795700; 

431400, 3795700; 431400, 3795600; 

431600, 3795600; 431600, 3795500; 

431800, 3795500; 431800, 3795300; 

431900, 3795300; 431900, 3795400; 

432000, 3795400; 432000, 3795500; 

432100, 3795500; 432100, 3795600; 

432200, 3795600; 432200, 3795700; 

432300, 3795700; 432300, 3796000; 

432500, 3796000; 432500, 3796100; 

432400, 3796100; 432400, 3796300; 

432500, 3796300; 432500, 3796400; 

432600, 3796400; 432600, 3796600; 

432500, 3796600; 432500, 3796900; 

432600, 3796900; 432600, 3797100; 

432500, 3797100; 432500, 3797400; 

432600, 3797400; 432600, 3797500; 

432800, 3797500; 432800, 3797700; 

432700, 3797700; 432700, 3797800; 

432300, 3797800; 432300, 3797900; 

432200, 3797900; 432200, 3798000; 

432100, 3798000; 432100, 3798100; 

432000, 3798100; 432000, 3798200; 

431700, 3798200; 431700, 3798300; 

431600, 3798300; 431600, 3798400; 

431400, 3798400; 431400, 3798500; 

431300, 3798500; 431300, 3798600; 

431200, 3798600; 431200, 3798900; 

431400, 3798900; 431400, 3798800; 

431500, 3798800; 431500, 3798700; 

431600, 3798700; 431600, 3798600; 

431800, 3798600; 431800, 3798500; 

431900, 3798500; 431900, 3798400; 

432100, 3798400; 432100, 3798300; 

432200, 3798300; 432200, 3798200; 

432300, 3798200; 432300, 3798100; 

432400, 3798100; 432400, 3798000; 

432800, 3798000; 432800, 3797900; 

432900, 3797900; 432900, 3798200; 

433000, 3798200; 433000, 3798700; 

433100, 3798700; 433100, 3798900; 

433300, 3798900; 433300, 3799100; 

433200, 3799100; 433200, 3799300; 

433100, 3799300; 433100, 3799900; 

432900, 3799900; 432900, 3800300; 

433000, 3800300; 433000, 3800400; 

432900, 3800400; 432900, 3800500; 

432600, 3800500; 432600, 3800600; 

432400, 3800600; 432400, 3800700; 

432200, 3800700; 432200, 3800800; 

431600, 3800800; 431600, 3801000; 

431700, 3801000; 431700, 3801100; 

432000, 3801100; 432000, 3801000; 

432400, 3801000; 432400, 3800900; 

432600, 3800900; 432600, 3800800; 

432700, 3800800; 432700, 3800700; 

433100, 3800700; 433100, 3800600; 

433200, 3800600; 433200, 3800800; 

433300, 3800800; 433300, 3801200; 

433100, 3801200; 433100, 3801300; 

433000, 3801300; 433000, 3801600; 

433100, 3801600; 433100, 3802000; 

433000, 3802000; 433000, 3802100; 

432800, 3802100; 432800, 3802200; 

432600, 3802200; 432600, 3802300; 

432400, 3802300; 432400, 3802400; 

432200, 3802400; 432200, 3802500; 

431900, 3802500; 431900, 3802700; 

432200, 3802700; 432200, 3803000; 

432400, 3803000; 432400, 3802900; 

432500, 3802900; 432500, 3802800; 

432600, 3802800; 432600, 3802700; 

432700, 3802700; 432700, 3802500; 

432800, 3802500; 432800, 3802400; 

433000, 3802400; 433000, 3802300; 

433200, 3802300; 433200, 3802100; 

433300, 3802100; 433300, 3802000; 

433400, 3802000; 433400, 3802100; 

433500, 3802100; 433500, 3802500; 

433600, 3802500; 433600, 3802700; 

433800, 3802700; 433800, 3802800; 

433900, 3802800; 433900, 3802900; 

434000, 3802900; 434000, 3803100; 

434100, 3803100; returning to 434100, 

3803300. 

(ii) Map depicting subunit 1A is 

found at paragraph (d)(10)(ii) of this 

section. 

(6) Subunit 1B: Big Rock Creek (South 

Fork), Angeles National Forest, Los 

Angeles County, California. 

(i) Subunit 1B: Big Rock Creek (South 

Fork). Land bounded by the following 

UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N): 

424400, 3805700; 424600, 3805700; 

424600, 3805400; 424500, 3805400; 

424500, 3805300; 424300, 3805300; 

424300, 3805200; 424400, 3805200; 

424400, 3805000; 424300, 3805000; 

424300, 3804900; 424100, 3804900; 

424100, 3804800; 424000, 3804800; 

424000, 3804700; 423900, 3804700; 

423900, 3804500; 423800, 3804500; 

423800, 3804400; 423700, 3804400; 

423700, 3804300; 424000, 3804300; 

424000, 3804100; 424100, 3804100; 

424100, 3804000; 424200, 3804000; 

424200, 3803900; 424300, 3803900; 

424300, 3803800; 425200, 3803800; 

425200, 3803700; 425700, 3803700; 

425700, 3803400; 425400, 3803400; 

425400, 3803500; 424400, 3803500; 

424400, 3803000; 424500, 3803000; 

424500, 3802900; 425100, 3802900; 

425100, 3802800; 425300, 3802800; 

425300, 3802600; 424500, 3802600; 

424500, 3802700; 424300, 3802700; 

424300, 3802800; 424200, 3802800; 

424200, 3803000; 424100, 3803000; 

424100, 3803700; 423900, 3803700; 

423900, 3803800; 423800, 3803800; 

423800, 3804000; 423700, 3804000; 

423700, 3803700; 423500, 3803700; 

423500, 3803600; 423400, 3803600; 

423400, 3803400; 423300, 3803400; 

423300, 3803200; 423500, 3803200; 

423500, 3803000; 423600, 3803000; 

423600, 3802600; 423700, 3802600; 

423700, 3802500; 423800, 3802500; 

423800, 3802400; 424000, 3802400; 

424000, 3802300; 423500, 3802300; 

423500, 3802400; 423400, 3802400; 

423400, 3802800; 423300, 3802800; 

423300, 3802900; 423200, 3802900; 

423200, 3803000; 423100, 3803000; 

423100, 3803100; 423000, 3803100; 

423000, 3803000; 422900, 3803000; 

422900, 3802800; 422800, 3802800; 

422800, 3802700; 422700, 3802700; 

422700, 3802800; 422600, 3802800; 

422600, 3803100; 422700, 3803100; 

422700, 3803200; 422800, 3803200; 

422800, 3803300; 422900, 3803300; 

422900, 3803400; 423000, 3803400; 

423000, 3803500; 423100, 3803500; 

423100, 3803600; 423200, 3803600; 

423200, 3803900; 423400, 3803900; 

423400, 3804500; 423500, 3804500; 

423500, 3804600; 423600, 3804600; 

423600, 3804700; 423700, 3804700; 

423700, 3804900; 423800, 3804900; 

423800, 3805000; 423900, 3805000; 

423900, 3805100; 424000, 3805100; 

424000, 3805400; 424100, 3805400; 

424100, 3805500; 424200, 3805500; 

424200, 3805600; 424400, 3805600; 

returning to 424400, 3805700. 

(ii) Map depicting subunit 1B is found 

at paragraph (d)(10)(ii) of this section. 

(7) Subunit 1C: Little Rock Creek, 

Angeles National Forest, Los Angeles 

County, California. 

(i) Subunit 1C: Upper Little Rock 

Creek. Land bounded by the following 

UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N): 

419500, 3803800; 420000, 3803800; 

420000, 3803600; 419700, 3803600; 

419700, 3803500; 419600, 3803500; 

419600, 3803400; 419500, 3803400; 

419500, 3803300; 419600, 3803300; 

419600, 3803200; 419700, 3803200; 

419700, 3802900; 420000, 3802900; 

420000, 3803000; 420200, 3803000; 

420200, 3803100; 420400, 3803100; 

420400, 3803200; 420500, 3803200; 

420500, 3803300; 420600, 3803300; 

420600, 3803400; 420900, 3803400; 

420900, 3803200; 420800, 3803200; 

420800, 3803100; 420700, 3803100; 

420700, 3803000; 420600, 3803000; 

420600, 3802900; 420500, 3802900; 

420500, 3802800; 420100, 3802800; 

420100, 3802700; 419900, 3802700; 

419900, 3802600; 419800, 3802600; 

419800, 3802400; 419700, 3802400; 

419700, 3802300; 419500, 3802300; 

419500, 3802400; 419400, 3802400; 

419400, 3802300; 419300, 3802300; 

419300, 3802100; 419200, 3802100; 

419200, 3802000; 419100, 3802000; 

419100, 3801900; 419000, 3801900; 

419000, 3801800; 418800, 3801800; 

418800, 3801900; 418500, 3801900; 

418500, 3801800; 417900, 3801800; 

417900, 3801900; 417800, 3801900; 

417800, 3802000; 417700, 3802000; 

417700, 3802100; 417600, 3802100; 

417600, 3802300; 417500, 3802300; 

417500, 3802400; 417300, 3802400; 

417300, 3802300; 417200, 3802300; 

417200, 3802200; 417000, 3802200; 

417000, 3801400; 416900, 3801400; 

416900, 3801300; 416800, 3801300; 

416800, 3801200; 416700, 3801200; 

416700, 3801100; 416600, 3801100; 

416600, 3801200; 416500, 3801200; 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 54133 

416500, 3801400; 416700, 3801400; 

416700, 3802100; 416500, 3802100; 

416500, 3802000; 416200, 3802000; 

416200, 3802100; 416100, 3802100; 

416100, 3802200; 416000, 3802200; 

416000, 3802500; 416300, 3802500; 

416300, 3802300; 416500, 3802300; 

416500, 3802400; 416900, 3802400; 

416900, 3802500; 417100, 3802500; 

417100, 3802600; 417800, 3802600; 

417800, 3802400; 417900, 3802400; 

417900, 3802300; 418000, 3802300; 

418000, 3802100; 418300, 3802100; 

418300, 3802400; 418600, 3802400; 

418600, 3802200; 419000, 3802200; 

419000, 3802400; 419100, 3802400; 

419100, 3802500; 419200, 3802500; 

419200, 3802700; 419400, 3802700; 

419400, 3803100; 419300, 3803100; 

419300, 3803600; 419400, 3803600; 

419400, 3803700; 419500, 3803700; 

returning to 419500, 3803800. 

(ii) Map depicting subunit 1C is found 

at paragraph (d)(10)(ii) of this section. 

(8) Subunit 1D: Devil’s Canyon (north 

of San Gabriel River, West Fork), 

Angeles National Forest, Los Angeles 

County, California. 

(i) Subunit 1D: Devil’s Canyon. Land 

bounded by the following UTM NAD27 

coordinates (E, N): 414500, 3799300; 

414700, 3799300; 414700, 3798600; 

414600, 3798600; 414600, 3798500; 

414500, 3798500; 414500, 3798400; 

414300, 3798400; 414300, 3798300; 

413900, 3798300; 413900, 3798200; 

413600, 3798200; 413600, 3798100; 

413400, 3798100; 413400, 3798000; 

413000, 3798000; 413000, 3797800; 

412600, 3797800; 412600, 3797700; 

412500, 3797700; 412500, 3797600; 

412300, 3797600; 412300, 3797700; 

412100, 3797700; 412100, 3797800; 

411800, 3797800; 411800, 3797700; 

411400, 3797700; 411400, 3797800; 

411300, 3797800; 411300, 3798100; 

411500, 3798100; 411500, 3798000; 

411800, 3798000; 411800, 3798100; 

412200, 3798100; 412200, 3798000; 

412300, 3798000; 412300, 3797900; 

412400, 3797900; 412400, 3798000; 

412700, 3798000; 412700, 3798100; 

412800, 3798100; 412800, 3798200; 

413100, 3798200; 413100, 3798300; 

413400, 3798300; 413400, 3798400; 

413700, 3798400; 413700, 3798500; 

414100, 3798500; 414100, 3798600; 

414200, 3798600; 414200, 3798700; 

414400, 3798700; 414400, 3798800; 

414500, 3798800; returning to 414500, 

3799300. 

(ii) Map depicting subunit 1D is found 

at paragraph (d)(10)(ii) of this section. 

(9) Subunit 1F: San Gabriel River, East 

Fork, Iron Fork, Los Angeles County, 

California. 

(i) Subunit 1F: San Gabriel River, East 

Fork and Iron Fork. Land bounded by 

the following UTM NAD27 coordinates 

(E, N): 429100, 3798400; 429400, 

3798400; 429400, 3798000; 429500, 

3798000; 429500, 3797400; 429700, 

3797400; 429700, 3797100; 429600, 

3797100; 429600, 3797000; 429700, 

3797000; 429700, 3796800; 429800, 

3796800; 429800, 3796700; 429900, 

3796700; 429900, 3796500; 430000, 

3796500; 430000, 3796000; 430100, 

3796000; 430100, 3795800; 430200, 

3795800; 430200, 3795500; 430100, 

3795500; 430100, 3795400; 430000, 

3795400; 430000, 3795600; 429600, 

3795600; 429600, 3795500; 429300, 

3795500; 429300, 3795600; 429000, 

3795600; 429000, 3795700; 428700, 

3795700; 428700, 3795800; 428600, 

3795800; 428600, 3795700; 428300, 

3795700; 428300, 3795800; 428000, 

3795800; 428000, 3796100; 428700, 

3796100; 428700, 3796000; 428900, 

3796000; 428900, 3795900; 429400, 

3795900; 429400, 3795800; 429800, 

3795800; 429800, 3796000; 429700, 

3796000; 429700, 3796400; 429600, 

3796400; 429600, 3796600; 429500, 

3796600; 429500, 3796800; 429400, 

3796800; 429400, 3797200; 429300, 

3797200; 429300, 3797300; 429200, 

3797300; 429200, 3798000; 429000, 

3798000; 429000, 3798300; 429100, 

3798300; returning to 429100, 3798400. 

(ii) Map depicting subunit 1F is found 

at paragraph (d)(10)(ii) of this section. 

(10) Subunit 1G: Bear Creek (off San 

Gabriel River, West Fork), Angeles 

National Forest, Los Angeles County, 

California. 

(i) Subunit 1G: Bear Creek, Upper 

Reaches. Land bounded by the 

following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, 

N): 417500, 3797700; 417800, 3797700; 

417800, 3797500; 417900, 3797500; 

417900, 3797300; 418000, 3797300; 

418000, 3796800; 417900, 3796800; 

417900, 3796700; 418000, 3796700; 

418000, 3796600; 418200, 3796600; 

418200, 3796500; 418300, 3796500; 

418300, 3796300; 417900, 3796300; 

417900, 3796400; 417800, 3796400; 

417800, 3796500; 417700, 3796500; 

417700, 3797200; 417600, 3797200; 

417600, 3797500; 417500, 3797500; 

returning to 417500, 3797700. 

(ii) Map 2 of Unit 1, with subunits 1A, 

1B, 1C, 1D, 1F, and 1G, follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

54134 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


EP13SE05.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 54135 

(11) Subunit 1E: Day Canyon, San 

Bernardino National Forest, San 

Bernardino County, California. 

(i) Subunit 1E: Day Canyon. Land 

bounded by the following UTM NAD27 

coordinates (E, N): 446400, 3786900; 

446700, 3786900; 446700, 3786800; 

446900, 3786800; 446900, 3786700; 

447100, 3786700; 447100, 3786600; 

447200, 3786600; 447200, 3786500; 

447300, 3786500; 447300, 3786400; 

447400, 3786400; 447400, 3786200; 

447500, 3786200; 447500, 3786100; 

447600, 3786100; 447600, 3786000; 

447700, 3786000; 447700, 3785900; 

447900, 3785900; 447900, 3785800; 

448100, 3785800; 448100, 3785700; 

448400, 3785700; 448400, 3785600; 

448600, 3785600; 448600, 3785500; 

448800, 3785500; 448800, 3785400; 

448900, 3785400; 448900, 3785000; 

449000, 3785000; 449000, 3784900; 

449200, 3784900; 449200, 3784800; 

449300, 3784800; 449300, 3784600; 

449400, 3784600; 449400, 3784300; 

449500, 3784300; 449500, 3784400; 

449700, 3784400; 449700, 3785100; 

449800, 3785100; 449800, 3785800; 

450000, 3785800; 450000, 3784800; 

449900, 3784800; 449900, 3784700; 

450000, 3784700; 450000, 3784500; 

449900, 3784500; 449900, 3783800; 

450000, 3783800; 450000, 3783700; 

450300, 3783700; 450300, 3783800; 

450400, 3783800; 450400, 3783900; 

450500, 3783900; 450500, 3784700; 

450600, 3784700; 450600, 3784800; 

450700, 3784800; 450700, 3784900; 

450800, 3784900; 450800, 3785100; 

450900, 3785100; 450900, 3785200; 

451000, 3785200; 451000, 3785100; 

451100, 3785100; 451100, 3784800; 

451000, 3784800; 451000, 3784700; 

450900, 3784700; 450900, 3784600; 

450800, 3784600; 450800, 3783900; 

450700, 3783900; 450700, 3783700; 

450600, 3783700; 450600, 3783600; 

450500, 3783600; 450500, 3783500; 

450300, 3783500; 450300, 3783100; 

450400, 3783100; 450400, 3783000; 

450500, 3783000; 450500, 3782800; 

450200, 3782800; 450200, 3782900; 

450100, 3782900; 450100, 3783100; 

450000, 3783100; 450000, 3783200; 

449900, 3783200; 449900, 3783500; 

449800, 3783500; 449800, 3783600; 

449700, 3783600; 449700, 3783700; 

449600, 3783700; 449600, 3783900; 

449700, 3783900; 449700, 3784100; 

449200, 3784100; 449200, 3784300; 

449100, 3784300; 449100, 3784600; 

449000, 3784600; 449000, 3784700; 

448800, 3784700; 448800, 3784800; 

448700, 3784800; 448700, 3785200; 

448600, 3785200; 448600, 3785300; 

448400, 3785300; 448400, 3785400; 

448300, 3785400; 448300, 3785500; 

447900, 3785500; 447900, 3785600; 

447800, 3785600; 447800, 3785700; 

447500, 3785700; 447500, 3785800; 

447400, 3785800; 447400, 3785900; 

447300, 3785900; 447300, 3786000; 

447200, 3786000; 447200, 3786200; 

447100, 3786200; 447100, 3786300; 

447000, 3786300; 447000, 3786400; 

446900, 3786400; 446900, 3786500; 

446700, 3786500; 446700, 3786600; 

446500, 3786600; 446500, 3786700; 

446400, 3786700; returning to 446400, 

3786900. 

(ii) Note: Map 3 of subunit 1E follows: 

54136 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


EP13SE05.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 54137 

(12) Unit 2: San Bernardino 

Mountains, San Bernardino National 

Forest, San Bernardino County, 

California. From USGS 1:24,000 

quadrangle maps Big Bear Lake, Catclaw 

Flat and Harrison Mountain, California. 

Subunit 2A: City Creek, San Bernardino 

National Forest, San Bernardino County, 

California. 

(i) Subunit 2A: City Creek, East and 

West Forks. Land bounded by the 

following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, 

N): 483800, 3785100; 483900, 3785100; 

483900, 3785200; 484000, 3785200; 

484000, 3785400; 484100, 3785400; 

484100, 3785600; 484200, 3785600; 

484200, 3785700; 484300, 3785700; 

484300, 3785800; 484400, 3785800; 

484400, 3785900; 484600, 3785900; 

484600, 3785600; 484500, 3785600; 

484500, 3785500; 484400, 3785500; 

484400, 3785400; 484300, 3785400; 

484300, 3785200; 484200, 3785200; 

484200, 3785000; 484100, 3785000; 

484100, 3784900; 484000, 3784900; 

484000, 3784800; 483900, 3784800; 

483900, 3784700; 483800, 3784700; 

483800, 3784400; 483900, 3784400; 

483900, 3784000; 483700, 3784000; 

483700, 3783900; 483900, 3783900; 

483900, 3783800; 484000, 3783800; 

484000, 3783400; 483900, 3783400; 

483900, 3783300; 483700, 3783300; 

483700, 3782900; 483900, 3782900; 

483900, 3783100; 484000, 3783100; 

484000, 3783200; 484300, 3783200; 

484300, 3783100; 484400, 3783100; 

484400, 3783400; 484500, 3783400; 

484500, 3783500; 484400, 3783500; 

484400, 3783900; 484500, 3783900; 

484500, 3784000; 484700, 3784000; 

484700, 3784100; 484800, 3784100; 

484800, 3784700; 484900, 3784700; 

484900, 3785000; 485000, 3785000; 

485000, 3785200; 485100, 3785200; 

485100, 3785300; 485200, 3785300; 

485200, 3785400; 485400, 3785400; 

485400, 3785800; 485700, 3785800; 

485700, 3785700; 485800, 3785700; 

485800, 3785600; 485600, 3785600; 

485600, 3785200; 485400, 3785200; 

485400, 3785100; 485300, 3785100; 

485300, 3785000; 485200, 3785000; 

485200, 3784600; 485100, 3784600; 

485100, 3784200; 485000, 3784200; 

485000, 3783900; 484900, 3783900; 

484900, 3783800; 484700, 3783800; 

484700, 3783300; 484800, 3783300; 

484800, 3783100; 484700, 3783100; 

484700, 3783000; 484600, 3783000; 

484600, 3782900; 484500, 3782900; 

484500, 3782800; 484200, 3782800; 

484200, 3782900; 484100, 3782900; 

484100, 3782700; 483900, 3782700; 

483900, 3782600; 483800, 3782600; 

483800, 3782400; 483700, 3782400; 

483700, 3782200; 484000, 3782200; 

484000, 3782000; 484400, 3782000; 

484400, 3782100; 484700, 3782100; 

484700, 3782000; 485000, 3782000; 

485000, 3781900; 485200, 3781900; 

485200, 3781800; 485400, 3781800; 

485400, 3781700; 485200, 3781700; 

485200, 3781600; 485000, 3781600; 

485000, 3781700; 484800, 3781700; 

484800, 3781800; 484300, 3781800; 

484300, 3781700; 483900, 3781700; 

483900, 3781800; 483800, 3781800; 

483800, 3782000; 483600, 3782000; 

483600, 3781800; 483400, 3781800; 

483400, 3781200; 483600, 3781200; 

483600, 3780900; 483500, 3780900; 

483500, 3780500; 484200, 3780500; 

484200, 3780600; 484300, 3780600; 

484300, 3780500; 484800, 3780500; 

484800, 3780400; 484900, 3780400; 

484900, 3780300; 485000, 3780300; 

485000, 3780100; 484700, 3780100; 

484700, 3780200; 484600, 3780200; 

484600, 3780300; 483700, 3780300; 

483700, 3780200; 483500, 3780200; 

483500, 3780100; 483400, 3780100; 

483400, 3780000; 483300, 3780000; 

483300, 3779900; 483400, 3779900; 

483400, 3779500; 483300, 3779500; 

483300, 3779000; 483100, 3779000; 

483100, 3778800; 482800, 3778800; 

482800, 3778900; 482700, 3778900; 

482700, 3779000; 482900, 3779000; 

482900, 3779200; 483100, 3779200; 

483100, 3779300; 483000, 3779300; 

483000, 3779700; 483100, 3779700; 

483100, 3780100; 483200, 3780100; 

483200, 3780300; 483300, 3780300; 

483300, 3780400; 483200, 3780400; 

483200, 3780700; 483300, 3780700; 

483300, 3781100; 482900, 3781100; 

482900, 3781200; 482800, 3781200; 

482800, 3781800; 482700, 3781800; 

482700, 3781900; 482800, 3781900; 

482800, 3782600; 482900, 3782600; 

482900, 3782800; 483000, 3782800; 

483000, 3782900; 483100, 3782900; 

483100, 3783000; 483000, 3783000; 

483000, 3783100; 482900, 3783100; 

482900, 3783200; 482300, 3783200; 

482300, 3783500; 482600, 3783500; 

482600, 3783600; 482700, 3783600; 

482700, 3783500; 483000, 3783500; 

483000, 3783400; 483100, 3783400; 

483100, 3783300; 483300, 3783300; 

483300, 3783200; 483500, 3783200; 

483500, 3783500; 483700, 3783500; 

483700, 3783700; 483300, 3783700; 

483300, 3784100; 483100, 3784100; 

483100, 3784400; 483300, 3784400; 

483300, 3784300; 483500, 3784300; 

483500, 3784200; 483600, 3784200; 

483600, 3784400; 483500, 3784400; 

483500, 3784700; 483400, 3784700; 

483400, 3784900; 483500, 3784900; 

483500, 3785100; 483600, 3785100; 

483600, 3785300; 483800, 3785300; 

returning to 483800, 3785100; excluding 

land bounded by 483700, 3785100; 

483800, 3785100; 483800, 3785000; 

483700, 3785000; 483700, 3785100; 

land bounded by 483100, 3782700; 

483600, 3782700; 483600, 3782600; 

483500, 3782600; 483500, 3782500; 

483400, 3782500; 483400, 3782400; 

483300, 3782400; 483300, 3782300; 

483200, 3782300; 483200, 3782100; 

483100, 3782100; 483100, 3782700; and 

land bounded by 483000, 3781800; 

483100, 3781800; 483100, 3781500; 

483000, 3781500; 483000, 3781800. 

(ii) Note: Map 4 of subunit 2A follows: 

54138 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


EP13SE05.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 54139 

(13) Subunit 2B: Barton Creek (East 

Fork), San Bernardino National Forest, 

San Bernardino County, California. 

(i) Subunit 2B: Barton Creek (East 

Fork). Land bounded by the following 

UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, N): 

510000, 3781300; 510100, 3781300; 

510100, 3781200; 510200, 3781200; 

510200, 3781100; 510400, 3781100; 

510400, 3780700; 510500, 3780700; 

510500, 3780400; 510600, 3780400; 

510600, 3780200; 510500, 3780200; 

510500, 3780100; 510600, 3780100; 

510600, 3779800; 510700, 3779800; 

510700, 3779600; 510800, 3779600; 

510800, 3779400; 510700, 3779400; 

510700, 3779300; 510800, 3779300; 

510800, 3779000; 510900, 3779000; 

510900, 3778500; 510600, 3778500; 

510600, 3779100; 510500, 3779100; 

510500, 3779600; 510400, 3779600; 

510400, 3779900; 510300, 3779900; 

510300, 3780400; 510200, 3780400; 

510200, 3780700; 510100, 3780700; 

510100, 3781000; 510000, 3781000; 

returning to 510000, 3781300. 

(ii) Map depicting subunit 2B is found 

at paragraph (d)(14)(ii) of this section. 

(14) Subunit 2C: Whitewater River 

(North Fork), San Bernardino National 

Forest, San Bernardino County, 

California. 

(i) Subunit 2C: Whitewater River 

(North Fork). Land bounded by the 

following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, 

N): 523300, 3769200; 523400, 3769200; 

523400, 3769100; 523600, 3769100; 

523600, 3769000; 523800, 3769000; 

523800, 3768900; 523900, 3768900; 

523900, 3768800; 524200, 3768800; 

524200, 3768500; 523900, 3768500; 

523900, 3768600; 523700, 3768600; 

523700, 3768700; 523600, 3768700; 

523600, 3768800; 523400, 3768800; 

523400, 3768900; 523200, 3768900; 

523200, 3769100; 523300, 3769100; 

returning to 523300, 3769200. 

(ii) Note: Map 5 of subunits 2B and 2C 

follows: 

54140 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


EP13SE05.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 54141 

(15) Unit 3: San Jacinto Mountains, 

San Bernardino National Forest, 

Riverside County, California. From 

USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle maps Lake 

Fulmor, Palm Springs and San Jacinto 

Peak, California. Subunit 3A: San 

Jacinto River, North Fork (Black 

Mountain Creek, Fuller Mill Creek, Dark 

Canyon), San Bernardino National 

Forest, Riverside County, California. 

(i) Subunit 3A: San Jacinto River, 

North Fork (Black Mountain Creek, 

Fuller Mill Creek, Dark Canyon). Land 

bounded by the following UTM NAD27 

coordinates (E, N): 526400, 3743000; 

526600, 3743000; 526600, 3742700; 

526400, 3742700; 526400, 3742600; 

526300, 3742600; 526300, 3742500; 

526200, 3742500; 526200, 3742400; 

526600, 3742400; 526600, 3742300; 

526900, 3742300; 526900, 3742200; 

527000, 3742200; 527000, 3742000; 

526800, 3742000; 526800, 3742100; 

526300, 3742100; 526300, 3742200; 

526100, 3742200; 526100, 3742800; 

526200, 3742800; 526200, 3742900; 

526400, 3742900; returning to 526400, 

3743000; land bounded by: 525000, 

3742100; 525200, 3742100; 525200, 

3742000; 525400, 3742000; 525400, 

3741900; 525300, 3741900; 525300, 

3741800; 525100, 3741800; 525100, 

3741700; 525000, 3741700; 525000, 

3741600; 524900, 3741600; 524900, 

3741800; 524800, 3741800; 524800, 

3741900; 524900, 3741900; 524900, 

3742000; 525000, 3742000; returning to 

525000, 3742100; land bounded by: 

522600, 3741900; 522800, 3741900; 

522800, 3741800; 522900, 3741800; 

522900, 3741600; 522800, 3741600; 

522800, 3741400; 522600, 3741400; 

522600, 3741300; 522500, 3741300; 

522500, 3741200; 522400, 3741200; 

522400, 3741100; 522300, 3741100; 

522300, 3740700; 522200, 3740700; 

522200, 3740500; 522100, 3740500; 

522100, 3740000; 522000, 3740000; 

522000, 3739500; 521900, 3739500; 

521900, 3739200; 521800, 3739200; 

521800, 3739000; 522000, 3739000; 

522000, 3739100; 522600, 3739100; 

522600, 3739200; 523000, 3739200; 

523000, 3739300; 523100, 3739300; 

523100, 3739400; 523200, 3739400; 

523200, 3739000; 522900, 3739000; 

522900, 3738900; 522600, 3738900; 

522600, 3738800; 521800, 3738800; 

521800, 3738700; 521700, 3738700; 

521700, 3738600; 521400, 3738600; 

521400, 3738800; 521500, 3738800; 

521500, 3738900; 521600, 3738900; 

521600, 3739500; 521700, 3739500; 

521700, 3739700; 521800, 3739700; 

521800, 3740300; 521900, 3740300; 

521900, 3740700; 522000, 3740700; 

522000, 3740900; 522100, 3740900; 

522100, 3741300; 522200, 3741300; 

522200, 3741400; 522400, 3741400; 

522400, 3741600; 522600, 3741600; 

returning to 522600, 3741900; land 

bounded by: 525800, 3741200; 525900, 

3741200; 525900, 3740900; 525800, 

3740900; 525800, 3740800; 525600, 

3740800; 525600, 3740700; 525500, 

3740700; 525500, 3740600; 525400, 

3740600; 525400, 3740400; 525300, 

3740400; 525300, 3740300; 525200, 

3740300; 525200, 3740200; 525100, 

3740200; 525100, 3740100; 525000, 

3740100; 525000, 3740000; 525600, 

3740000; 525600, 3740100; 525800, 

3740100; 525800, 3740000; 525900, 

3740000; 525900, 3739700; 525800, 

3739700; 525800, 3739800; 525500, 

3739800; 525500, 3739700; 525700, 

3739700; 525700, 3739600; 525800, 

3739600; 525800, 3739500; 525900, 

3739500; 525900, 3739400; 526000, 

3739400; 526000, 3739000; 525900, 

3739000; 525900, 3739100; 525800, 

3739100; 525800, 3739200; 525700, 

3739200; 525700, 3739300; 525600, 

3739300; 525600, 3739400; 525100, 

3739400; 525100, 3739500; 524800, 

3739500; 524800, 3739600; 524600, 

3739600; 524600, 3739500; 524500, 

3739500; 524500, 3739400; 524200, 

3739400; 524200, 3739300; 524100, 

3739300; 524100, 3739600; 524200, 

3739600; 524200, 3739700; 524400, 

3739700; 524400, 3739800; 524500, 

3739800; 524500, 3740000; 524600, 

3740000; 524600, 3740100; 524700, 

3740100; 524700, 3740200; 524800, 

3740200; 524800, 3740300; 524900, 

3740300; 524900, 3740400; 525000, 

3740400; 525000, 3740500; 525100, 

3740500; 525100, 3740600; 525200, 

3740600; 525200, 3740700; 525300, 

3740700; 525300, 3740800; 525400, 

3740800; 525400, 3740900; 525500, 

3740900; 525500, 3741000; 525600, 

3741000; 525600, 3741100; 525800, 

3741100; returning to 525800, 3741200; 

and land bounded by 523900, 3741000; 

524200, 3741000; 524200, 3740800; 

524100, 3740800; 524100, 3740700; 

524000, 3740700; 524000, 3740600; 

523900, 3740600; 523900, 3740500; 

523800, 3740500; 523800, 3740400; 

523600, 3740400; 523600, 3740300; 

523500, 3740300; 523500, 3740100; 

523400, 3740100; 523400, 3739500; 

523200, 3739500; 523200, 3739600; 

523100, 3739600; 523100, 3740000; 

523200, 3740000; 523200, 3740300; 

523300, 3740300; 523300, 3740500; 

523400, 3740500; 523400, 3740600; 

523600, 3740600; 523600, 3740700; 

523800, 3740700; 523800, 3740900; 

523900, 3740900; returning to 523900, 

3741000. 

(ii) Map 6 depicting subunit 3A is 

found at paragraph (d)(18)(ii) of this 

section. 

(16) Subunit 3B: San Jacinto 

Mountains (Indian Creek at Hall 

Canyon), San Bernardino National 

Forest, Riverside County, California. 

(i) Subunit 3B: Indian Creek (at Hall 

Canyon). Land bounded by the 

following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, 

N): 521600, 3742800; 521800, 3742800; 

521800, 3742500; 521700, 3742500; 

521700, 3741700; 521600, 3741700; 

521600, 3741500; 521500, 3741500; 

521500, 3741400; 521400, 3741400; 

521400, 3741200; 521300, 3741200; 

521300, 3741100; 520900, 3741100; 

520900, 3741200; 521000, 3741200; 

521000, 3741300; 521100, 3741300; 

521100, 3741400; 521200, 3741400; 

521200, 3741600; 521300, 3741600; 

521300, 3741700; 521400, 3741700; 

521400, 3742300; 521500, 3742300; 

521500, 3742700; 521600, 3742700; 

returning to 521600, 3742800. 

(ii) Map 6 depicting subunit 3B is 

found at paragraph (d)(18)(ii) of this 

section. 

(17) Subunit 3C: San Jacinto 

Mountains (Tahquitz and Willow 

Creek), San Bernardino National Forest, 

Riverside County, California. 

(i) Subunit 3C: Tahquitz Creek. Land 

bounded by the following UTM NAD27 

coordinates (E, N): 529600, 3739000; 

529900, 3739000; 529900, 3738900; 

531000, 3738900; 531000, 3738800; 

531100, 3738800; 531100, 3738700; 

531200, 3738700; 531200, 3738600; 

531300, 3738600; 531300, 3738500; 

531400, 3738500; 531400, 3738400; 

531500, 3738400; 531500, 3738200; 

531200, 3738200; 531200, 3738300; 

531100, 3738300; 531100, 3738400; 

531000, 3738400; 531000, 3738500; 

530900, 3738500; 530900, 3738600; 

530200, 3738600; 530200, 3738700; 

529600, 3738700; returning to 529600, 

3739000; and land bounded by 532100, 

3737000; 532400, 3737000; 532400, 

3736900; 532600, 3736900; 532600, 

3736600; 532300, 3736600; 532300, 

3736700; 532200, 3736700; 532200, 

3736500; 531800, 3736500; 531800, 

3736300; 531700, 3736300; 531700, 

3736200; 531600, 3736200; 531600, 

3736100; 531500, 3736100; 531500, 

3736000; 531400, 3736000; 531400, 

3735700; 531300, 3735700; 531300, 

3735500; 531200, 3735500; 531200, 

3735300; 531100, 3735300; 531100, 

3735100; 531000, 3735100; 531000, 

3735000; 530900, 3735000; 530900, 

3734900; 530600, 3734900; 530600, 

3735200; 530800, 3735200; 530800, 

3735300; 530900, 3735300; 530900, 

3735500; 531000, 3735500; 531000, 

3735800; 531100, 3735800; 531100, 

3735900; 531200, 3735900; 531200, 

3736200; 531300, 3736200; 531300, 

3736300; 531400, 3736300; 531400, 

3736400; 531500, 3736400; 531500, 

54142 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

3736600; 531600, 3736600; 531600, 

3736700; 531700, 3736700; 531700, 

3736800; 532000, 3736800; 532000, 

3736900; 532100, 3736900; returning to 

532100, 3737000. 

(ii) Map 6 depicting subunit 3C is 

found at paragraph (d)(18)(ii) of this 

section. 

(18) Subunit 3D: San Jacinto 

Mountains (Andreas Creek), San 

Bernardino National Forest, Riverside 

County, California. 

(i) Subunit 3D: San Jacinto Mountains 

(Andreas Creek). Land bounded by the 

following UTM NAD27 coordinates (E, 

N): 534300, 3735900; 534700, 3735900; 

534700, 3735800; 535000, 3735800; 

535000, 3735700; 535100, 3735700; 

535100, 3735600; 535300, 3735600; 

535300, 3735500; 535400, 3735500; 

535400, 3735400; 535500, 3735400; 

535500, 3735300; 535700, 3735300; 

535700, 3735000; 535500, 3735000; 

535500, 3735100; 535300, 3735100; 

535300, 3735200; 535200, 3735200; 

535200, 3735300; 535100, 3735300; 

535100, 3735400; 534900, 3735400; 

534900, 3735500; 534800, 3735500; 

534800, 3735600; 534300, 3735600; 

returning to 534300, 3735900. 

(ii) Note: Map 6 of Unit 3, with Subunits 

3A, 3B, 3C, and 3D, follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 54143 

* * * * * 

Dated: September 1, 2005. 

Craig Manson, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. 05–17755 Filed 9–12–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


EP13SE05.005</GPH>