[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 14, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3412-3470]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31757]
[[Page 3411]]
Vol. 90
Tuesday,
No. 8
January 14, 2025
Part IV
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Four Distinct Population Segments of the Foothill Yellow-
Legged Frog; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 90 , No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 3412]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2023-0157; FXES1111090FEDR-256-FF09E21000]
RIN 1018-BH11
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for Four Distinct Population Segments of the Foothill
Yellow-Legged Frog
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
designate critical habitat for four distinct population segments (DPSs)
of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, approximately 760,071
acres (307,590 hectares) in California fall within the boundaries of
the proposed critical habitat designation. We also announce the
availability of an economic analysis of the proposed designation of
critical habitat for four DPSs.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
March 17, 2025. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. eastern time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by February 28, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R8-ES-2023-0157,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of
the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule
box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on
``Comment.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2023-0157, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials, such as
the species status assessment report, are available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2023-0157. If we finalize
the critical habitat designation, we will make the coordinates or plot
points or both from which the maps are generated available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2023-0157.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Fris, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800
Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825; telephone 916-414-6700. Individuals
in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have
a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United
States should use the relay services offered within their country to
make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
Please see Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2023-0157 on https://www.regulations.gov for a document that summarizes this proposed rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, any species that is
determined to be an endangered or threatened species requires critical
habitat to be designated, to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable. Designations and revisions of critical habitat can be
completed only by issuing a rule through the Administrative Procedure
Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
What this document does. We propose the designation of critical
habitat for four DPSs of the foothill yellow-legged frog, which are
listed as endangered or threatened (see 88 FR 59698; August 29, 2023).
The basis for our action. Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the
Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, to designate critical habitat concurrent with
listing. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as (i) the
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at
the time it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological
features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II)
which may require special management considerations or protections; and
(ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination by the Secretary
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must make the
designation on the basis of the best scientific data available and
after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on
national security, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other governmental agencies, Native
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) Specific information on:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including
habitat requirements for life-history functions including but not
limited to feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) The amount and distribution of the four DPSs' habitat;
(c) Any additional areas occurring within the range of the four
DPSs in California that should be included in the designation because
they (i) are occupied at the time of listing and contain the physical
or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the
four DPSs and that may require special management considerations or
protection, or (ii) are unoccupied at the time of listing and are
essential for the conservation of the four DPSs;
(d) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing
for the potential effects of climate change; and
(e) Whether occupied areas are adequate for the conservation of the
four DPSs, as this will help us evaluate the potential to include areas
not occupied at the time of listing. Additionally, please provide
specific information regarding whether or not unoccupied areas would,
with reasonable certainty, contribute to the conservation of the four
DPSs and contain at least one physical or biological feature essential
to the conservation of the DPSs. We also seek comments or information
regarding whether areas not occupied at the time
[[Page 3413]]
of listing qualify as habitat for the four DPSs.
(2) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(3) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation, and the related benefits of including or excluding
specific areas.
(4) Information on the extent to which the description of probable
economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable
estimate of the likely economic impacts and any additional information
regarding probable economic impacts that we should consider.
(5) Ongoing conservation measures being implemented by landowners
or land managers to conserve the four DPSs' habitat.
(6) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in particular for those areas associated
with the joint Federal and State permitted Santa Clara Valley Habitat
Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) that
can be obtained from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above). If you think we should exclude any
additional areas, please provide information supporting a benefit of
exclusion.
(7) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial
information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act directs that the Secretary shall designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.
Our final determination may differ from this proposal because we
will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well
as any information that may become available after this proposal. Based
on the new information we receive (and, if relevant, any comments on
that new information), our final designation may not include all areas
proposed, may include some additional areas that meet the definition of
critical habitat, or may exclude some areas if we find the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion and exclusion will not
result in the extinction of the species. In our final rule, we will
clearly explain our rationale and the basis for our final decision,
including why we made changes, if any, that differ from this proposal.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing. We may hold the public hearing in person or virtually via
webinar. We will announce any public hearing on our website, in
addition to the Federal Register. The use of virtual public hearings is
consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).
Previous Federal Actions
On July 11, 2012, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity to list 53 species of reptiles and amphibians,
including the foothill yellow-legged frog, as endangered or threatened
under the Act. On July 1, 2015, we published our 90-day finding in the
Federal Register (80 FR 37568) that found that listing the foothill
yellow-legged frog may be warranted. On December 28, 2021, we published
in the Federal Register (86 FR 73914) a combined 12-month finding and
proposed rule to list the North Feather and Central Coast DPSs of the
foothill yellow-legged frog as threatened and the South Sierra and
South Coast DPSs of the foothill yellow-legged frog as endangered under
the Act. On August 29, 2023, we published in the Federal Register (88
FR 59698) the final rule to list the North Feather and Central Coast
DPSs of the foothill yellow-legged frog as threatened and the South
Sierra and South Coast DPSs of the foothill yellow-legged frog as
endangered under the Act. The proposed and final rules listing the
North Feather and Central Coast DPSs included a rule issued under
section 4(d) of the Act (``a 4(d) rule'') for each of these two DPSs.
Peer Review
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for
the foothill yellow-legged frog (Service 2023b, entire). The SSA team
was composed of Service biologists, in consultation with other species
experts. The SSA report represents a compilation of the best scientific
and commercial data available concerning the status of the species,
including the impacts of past, present, and future factors (both
negative and beneficial) affecting the species. The SSA report also
contains a compilation of the most current habitat needs and
requirements for the species and forms the basis for our determination
of critical habitat for the four DPSs.
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review in
listing actions under the Act, we solicited independent scientific
review of the information contained in the foothill yellow-legged
frog's SSA report. We received peer review from three appropriate
specialists regarding the SSA report. Results of this structured peer
review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS-R8-ES-2023-0157. In preparing this proposed critical habitat
rule, we incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate,
into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this proposed rule.
[[Page 3414]]
Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments
As discussed in Peer Review above, we received comments from three
peer reviewers on the draft SSA report. We reviewed all comments we
received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new
information regarding the contents of the SSA report. The peer
reviewers generally concurred with our information, methods, and
conclusions, and they provided additional information, clarifications,
and suggestions to improve the SSA report, including information
related to the habitat needs of the foothill yellow-legged frog.
Critical Habitat
Background
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and
threatened species.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, we designate a species' critical habitat
concurrently with listing the species. Critical habitat is defined in
section 3(5)(A) of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e.,
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g.,
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically,
but not solely, by vagrant individuals).
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that each Federal action agency ensures, in
consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat. The designation of
critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such
designation also does not allow the government or public to access
private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of
restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal
landowners. Rather, designation requires that, where a landowner
requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may
affect an area designated as critical habitat, the Federal agency
consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the
action may affect the listed species itself (such as for occupied
critical habitat), the Federal agency would have already been required
to consult with the Service even absent the designation because of the
requirement to ensure that the action is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species. Even if the Service were to
conclude after consultation that the proposed activity is likely to
result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat,
the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon
the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead,
they must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific data available, those physical or biological features that
are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food,
cover, and protected habitat).
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information from the SSA report and information developed during the
listing process for the species. Additional information sources may
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
[[Page 3415]]
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act for
endangered species or the 4(d) rule for threatened species. Federally
funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their
designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings
in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue
to contribute to recovery of the species. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other
species conservation planning efforts if new information available at
the time of those planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the
Species
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species, and
which may require special management considerations or protection. The
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that
occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey,
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a
single habitat characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions.
Features may also be expressed in terms relating to principles of
conservation biology, such as patch size, distribution distances, and
connectivity. For example, physical features essential to the
conservation of the species might include gravel of a particular size
required for spawning, alkaline soil for seed germination, protective
cover for migration, or susceptibility to flooding or fire that
maintains necessary early-successional habitat characteristics.
Biological features might include prey species, forage grasses,
specific kinds or ages of trees for roosting or nesting, symbiotic
fungi, or absence of a particular level of nonnative species consistent
with conservation needs of the listed species. The features may also be
combinations of habitat characteristics and may encompass the
relationship between characteristics or the necessary amount of a
characteristic essential to support the life history of the species.
In considering whether features are essential to the conservation
of the species, we may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and
spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the
context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the
species. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, space
for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food,
water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological
requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or
rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected
from disturbance.
Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Description, Distribution, and Habitat
Requirements
Below is a summary of the distribution and habitat requirements of
the foothill yellow-legged frog. For a more thorough discussion of this
information as well as information on the ecology and life history of
the species, please see the SSA report (Service 2023b, chapter 2, pp.
15-34, and chapter 4, pp. 52-66).
The foothill yellow-legged frog is a small- to medium-sized stream-
dwelling frog approximately 1.5 to 3.2 inches (in.) (37 to 82
millimeters (mm)) in length. Colorization is highly variable but is
usually light and dark mottled gray, olive, or brown, with variable
amounts of brick red. The undersurfaces of the lower abdomen and inside
surfaces of the rear legs are varying shades of yellow. The range of
the four DPSs of the foothill yellow-legged frog is entirely in
California and includes areas within the North Feather River watershed
(North Feather DPS), areas in the Sierra Nevada Mountains south of
Placer County to Kern County (South Sierra DPS), areas in the
California Coast Range from Contra Costa to western Fresno County
(Central Coast DPS), and areas of western Monterey County to northern
Los Angeles County (South Coast DPS) (see figure below).
[[Page 3416]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.003
Foothill yellow-legged frogs are obligate stream-dwelling frogs
(Wheeler and Welsh 2008, p. 128) that use aquatic habitat for feeding,
reproduction, and development and terrestrial habitat near streams for
foraging, overwintering, and dispersal. The species occurs in lower
elevation streams from sea level to approximately 5,000 feet (ft)
(1,524 meters (m)) but have been documented at higher elevations. The
species uses small tributaries to larger mainstem streams (first-
through eighth-order streams as identified by the Strahler method
(Strahler 1957, p. 914)) that are either primarily rain-fed (coastal
DPSs) to primarily snow-influenced (most Sierra Nevada DPSs) (Olson and
Davis 2009, p. 12; Wheeler et al. 2015, pp. 1276-1277; California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2019, p. 16). The streams and
surrounding terrestrial habitat of the foothill yellow-legged frog
occurs in a wide variety of vegetation types including valley-foothill
hardwood, valley-foothill hardwood-conifer, valley-foothill riparian,
ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, mixed chaparral, and wet meadows (Hayes
et al. 2016, p. 5). While habitat conditions can be vastly different
among the stream habitat and across the species' geographic range, only
a narrow range of abiotic conditions are tolerated by early life stages
(i.e., eggs, tadpoles, and metamorphs) (Kupferberg 1996, pp. 1336-1342;
Bondi et al. 2013, p. 101; Lind et al. 2016, p. 263; Catenazzi and
Kupferberg 2018, pp. 1044-1045). The abiotic conditions that directly
influence the success of early life stages are those associated with
stream velocity, water depth, water temperature, and streambed
substrate. Because foothill yellow-legged frogs are a wide-ranging
species and habitat conditions are also highly variable depending on
factors such as surrounding vegetation cover, stream depth, stream
geomorphology, slope, and substrate composition, the exact conditions
for stream velocity, depth, and temperature needed by the species for
early life stages across its range for successful reproduction are also
variable. Because each population is limited to its present ecological
conditions, it is difficult to determine specific thresholds for these
parameters across the range of the species.
In general, foothill yellow-legged frog breeding takes place
between late March and early July (Zweifel 1955, p. 228;
[[Page 3417]]
Yarnell et al. 2013, pp. 64, 67, table 14). Most foothill yellow-legged
frogs breed along mainstem water channels and overwinter along smaller
tributaries near the mainstem channel (Kupferberg 1996, p. 1339; GANDA
2008, p. 20). Foothill yellow-legged frogs that overwinter along
tributaries often congregate at the same breeding locations along the
mainstem each year (Kupferberg 1996, p. 1334; Wheeler and Welsh 2008,
p. 128).
Stream morphology is a strong predictor of breeding habitat because
it creates the microhabitat conditions required for successful
oviposition (i.e., egg-laying), hatching, growth, and metamorphosis.
Stream velocity, water depth, water temperature, and streambed
substrate are most suitable for foothill yellow-legged frog oviposition
and rearing in streams that exemplify the natural hydrological pattern
that is characterized by strong winter flows in mainstem channels,
followed by gradually decreasing flows during the spring into the
summer (Kupferberg et al. 2009, p. 3; Power et al. 2016, pp. 714, 716,
719, figure 33.2). Increased or strong winter flows can maintain or
increase foothill yellow-legged frog habitat by widening and
diversifying channel morphology, improving rocky substrate conditions
(by removing sediments), and increasing sunlight (by removing
encroaching vegetation) (Lind et al. 1996, pp. 64-65; Lind et al. 2016,
p. 269; Power et al. 2016, p. 719). The transition from the wet season
to the dry season is characterized by a gradually decreasing stream
flow called the spring recession flow, decreasing water velocity, and
increasing water temperature (Kupferberg et al. 2012, p. 520; Power et
al. 2016, pp. 714, 716, figure 33.2). Foothill yellow-legged frogs
require a hydroperiod (i.e., period of time during which an area is
saturated with or full of water) that is sufficient for successful
breeding and survival through dry periods. The timeframe and duration
of the hydroperiod required varies by year and by region because of
regional differences in timing of hydrological breeding cues (e.g.,
water flows, temperature, spring recession flows), intrinsic tadpole
growth rates (Catenazzi and Kupferberg 2017, pp. 1261-1262, figure 4),
and ambient conditions (e.g., temperature) that influence early life
stage development. Foothill yellow-legged frogs are most likely cued in
to these gradually reducing flows and increases in stream temperatures
for reproduction (Kupferberg 1996, p. 1332; Wheeler and Welsh 2008, p.
134; Gonsolin 2010, p. 32; Van Hattem et al. 2021, pp. 206-207).
The foothill yellow-legged frog spends much of the year outside of
breeding areas, so it is extremely important that nonbreeding habitat
meet their feeding, sheltering, and thermoregulatory needs by providing
sources of invertebrate prey and intermittent canopy, thermally stable
microsites, and moist, interstitial spaces (van Wagner 1996, p. 101;
Rombough 2006, p. 159). During the nonbreeding season, the smaller
tributaries, some of which may flow only during the wet winter season,
provide refuge while the larger breeding channels may experience
overbank flooding and high flows (Kupferberg 1996, p. 1339). Habitat
elements outside the mainstem streams that provide both refuge from
winter peak flows and adequate moisture for foothill yellow-legged
frogs include pools, springs, seeps, submerged root wads, undercut
banks, and large boulders or debris at or above high-water lines (van
Wagner 1996, pp. 74-75, 111; Rombough 2006, p. 159).
Food resources are variable by life stage with tadpoles consuming
algae, diatoms, and detritus that are scraped from submerged rocks and
vegetation (Ashton et al. 1997, p. 7; Fellers 2005, p. 535).
Metamorphs, juveniles, and adults feed upon a wide range of aquatic and
terrestrial invertebrates including snails, moths, flies, water
striders, beetles, grasshoppers, hornets, arthropods, and ants, as well
as vertebrates such as small fish and small frogs (Zweifel 1955, p.
223; Nussbaum et al. 1983, p. 165). Food resources have been found to
be primarily terrestrial (88 percent) as opposed to aquatic (i.e.,
captured on or under water) (van Wagner 1996, pp. 88-89, 94, figure
38).
Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the foothill yellow-legged frog from studies of the
species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described above.
Additional information can be found in the SSA report (Service 2023b,
pp. 23-34, 52-66). We have determined that the following physical or
biological features are essential to the conservation of the four DPSs
of the foothill yellow-legged frog:
1. Aquatic Stream Habitat
(a) Stream reaches with a hydrological pattern (including
appropriate stream velocity, water depth, water temperature, streambed
substrate, and geomorphic heterogeneity) capable of supporting foothill
yellow-legged frog breeding and rearing. Suitable stream reaches
typically contain a wide and shallow channel morphology, an
intermittent canopy, and rocky substrate that is cobble-sized or
larger. These features provide habitat for breeding, feeding, and
reproduction and in some cases general aquatic or overwintering habitat
for the foothill yellow-legged frog.
(b) Tributary (nonbreeding) habitat adjacent to and accessible from
breeding and rearing habitat. Suitable tributary habitats typically
contain sources of invertebrate prey, intermittent canopy, thermally
stable microsites, and moist overwintering refugia protected from
scouring winter flows. These refugia may include springs, seeps, pools,
woody debris, root wads, undercut banks, clumps of sedges, and rocks.
2. Terrestrial and Dispersal Habitat
(a) Upland habitat adjacent to and accessible from breeding,
rearing, and tributary habitat as identified in 1(a) and (b) above.
Suitable upland habitats typically contain sources of invertebrate
prey, intermittent canopy, thermally stable microsites, and moist
overwintering refugia. These refugia may include nonstream pools, woody
debris, root wads, clumps of sedges, and large boulders or debris.
(b) Dispersal habitat comprising permanent or ephemeral water
channels and adjacent uplands that connect breeding and overwintering
habitat sites. Suitable dispersal habitat does not need to hold
moisture for extended periods. Suitable dispersal habitat typically
connects areas containing intermittent canopy, interstitial spaces for
sheltering, and sources of invertebrate prey. Additionally, suitable
dispersal habitat is free from large physical barriers, hydrological
barriers (e.g., dams, reservoirs, and rivers with highly altered flow
regimes), and areas with high exposure to predators.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. The features essential to the conservation of the four DPSs
of the foothill yellow-legged frog that may require special management
considerations or protection to reduce the following direct or indirect
threats to habitat are: (1) altered hydrology and stream flow; (2)
nonnative species predation and
[[Page 3418]]
competition; (3) disease; (4) wildfire (upland habitat disturbance and
sedimentation); (5) effects of climate change (e.g., increased
temperatures); and (6) anthropogenic activities (e.g., agriculture
(land conversion), urbanization, road construction, and recreation).
Special management considerations or protection that may be
required within critical habitat areas to address these threats include
(but are not limited to) the following: implement best management
practices (BMPs) for protecting, maintaining, and enhancing stream
flows or managing stream flows to mimic natural hydrologic conditions;
maintaining adequate habitat connectivity between occupied areas or
upland and aquatic habitat; avoiding alteration of stream features and
associated upland habitats; protecting and restoring riparian
vegetation along streams; implementing practices to reduce
sedimentation, erosion, and streambank degradation; reducing other
watershed, riparian, and floodplain disturbances that release
sediments, pollutants, or nutrients into the water; and improving
industrial and municipal water treatment facilities and sewage systems
to reduce nutrient and pathogen pollution.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered
for designation as critical habitat. We are not currently proposing to
designate any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species because we have not identified any unoccupied areas that meet
the definition of critical habitat.
In identifying areas of critical habitat for each of the four DPSs
of the foothill yellow-legged frog, we developed a conservation
strategy to assist in delineating the specific areas on which are found
those physical or biological features essential for the conservation of
the foothill yellow-legged frog. In our analysis for determining areas
as critical habitat, we focused on those areas that have well-
established populations throughout each of the four DPS's ranges. These
areas would provide individuals for other local populations and assist
in maintaining the redundancy, representation, and resiliency of the
foothill yellow-legged frog throughout the range of each DPS.
Additional aspects of our conservation strategy include: (1) conserving
and maintaining a sufficient amount of high-quality breeding and
rearing habitat with appropriate physical and hydrological
characteristics to provide for recruitment over the long term; (2)
conserving and maintaining sufficient high-quality upland and tributary
habitat to provide for juvenile and adult overwintering survival to
allow for maintenance of breeding populations over the long term; and
(3) retaining or providing areas for connectivity between high-quality
breeding and rearing habitat for genetic exchange and recolonization
within metapopulations. Without appropriate well-established areas for
breeding, rearing, and upland use, the foothill yellow-legged frog
within each of the four DPSs would not be able to sustain populations
in the wild.
To implement the above strategy and identify the areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, we
delineated critical habitat unit boundaries using the following
criteria and processes: (1) we determined local populations by using
breeding occurrence information from recent occurrence and modeling
data; (2) we identified the upland and dispersal extent within 2 km
(1.2 mi) of high-quality breeding and rearing habitat that had well-
established breeding populations; and (3) we evaluated boundaries of
units and included areas with appropriate in-stream and upland habitat
characteristics and removed nonhabitat features as allowed by the
available data.
Our identification of these areas using this rule set will allow
for opportunities to monitor occupancy and abundance of existing
populations and survey areas within and around each DPS's historical
range to determine where potential population enhancement,
reintroductions, threat management, or other actions may be necessary.
In our analysis of identifying areas as critical habitat, we
determined the extent and distribution of areas being considered are
sufficient to conserve each of the four DPSs. Although smaller
populations, populations in less desirable habitat, and unoccupied
areas occur within each of the four DPS's ranges, these areas have
limited conservation value to each DPS overall and do not meet our rule
set for consideration as critical habitat. As a result, we have not
included these less desirable occupied or unoccupied areas in our
proposed designation.
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered
by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack
physical or biological features necessary for the four DPSs of the
foothill yellow-legged frog. The scale of the maps we prepared under
the parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations
may not reflect the exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands
inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps
of this proposed rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule
and are not proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if
the critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action
involving these lands (and not affecting the designated critical
habitat) would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to
critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless
the specific action would affect the physical or biological features in
the adjacent critical habitat.
We propose to designate as critical habitat lands that we have
determined are occupied at the time of listing (i.e., currently
occupied) and that contain one or more of the physical or biological
features that are essential to support life-history processes of the
four DPSs of the foothill yellow-legged frog.
We have identified 4 units for the North Feather DPS; 14 units with
4 subunits for the South Sierra DPS; 8 units with 7 subunits for the
Central Coast DPS; and 1 unit for the South Coast DPS as proposed
critical habitat based on one or more of the physical or biological
features being present to support each of the four DPS's life-history
processes. Some units contain all of the identified physical or
biological features and support multiple life-history processes. Some
units contain only some of the physical or biological features
necessary to support each respective DPS's particular use of that
habitat.
The proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the map or
maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the
end of this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing a total of 27 units as critical habitat for the
foothill yellow-legged frog within the range of the four DPSs totaling
approximately 760,071 ac (307,590 ha). The critical habitat areas
[[Page 3419]]
we describe below constitute our current best assessment of areas that
meet the definition of critical habitat for the foothill yellow-legged
frog. The areas we propose as critical habitat are identified below.
All units and subunits are currently occupied by each respective DPS.
Table 1 shows the total area of proposed critical habitat by general
land ownership for each of the four specific DPSs.
Table 1--Critical Habitat Units for the Four DPSs of the Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Impacts to
Area in acres physical or
Unit No./name (hectares) Land ownership biological
features
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Feather DPS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit NF-1. North Fork Feather River......... 30,116 (12,188) Federal....................... 1, 4, 5
383 (155) State.........................
68,934 (27,897) Private.......................
Unit NF-2. Middle Fork Feather River........ 69,251 (28,025) Federal....................... 1, 2, 4, 5
447 (181) State.........................
7,446 (3,013) Private.......................
Unit NF-3. South Fork Feather River......... 4,645 (1,880) Federal....................... 1, 2, 4, 5
6,541 (2,647) Private.......................
Unit NF-4. Clear Creek...................... 32 (13) Federal....................... 1, 2, 4, 5
4,480 (1,813) Private.......................
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 192,275 (77,811)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Sierra DPS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit SS-1. Rock Creek....................... 2,630 (1,064) Federal....................... 1, 2, 4, 5
1,718 (695) Private.......................
Unit SS-2. Chili Bar Reservoir.............. 1,245 (504) Federal....................... 1, 2, 4, 5
3,732 (1,510) Private.......................
Unit SS-3. South Fork American River-Camp 30,894 (12,502) Federal....................... 1, 2, 4, 5
Creek.
11,214 (4,538) Private.......................
Unit SS-4. North Fork Mokelumne River....... 16,174 (6,546) Federal....................... 1, 2, 4, 5
18,577 (7,518) Private.......................
Unit SS-5. Else Creek....................... 324 (131) Federal....................... 1, 2, 4, 5
219 (89) State.........................
4,114 (1,665) Private.......................
Unit SS-6. Jesus Maria Creek................ 1,606 (650) Federal....................... 1, 2, 4, 5
2,476 (1,002) Private.......................
Unit SS-7 Subunit a. Stanislaus Confluence.. 37,548 (15,195) Federal....................... 1, 2, 4, 5
2,720 (1,101) State.........................
15,564 (6,299) Private.......................
Unit SS-7 Subunit b. Moaning Cave........... 587 (238) Federal....................... 1, 2, 4, 5
3,037 (1,229) Private.......................
Unit SS-8. North Fork and Middle Tuolumne 64,360 (26,046) Federal....................... 1, 2, 4, 5
River.
13,791 (5,581) Private.......................
Unit SS-9. Moccasin Creek................... 4,509 (1,825) Federal....................... 1, 2, 4, 5
3,770 (1,526) Private.......................
Unit SS-10 Subunit a. North Fork Merced 10,467 (4,236) Federal....................... 1, 2, 4, 5
River.
5,024 (2,033) Private.......................
Unit SS-10 Subunit b. Bull Creek............ 11,087 (4,487) Federal....................... 1, 2, 4, 5
992 (402) Private.......................
Unit SS-11. Merced River and Sherlock Creek. 13,267 (5,369) Federal....................... 1, 2, 4, 5
3,451 (1,397) Private.......................
Unit SS-12. Jose Creek...................... 9,204 (3,725) Federal....................... 1, 2, 4, 5
30 (12) State.........................
948 (384) Private.......................
Unit SS-13. North Fork Tule River........... 217 (88) Federal....................... 1, 2, 4, 5
4,932 (1,996) Private.......................
Unit SS-14. Kern River...................... 7,327 (2,965) Federal....................... 1, 2, 4, 5
17 (7) Private.......................
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 307,772 (124,485)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Coast DPS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit CC-1 Subunit a. Corral Hollow Creek.... 4,483 (1,814) Private....................... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Unit CC-1 Subunit b. Lower Arroyo Mocho..... 6 (3) Local......................... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
7,564 (3,061) Private.......................
Unit CC-1 Subunit c. Upper Arroyo Mocho..... 4,541 (1,838) Private....................... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Unit CC-1 Subunit d. Colorado Creek......... 4,698 (1,901) Private....................... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Unit CC-1 Subunit e. Del Puerto Creek....... 414 (168) Federal....................... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
[[Page 3420]]
11,981 (4,849) Private.......................
Unit CC-2. Robison Creek.................... 5,139 (2,080) State......................... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
1,839 (744) Private.......................
Unit CC-3. Orestimba Creek.................. 4,541 (1,838) Private....................... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Unit CC-4. Alameda Creek, Arroyo Hondo, and 2,828 (1,144) State......................... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Upper Penitencia Creek.
1,871 (757) Local.........................
59,208 (23,961) Private.......................
Unit CC-5. Coyote Creek..................... 643 (260) Federal....................... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
16,251 (6,576) State.........................
255 (103) County........................
23,222 (9,398) Private.......................
Unit CC-6 Subunit a. Guadalupe and Rincon 1,100 (445) County........................ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Creeks.
6,672 (2,700) Private.......................
Unit CC-6 Subunit b. Llagas Creek........... 9,459 (3,828) Private....................... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Unit CC-7. Soquel and Bridge Creeks......... 5,689 (2,302) State......................... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
13,800 (5,585) Private.......................
Unit CC-8. Goat Mountain.................... 38,953 (15,764) Federal....................... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
1,804 (730) State.........................
22,981 (9,300) Private.......................
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 249,942 (101,148)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Coast DPS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit SC-1. San Carpoforo Creek.............. 2,683 (1,086) Federal....................... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
7,394 (2,992) Private.......................
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 10,077 (4,078)
Grand Total......................... 760,071 (307,590)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
* See table 2 for codes identifying those activities that may impact the physical or biological features.
Table 2--Activity Codes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity that may Physical or
Code impact the physical or biological
biological features feature impacted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................. Activities associated 1(a), 1(b), and
with altered 2(b).
hydrology and stream
flows from dams or
other water diversion
or conveyance
infrastructure.
2............................. Activities to control 1(a), 1(b),
or remove nonnative 2(a), 2(b).
aquatic predators or
invasive aquatic
plants that cause
impacts to habitat or
water quality.
3............................. Activities associated 1(a) and 1(b).
with the introduction
and potential spread
of disease.
4............................. Activities associated 1(a), 1(b), and
with wildfire 2(b).
suppression and
prevention that
result in nonpoint-
and point-source
pollution or
discharge of sediment
into aquatic habitat,
causing water quality
impacts.
5............................. Activities associated 1(a), 1(b),
with human use and 2(a), 2(b).
development (e.g.,
agriculture (land
conversion),
urbanization, road
construction, and
recreation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for the four DPSs, below.
North Feather DPS
Unit NF-1: North Fork Feather River
The North Fork Feather River Unit is in Butte and Plumas Counties
along the North Fork Feather River within the Sacramento River
watershed east of the City of Chico and State Route 32 to the west,
north, and east of the town of Paradise. The unit encompasses 99,433
acres (ac) (40,239 hectares (ha)) and contains Bureau of Land
Management (BLM; 4,362 ac (1,765 ha)), U.S. Forest Service (USFS;
25,754 ac (10,422 ha)), State Park (383 ac (155 ha)), and private
(68,934 ac (27,897 ha)) lands. General land uses in this unit are
primarily agriculture, recreation, and residential development. Threats
present in this unit that may require special management include
altered hydrology, effects of climate change, road construction and
use, predation by nonnative species, encroachment by development,
wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or recreational activity. The unit
is occupied and contains one or more physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species. The unit is the
northernmost proposed critical habitat unit.
Unit NF-2: Middle Fork Feather River
The Middle Fork Feather River Unit is in Butte and Plumas Counties
within the Sacramento River watershed northeast of Lake Oroville and
south of State Route 70. The unit encompasses 77,145 ac (31,219 ha) and
contains USFS (69,251 ac (28,025 ha)), State (447 ac (181 ha)), and
private (7,446 ac (3,013
[[Page 3421]]
ha)) lands. General land uses in this unit are primarily agriculture,
mining, recreational activities, and a small amount of residential
development. Threats present in this unit that may require special
management include altered hydrology, climate change, road construction
and use, predation by nonnative species, encroachment by development,
wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or recreational activity. The unit
is occupied and contains all physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species. This unit contains areas near the
documented altitudinal limit of the species (ca. 6,500 ft (1,981 m))
where the species occasionally interbreeds with its endangered
congener, the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (Rana sierrae).
Unit NF-3: South Fork Feather River
The South Fork Feather River Unit is in Butte and Plumas Counties
along the South Fork Feather River within the Sacramento River
watershed east of Lake Oroville and north of New Bullards Bar
Reservoir. The unit encompasses 11,186 ac (4,527 ha) and contains USFS
(4,645 ac (1,880 ha)) and private (6,541 ac (2,647 ha)) lands. General
land uses in this unit are primarily mining and recreational
activities. Threats present in this unit that may require special
management include altered hydrology, climate change, predation by
nonnative species, wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or recreational
activity. The unit is occupied and contains all physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species.
Unit NF-4: Clear Creek
The Clear Creek Unit is in Butte County along Clear Creek within
the Sacramento River watershed west of the Town of Butte. The unit
encompasses 4,512 ac (1,826 ha) and contains BLM (32 ac (13 ha)) and
private (4,480 ac (1,813 ha)) lands. General land uses in this unit are
primarily agriculture, mining, and recreational activities. A small
portion of the unit is developed as the Butte College campus and
residential development. Threats present in this unit that may require
special management include altered hydrology, climate change, predation
by nonnative species, wildfire, encroachment from development, and
trampling by vehicles or recreational activity. The unit is occupied
and contains one or more physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the species.
South Sierra DPS
Unit SS-1: Rock Creek
The Rock Creek Unit is in El Dorado County along Rock Creek within
the South Fork of the American River watershed east of the Town of
Georgetown. The unit encompasses 4,348 ac (1,760 ha) and contains USFS
(2,630 ac (1,064 ha)) and private (1,718 ac (695 ha)) lands. General
land use in this unit is primarily recreation, and there is a small
amount of residential development. Threats present in this unit that
may require special management include altered hydrology, climate
change, predation by nonnative species, wildfire, encroachment from
development, and trampling by vehicles or recreational activity. The
unit is occupied and contains one or more physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species.
Unit SS-2: Chili Bar Reservoir
The Chili Bar Reservoir Unit is in El Dorado County upstream (east)
of Chili Bar Reservoir within the South Fork of the American River
watershed. The unit encompasses 4,976 ac (2,014 ha) and contains BLM
(1,012 ac (410 ha)), USFS (232 ac (94 ha)), and private (3,732 ac
(1,510 ha)) lands. General land use in this unit is primarily
recreation and small portions of agriculture. The unit is urbanized at
its southern extent near the town of Placerville. Threats present in
this unit that may require special management include altered
hydrology, climate change, predation by nonnative species, wildfire,
encroachment from development, and trampling by vehicles or
recreational activity. The unit is occupied and contains one or more
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species.
Unit SS-3: South Fork American River--Camp Creek
The South Fork American River-Camp Creek Unit is in El Dorado
County along the South Fork American River within the South Fork
American River watershed and Camp Creek within the San Joaquin River
watershed east of the Town of Pollock Pines. The unit encompasses
42,108 ac (17,040 ha) and contains USFS (30,894 ac (12,502 ha)) and
private (11,214 ac (4,538 ha)) lands. General land use in this unit is
primarily recreation. The unit is densely urbanized near the town of
Pollock Pines. Threats present in this unit that may require special
management include altered hydrology, climate change, predation by
nonnative species, wildfire, encroachment from development, and
trampling by vehicles or recreational activity. Notably, Camp Creek
drains into the San Joaquin River watershed rather than into the South
Fork American River. However, these drainages are in close proximity to
each other and likely maintain population connectivity through
dispersal. The location of this unit spanning two separate drainages
likely magnifies the importance of this unit for maintaining species
connectivity throughout the entire South Sierra DPS. This unit is
occupied and contains all physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the species.
Unit SS-4: North Fork Mokelumne River
The North Fork Mokelumne River Unit is in Amador County along the
North Fork Mokelumne River within the San Joaquin River watershed
downstream of Salt Springs Reservoir and east of the Town of Pioneer.
The unit encompasses 34,751 ac (14,063 ha) and contains USFS (15,227 ac
(6,162 ha)), BLM (948 ac (384 ha)), and private (18,577 ac (7,518 ha))
lands. General land use in this unit is primarily recreation. Threats
present in this unit that may require special management include
altered hydrology, climate change, predation by nonnative species,
wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or recreational activity. This unit
is occupied and contains one or more of the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species.
Unit SS-5: Else Creek
The Else Creek Unit is in Amador County along Else Creek within the
San Joaquin River watershed near the Town of Pine Grove. The unit
encompasses 4,658 ac (1,885 ha) and contains BLM (324 ac (131 ha)),
State (219 ac (89 ha)), and private (4,114 ac (1,665 ha)) lands.
General land use in this unit is primarily agriculture and recreation.
The unit is urbanized near the town of Pine Grove. Threats present in
this unit that may require special management include altered
hydrology, climate change, predation by nonnative species, wildfire,
encroachment by development, and trampling by vehicles or recreational
activity. This unit is occupied and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species.
Unit SS-6: Jesus Maria Creek
The Jesus Maria Creek Unit is in Calaveras County northeast of the
Town of San Andreas along Jesus Maria Creek within the San Joaquin
River watershed. The unit encompasses 4,082 ac (1,652 ha) and contains
BLM (1,606 ac (650
[[Page 3422]]
ha)) and private (2,476 ac (1,002 ha)) lands. General land use in this
unit is primarily recreation. The unit is sparsely developed at its
southern extent. Threats present in this unit that may require special
management include altered hydrology, climate change, predation by
nonnative species, wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or recreational
activity. This unit is occupied and contains one or more of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species.
Unit SS-7: Stanislaus River
The Stanislaus River Unit is located in Calaveras and Tuolumne
Counties along the Stanislaus River within the San Joaquin River
watershed north and west of the City of Columbia. The unit encompasses
59,457 ac (24,062 ha) and contains BLM (4,554 ac (1,843 ha)), Bureau of
Reclamation (718 ac, 291 ha)), USFS (32,864 ac (13,300 ha)), State
(2,720 ac (1,101 ha)), and private (18,601 ac (7,528 ha)) lands.
General land use in this unit is primarily agriculture, mining, and
recreation. The unit is sparsely developed along its periphery. Threats
present in this unit that may require special management include
altered hydrology, climate change, predation by nonnative species,
wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or recreational activity. This unit
is composed of two occupied subunits that are in close proximity to
each other in the Stanislaus River watershed that contain all physical
or biological features essential to the conservation of the species.
Unit SS-7, Subunit a: Stanislaus Confluence
The Stanislaus Confluence Subunit is located in Calaveras County
upstream of the confluence of the Main Steam and South Fork of the
Stanislaus River within the San Joaquin River watershed north of the
City of Columbia. The subunit encompasses 55,833 ac (22,595 ha) and
contains BLM (4,141 ac (1,676 ha)), Bureau of Reclamation (543 ac, 220
ha)), USFS (32,864 ac (13,300 ha)), State (2,720 ac (1,101 ha)), and
private (15,564 ac (6,299 ha)) lands. General land use in this subunit
is primarily agriculture, mining, and recreation. The subunit is
sparsely developed along its northern and southern periphery. Threats
present in this subunit that may require special management include
altered hydrology, climate change, predation by nonnative species,
wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or recreational activity. This
subunit is occupied and contains all physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species.
Unit SS-7, Subunit b: Moaning Cave
The Moaning Cave Subunit is located in Calaveras County along
Coyote Creek within the San Joaquin River watershed southeast of the
Town of Angels Camp. The subunit encompasses 3,625 ac (1,467 ha) and
contains BLM (413 ac (167 ha)), Bureau of Reclamation (175 ac (71 ha)),
and private (3,037 ac (1,229 ha)) lands. General land use in this
subunit is primarily agriculture and recreation. The subunit is
sparsely developed at its northeastern extent along Moaning Cave Road.
Threats present in this subunit that may require special management
include altered hydrology, climate change, predation by nonnative
species, wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or recreational activity.
This subunit is occupied and contains one or more physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species.
Unit SS-8: North Fork and Middle Tuolumne River
The North Fork and Middle Tuolumne River Unit is located in
Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties along the North Fork and Middle Tuolumne
River within the San Joaquin River watershed generally south of State
Route 108 and north of State Route 120 to the west of Yosemite National
Park. The unit encompasses 78,151 ac (31,627 ha) and contains BLM
(3,565 ac (1,443 ha)), USFS (60,795 ac (24,603 ha)), and private
(13,791 ac (5,581 ha)) lands. General land use in this unit is
primarily agriculture and recreation. The unit is sparsely developed
along Highway 120 and near the towns of Buchanan and Confidence.
Threats present in this unit that may require special management
include altered hydrology, climate change, predation by nonnative
species, wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or recreational activity.
This unit is occupied and contains all physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species.
Unit SS-9: Moccasin Creek
The Moccasin Creek Unit is located in Tuolumne and Mariposa
Counties along Moccasin Creek within the San Joaquin River watershed
south (upstream) of Moccasin Reservoir. The unit encompasses 8,280 ac
(3,351 ha) and contains BLM (4,509 ac (1,825 ha)) and private (3,770 ac
(1,526 ha)) lands. General land use in this unit is primarily
agriculture, water management, and recreation. The unit is sparsely
developed along Highway 49 and near the Moccasin Reservoir. Threats
present in this unit that may require special management include
altered hydrology, climate change, predation by nonnative species,
wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or recreational activity. This unit
is occupied and contains one or more physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species.
Unit SS-10: North Fork Merced River, Bull Creek
The North Fork Merced River, Bull Creek Unit is located in Mariposa
County located along North Fork Merced River and Bull Creek within the
San Joaquin River watershed east of State Route 49 and north of State
Route 140. The unit encompasses 27,571 ac (11,157 ha) and contains BLM
(28 ac (11 ha)), USFS (21,525 ac (8,711 ha)), and private (6,017 ac
(2,435 ha)) lands. General land use in this unit is primarily
agriculture and recreation. The unit is sparsely developed near the
town of Greeley Hill. Threats present in this unit that may require
special management include altered hydrology, climate change, predation
by nonnative species, wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or
recreational activity. This unit is composed of two occupied subunits
that are in close proximity to each other in the Merced River watershed
that contain all physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species.
Unit SS-10, Subunit a: North Fork Merced River
The North Fork Merced River Subunit is located in Mariposa County
along the North Fork Merced River east of the Town of Greeley Hill. The
subunit encompasses 15,491 ac (6,269 ha) and contains BLM (28 ac (11
ha)), USFS (10,439 ac (4,224 ha)), and private (5,024 ac (2,033 ha))
lands. General land use in this subunit is primarily agriculture and
recreation. The subunit is sparsely developed near the town of Greeley
Hill. Threats present in this subunit that may require special
management include altered hydrology, climate change, predation by
nonnative species, wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or recreational
activity. This subunit is occupied and contains one or more physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species.
Unit SS-10, Subunit b: Bull Creek
The Bull Creek Subunit is located in Mariposa County along Bull
Creek west of the Town of Foresta. The subunit encompasses 12,079 ac
(4,888 ha) and contains USFS (11,087 ac (4,487 ha))
[[Page 3423]]
and private (992 ac (402 ha)) lands. General land use in this subunit
is primarily recreation. Threats present in this subunit that may
require special management include altered hydrology, climate change,
predation by nonnative species, wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or
recreational activity. This subunit is occupied and contains all
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species.
Unit SS-11: Merced River and Sherlock Creek
The Merced River and Sherlock Creek Unit is located in Mariposa
County along the Merced River and Sherlock Creek within the San Joaquin
River watershed north of the Town of Mariposa. The unit encompasses
16,719 ac (6,766 ha) and contains BLM (13,267 ac (5,369 ha)) and
private (3,451 ac (1,397 ha)) lands. General land use in this unit is
primarily agriculture and recreation. The unit is sparsely developed at
its southeastern extent. Threats present in this subunit that may
require special management include altered hydrology, climate change,
predation by nonnative species, wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or
recreational activity. This unit is occupied and contains one or more
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species.
Unit SS-12: Jose Creek
The Jose Creek Unit is located in Madera and Fresno Counties along
Jose Creek within the San Joaquin River watershed west of Shaver Lake.
The unit encompasses 10,182 ac (4,121 ha) and contains USFS (9,204 ac
(3,725 ha)), State (30 ac (12 ha)), and private (948 ac (384 ha))
lands. General land use in this unit is primarily agriculture and
recreation. The unit is sparsely developed near the confluence of Jose
Creek with the San Joaquin River. Threats present in this unit that may
require special management include altered hydrology, climate change,
predation by nonnative species, wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or
recreational activity. This unit is occupied and contains one or more
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species.
Unit SS-13: North Fork Tule River
The North Fork Tule River Unit is located in Tulare County along
the North Fork Tule River within the Tulare/Buena Vista Lake watershed
east of the Town of Porterville. The unit encompasses 5,149 ac (2,084
ha) and contains USFS (217 ac (88 ha)) and private (4,932 ac (1,996
ha)). General land use in this unit is primarily for agriculture and
recreation. The unit is sparsely developed along the North Fork Tule
River and near the town of Springville. Threats present in this unit
that may require special management include altered hydrology, climate
change, predation by nonnative species, wildfire, and trampling by
vehicles or recreational activity. This unit is occupied and contains
one or more physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. This unit contains one of the few
remaining occupied areas within the Tulare/Buena Vista Lake watershed.
Unit SS-14: Kern River
The Kern River Unit is located in Tulare County along Jywood and
Ash Creeks (two adjacent tributaries to the Kern River) within the
Tulare/Buena Vista Lake watershed northeast of the Town of Johnsondale.
The unit encompasses 7,344 ac (2,972 ha) and contains USFS (7,327 ac
(2,965 ha)) and private (17 ac (7 ha)) lands. General land use in this
unit is primarily recreation. Threats present in this unit that may
require special management include altered hydrology, climate change,
predation by nonnative species, wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or
recreational activity. This unit is occupied and contains one or more
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species. This unit contains one of the few remaining occupied areas
within the Tulare/Buena Vista Lake watershed and is the southernmost
locality remaining in the South Sierra DPS.
Central Coast DPS
Unit CC-1: Northeastern Coastal Range
The Northeastern Coastal Range Unit in Alameda, Santa Clara, and
Stanislaus Counties contains subunits located along drainages within
the San Francisco Bay and San Joaquin River watersheds near the eastern
ridge of the Coastal Range Mountains southeast of the City of
Livermore. The unit encompasses 33,687 ac (13,633 ha). The unit
contains BLM (414 ac (168 ha)), local government (6 ac (3 ha)) and
private (33,266 ac (13,462 ha)) lands. The unit is sparsely developed
along Lower Arroyo Mocho. General land use in this unit is primarily
agriculture and recreation. Threats present in this unit that may
require special management include altered hydrology, climate change,
disease, predation by nonnative species, wildfire, and trampling by
vehicles or recreational activity. The unit is composed of five
occupied subunits that are in close proximity to each other or in the
same drainages that contain one or more physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species. The unit spans both the
San Francisco Bay and San Joaquin River drainages and is also likely
important for maintaining species connectivity within the Central Coast
DPS.
Unit CC-1, Subunit a: Corral Hollow Creek
The Corral Hollow Creek subunit is located in Alameda County along
Corral Hollow Creek within the San Joaquin River watershed 8 kilometers
northeast of Lake Del Valle. The unit encompasses approximately 4,483
ac (1,814 ha) of entirely private land. General land use within the
subunit is agriculture and recreation. The subunit is sparsely
developed near its northern extent. Threats present in this subunit
that may require special management include altered hydrology, climate
change, predation by nonnative species, wildfire, and trampling by
vehicles or recreational activity. The subunit is occupied and contains
one or more physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species.
Unit CC-1, Subunit b: Lower Arroyo Mocho
The Lower Arroyo Mocho Subunit is located in Alameda County along
Lower Arroyo Mocho within the San Francisco Bay watershed 2 kilometers
northeast and east of Lake Del Valle. The subunit encompasses 7,571 ac
(3,064 ha)) of local government (6 ac (3 ha)) and private land (7,564
ac, 3,061 ha)). General land use within the subunit is agriculture and
recreation. The subunit is sparsely developed along Arroyo Mocho.
Threats present in this subunit that may require special management
include altered hydrology, climate change, predation by nonnative
species, wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or recreational activity.
The subunit is occupied and contains one or more physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species.
Unit CC-1, Subunit c: Upper Arroyo Mocho
The Upper Arroyo Mocho Subunit is located in Alameda County along
Upper Arroyo Mocho in the San Francisco Bay watershed 9 kilometers
southeast of Lake Del Valle. The subunit encompasses 4,541 ac (1,838
ha) of private land. General land use within the subunit is agriculture
and recreation. The subunit is sparsely developed along Arroyo Mocho.
Threats present in this subunit that may require special management
include altered hydrology, climate change, predation by
[[Page 3424]]
nonnative species, wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or recreational
activity. The subunit is occupied and contains one or more physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species.
Unit CC-1, Subunit d: Colorado Creek
The Colorado Creek Subunit is located in Santa Clara County along
Colorado Creek within the San Francisco Bay watershed approximately 10
kilometers north of the Town of Ashrama. The subunit encompasses
approximately 4,698 ac (1,901 ha) of entirely private land. General
land use within the subunit is mining and recreation. Threats present
in this subunit that may require special management include altered
hydrology, climate change, predation by nonnative species, wildfire,
and trampling by vehicles or recreational activity. The subunit is
occupied and contains one or more physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species. The subunit is located in
close proximity to the Del Puerto Creek Subunit (Unit CC-1, Subunit e)
described below and is likely important for maintaining connectivity
between the San Francisco Bay and San Joaquin River watersheds.
Unit CC-1, Subunit e: Del Puerto Creek
The Del Puerto Creek Subunit is located in Stanislaus County along
Del Puerto Creek within the San Joaquin River watershed approximately 8
kilometers northeast of the Town of Ashrama. The subunit encompasses
approximately 12,395 ac (5,016 ha) of BLM (414 ac (168 ha)) and private
lands (11,981 ac (4,849 ha)). General land use within the subunit is
agriculture and recreation. The subunit is sparsely developed along Del
Puerto Creek. Threats present in this subunit that may require special
management include altered hydrology, climate change, predation by
nonnative species, wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or recreational
activity. The subunit is occupied and contains one or more physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species. The
subunit is located in close proximity to the Colorado Creek Subunit
(Unit CC-1, Subunit d) described above and is likely important for
maintaining connectivity between the San Francisco Bay and San Joaquin
River watersheds.
Unit CC-2: Robison Creek
The Robison Creek Unit is located in Stanislaus County along
Robison Creek within the San Joaquin River watershed at the
northeastern extent of Henry W. Coe State Wilderness Area. The unit
encompasses 6,977 ac (2,824 ha) and contains State Park (5,139 ac
(2,080 ha)) and private (1,838 ac (744 ha)) lands. General land use
within the unit is recreation. Threats present in this unit that may
require special management include altered hydrology, climate change,
predation by nonnative species, wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or
recreational activity. The unit is occupied and contains one or more
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species.
Unit CC-3: Orestimba Creek
The Orestimba Creek Unit is located in Stanislaus County along
Orestimba Creek within the San Joaquin River watershed approximately 7
kilometers west of Interstate Highway 5. The unit encompasses 4,541 ac
(1,838 ha) of private lands. General land use within the unit is
recreation. The unit is sparsely developed along Orestimba Creek.
Threats present in this unit that may require special management
include altered hydrology, climate change, predation by nonnative
species, wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or recreational activity.
The unit is occupied and contains one or more physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species.
Unit CC-4: Alameda Creek, Arroyo Hondo, and Upper Penitencia Creek
The Alameda Creek, Arroyo Hondo, and Upper Penitencia Creek Unit is
located in Alameda and Santa Clara Counties along Indian Creek, Alameda
Creek, Arroyo Hondo, Isabel Creek, Bonita Creek, San Antonio Creek,
Smith Creek, and Sulphur Creek within the San Francisco Bay watershed
as well as Upper Penitencia Creek within the Coyote Creek watershed
near the eastern extent of the City of San Jose. The unit encompasses a
total of 63,907 ac (25,862 ha) including State (2,828 ac (1,144 ha)),
local government (1,871 ac (757 ha)), and private lands (59,208 ac
(23,961 ha)). General land use within the unit is agriculture and
recreation. The unit is sparsely developed along its western periphery.
Threats present in this unit that may require special management
include altered hydrology, climate change, predation by nonnative
species, encroachment by development, wildfire, and trampling by
vehicles or recreational activity. The unit is occupied and contains
one or more physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. Notably the unit spans both the Coyote
Creek and San Francisco Bay watersheds and is likely important for
maintaining species connectivity within the Central Coast DPS. We have
identified a portion of this unit for potential exclusion as a result
of the Santa Clara Valley HCP/NCCP (see Consideration of Impacts under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act below).
Unit CC-5: Coyote Creek
The Coyote Creek Unit is located in Santa Clara County along Coyote
Creek within the Coyote Creek watershed east of the City of Morgan
Hill. The unit encompasses 40,370 ac (16,337 ha) and contains BLM (643
ac (260 ha)), State (16,251 ac (6,576 ha)), County (255 ac (103 ha)),
and private (23,222 ac (9,398 ha)) lands. A large portion of the unit
is within Henry Coe State Park. General land use within the unit is
recreation. The unit is sparsely developed at its southern extent.
Threats present in this unit that may require special management
include altered hydrology, climate change, predation by nonnative
species, encroachment by development, wildfire, and trampling by
vehicles or recreational activity. The unit is occupied and contains
one or more physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. We have identified a portion of this unit
for potential exclusion as a result of the Santa Clara Valley HCP/NCCP
(see Consideration of Impacts under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act below).
Unit CC-6: Interior Santa Cruz Mountains
The Interior Santa Cruz Mountains Unit is located in Santa Clara
County along the interior portion of the Santa Cruz Mountains southeast
of the City of Los Gatos and northwest of the City of Morgan Hill. The
unit encompasses 17,231 ac (6,973 ha) and contains subunits that drain
into the Coyote Creek and Pajaro Slough watersheds. The unit contains
county park (1,100 ac (445 ha)) and private (16,131 ac (6,528 ha))
lands. General land use in this unit is primarily agriculture and
recreation. The unit is heavily developed at its northwestern extent
near the City of Los Gatos and sparsely developed at its northeastern
extent near Chesbro Reservoir. The unit is sparsely developed at its
southern extent. Threats present in this unit that may require special
management include altered hydrology, climate change, predation by
nonnative species, encroachment by development, wildfire, and trampling
by vehicles or recreational activity. The unit is composed of two
occupied subunits that are in close proximity to each other in the
Coyote Creek and Pajaro Slough drainages that contain one or more
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species.
[[Page 3425]]
Unit CC-6, Subunit a: Guadalupe and Rincon Creeks
The Guadalupe and Rincon Creeks Subunit (Central Coast DPS Unit 6,
Subunit a) of proposed critical habitat for the Central Coast DPS is
located along Guadalupe and Rincon Creeks within the Coyote Creek
watershed in Santa Clara County, California. The subunit encompasses
7,772 ac (3,145 ha) and contains county park (1,100 ac (445 ha)) and
private (6,672 ac (2,700 ha)) lands. A large portion of the subunit
lies within the Sierra Azul Open Space Regional Park. General land use
within the subunit is agriculture and recreation. The subunit is
heavily developed at its northern extent near the City of Los Gatos.
Threats present in this subunit that may require special management
include altered hydrology, climate change, predation by nonnative
species, encroachment by development, wildfire, and trampling by
vehicles or recreational activity. The subunit is occupied and contains
one or more of the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. The subunit is in close proximity to the
Llagas Creek Subunit (Unit CC-6, Subunit b) described below and thus
likely promotes genetic connectivity between the Coyote Creek and
Pajaro Slough watersheds. We have identified a portion of this subunit
for potential exclusion as a result of the Santa Clara Valley HCP/NCCP
(see Consideration of Impacts under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act below).
Unit CC-6, Subunit b: Llagas Creek
The Llagas Creek Subunit is located in Santa Clara County along
Llagas Creek within the Pajaro Slough watershed west of the City of
Morgan Hill. The subunit encompasses 9,459 ac (3,828 ha) and contains
entirely private lands. A large portion of the subunit lies within the
Rancho Canada del Oro Open Space Regional Park. General land use within
the subunit is agriculture and recreation. The subunit is sparsely
developed along its eastern extent near the Chesbro Reservoir. Threats
present in this subunit that may require special management include
altered hydrology, climate change, predation by nonnative species,
wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or recreational activity. The
subunit is occupied and contains one or more of the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species. The
subunit is in close proximity to the Guadalupe and Rincon Creeks
Subunit (Unit CC-6, Subunit a) and thus likely promotes genetic
connectivity between the Coyote Creek and Pajaro Slough watersheds. We
have identified a portion of this subunit for potential exclusion as a
result of the Santa Clara Valley HCP/NCCP (see Consideration of Impacts
under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act below).
Unit CC-7: Soquel and Bridge Creeks
The Soquel and Bridge Creeks Unit is located in Santa Cruz County
along Soquel and Bridge Creeks within the Monterey Bay watershed
northeast of the City of Santa Cruz. The unit encompasses 19,490 ac
(7,887 ha) and contains State (5,689 ac (2,302 ha)) and private (13,800
ac (5,585 ha)) lands. A large portion of the unit is within the State's
Soquel Demonstration Forest and Forest of Nisene Marks State Park.
General land use within the unit is agriculture and recreation. The
southern extent of the unit is heavily developed along Soquel Creek
near the City of Santa Cruz. Threats present in this unit that may
require special management include altered hydrology, climate change,
predation by nonnative species, encroachment by development, wildfire,
and trampling by vehicles or recreational activity. The unit is
occupied and contains one or more of the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species.
Unit CC-8: Goat Mountain
The Goat Mountain Unit is located in San Benito and Fresno Counties
along creeks within the Diablo Range Mountains northeast of King City.
Creeks within the unit drain into the Pajaro Slough, San Joaquin River,
and Tulare-Buena Vista Lakes watersheds. The unit encompasses 63,739 ac
(25,794 ha) and contains BLM (38,953 ac (15,764 ha)), State (1,804 ac
(730 ha)), and private (22,981 ac (9,300 ha)) lands. General land use
in this unit is primarily agriculture and recreation. The unit is
sparsely developed near the town of Idria. Threats present in this unit
that may require special management include altered hydrology, climate
change, predation by nonnative species, wildfire, and trampling by
vehicles or recreational activity. This unit is occupied and contains
all of the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. The unit is likely important for
maintaining species connectivity across watersheds within the Central
Coast DPS.
South Coast DPS
Unit SC-1: San Carpoforo Creek
The San Carpoforo Creek Unit is located in Monterey and San Luis
Obispo Counties along San Carpoforo Creek within the Big Creek
watershed. The unit encompasses approximately 10,077 ac (4,078 ha),
including USFS (2,683 ac (1,086 ha)) and private land owned by Hearst
Ranch (7,394 ac (2,992 ha)). The primary use of lands within the unit
is recreation. Threats present in this unit that may require special
management include altered hydrology, climate change, disease,
predation by nonnative species, wildfire, and trampling by vehicles or
recreational activity. This unit is occupied and contains one or more
of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the species. As noted by the SSA report (Service 2023b, p. 48), creeks
used by the species in the South Coast DPS have flashier flows, more
ephemeral channels, and a higher degree of intermittency because of the
region's more variable and lower amount of precipitation, and have the
warmest average temperatures in comparison to other portions of the
species' range. Thus, the physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the species within the unit may be especially
vulnerable to threats from the effects of climate change or altered
hydrology that may also increase the likelihood of disease outbreaks
(Adams et al. 2017, p. 10228; Service 2023b, p. 48). At present it is
likely that the population within this unit is isolated from other
populations of the species, including the nearby Los Burros Creek
population located on Fort Hunter Liggett.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
We published a final rule revising the definition of destruction or
adverse modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44976). Destruction or
adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that
appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the
conservation of a listed species.
[[Page 3426]]
Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act is
documented through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during formal consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species or avoid
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal
agencies to reinitiate consultation if any of the following four
conditions occur: (1) the amount or extent of taking specified in the
incidental take statement is exceeded; (2) new information reveals
effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical
habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; (3) the
identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an
effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not
considered in the biological opinion or written concurrence; or (4) a
new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be
affected by the identified action. The reinitiation requirement applies
only to actions that remain subject to some discretionary Federal
involvement or control. As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, the requirement
to reinitiate consultations for new species listings or critical
habitat designation does not apply to certain agency actions (e.g.,
land management plans issued by the Bureau of Land Management in
certain circumstances).
Destruction or Adverse Modification of Critical Habitat
The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification
determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action
directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way
that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat for the
conservation of the listed species. As discussed above, the role of
critical habitat is to support the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide for the
conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may violate section
7(a)(2) of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such habitat,
or that may be affected by such designation.
Activities that we may, during a consultation under section 7(a)(2)
of the Act, consider likely to destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would alter stream flow magnitude (either
increasing or decreasing flows), flow timing, or temperature. Such
activities could include, but are not limited to, water management on
streams with dams or other water delivery and conveyance
infrastructures such as pipelines, or water diversions. These
activities could change appropriate water conditions (temperature, flow
periods), disrupt breeding, disturb egg masses, change stream substrate
requirements, or increase shading due to lack of flows.
(2) Actions that would increase sedimentation. Such activities
could include road construction, wildland fire, urbanization and
development, unauthorized off-highway-vehicle use, or riparian habitat
alteration or destruction. These activities may increase deposit of
sediments into stream habitat and reduce appropriate cobbled structure
and interstitial spaces needed for cover.
(3) Actions that would eliminate or reduce the upland habitat
necessary for overwintering and dispersal. Such activities could
include urbanization, timber harvest, or natural land use conversion
from agriculture. These activities would limit upland overwintering
ability and potentially reduce localized populations. Limiting
dispersal would subject populations to inbreeding and make them more
vulnerable to catastrophic events.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that includes land and water
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement,
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that the Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.
We consult with the military on the development and implementation
of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We analyzed INRMPs
developed by military installations located within the range of the
proposed critical habitat designation for the foothill yellow-legged
frog to determine
[[Page 3427]]
if they meet the criteria for exemption from critical habitat under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. The following areas are Department of
Defense (DoD) lands with completed, Service-approved INRMPs within the
proposed critical habitat designation.
Approved INRMPs
U.S. Army Fort Hunter Liggett Military Reservation, Monterey County,
California
U.S. Army Fort Hunter Liggett occupies approximately 163,000 ac
(66,000 ha) of varied habitats within the Santa Lucia Mountains in
southern Monterey County. The current INRMP for Fort Hunter Liggett was
completed in December 2022 (Desert Research Institute 2022, entire) and
became effective in May 2023. The Service and CDFW are signatory
agencies on the Fort Hunter Liggett INRMP. We have identified 5,557 ac
(2,249 ha) of occupied habitat for the South Coast DPS of the foothill
yellow-legged frog on the facility. As stated above, to be exempt under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act, an INRMP must include the four criteria
identified above as well as meet the criteria under our regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(h) that includes information regarding: (a) the extent of
the area and features present; (b) the type and frequency of use of the
area by the species; (c) the relevant elements of the INRMP in terms of
management objectives, activities covered, and best management
practices, and the certainty that the relevant elements will be
implemented; and (d) the degree to which the relevant elements of the
INRMP will protect the habitat from the types of effects that would be
addressed through a destruction-or-adverse-modification analysis. The
Fort Hunter Liggett INRMP meets all of these requirements.
The South Coast DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog occurs on
the facility in less than 4.5 km (2.8 mi) of Los Burros and North Fork
creeks. The endangered arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus) and
threatened California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) occur on the
facility and use similar habitat as the South Coast DPS of the foothill
yellow-legged frog. Measures being implemented for these species will
provide benefits to the South Coast DPS by protecting water quality,
reducing nonnative predators, and contributing to other habitat
protection. Measures being implemented specifically for the foothill
yellow-legged frog include enhancing habitat conditions and continuing
annual surveys to determine stability of the breeding population. Fort
Hunter Liggett has implemented its INRMP and established several
Sensitive Resource Management Areas (SRMAs) including a 4,059-ac
(1,643-ha) area for the listed species on the facility. The INRMP
includes Endangered Species Management Components (ESMCs) for listed
species; both development and implementation of such components are
required by U.S. Army regulations.
The Army through implementation of the INRMP has established
several guiding principles in their management of habitat for sensitive
species and their habitat including:
(1) Identify installation activities that compromise the function
and composition of ecosystems and develop remedies through adaptive
management;
(2) Sustain and enhance healthy terrestrial and aquatic habitats on
the facility that provide services and values in an ecosystem;
(3) Protect, restore, and enhance wetlands to maintain no net loss
of wetland acreage and quality;
(4) Assess, sustain, and enhance the health and habitats of fish
and wildlife populations in a manner consistent with the military
mission and security constraints;
(5) Minimize pest-related habitat damage and health risks to
natural resources and people;
(6) Provide sustainable natural resources-related outdoor
recreation opportunities given security constraints;
(7) Increase awareness of natural resources issues, programs, and
responsibilities among Fort Hunter Liggett employees, residents,
tenants, and visitors;
(8) Integrate the natural resources programs as identified in the
INRMP with local, State, and regional environmental programs and
initiatives; and
(9) Use a geographical information system (GIS) database to monitor
and enhance natural resources management on the facility.
Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified lands
are subject to the Fort Hunter Liggett INRMP and that conservation
efforts identified in the INRMP will provide a benefit to the South
Coast DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog. Therefore, lands within
this installation are exempt from critical habitat designation under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not including approximately 5,557 ac
(2,249 ha) of habitat in this proposed critical habitat designation
because of this exemption.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from designated critical habitat based on
economic impacts, impacts on national security, or any other relevant
impacts. Exclusion decisions are governed by the regulations at 50 CFR
424.19 and the Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of
the Endangered Species Act (hereafter, the ``2016 Policy''; 81 FR 7226,
February 11, 2016), both of which were developed jointly with the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). We also refer to a 2008
Department of the Interior Solicitor's opinion entitled ``The
Secretary's Authority to Exclude Areas from a Critical Habitat
Designation under Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act'' (M-
37016).
In considering whether to exclude a particular area from the
designation, we identify the benefits of including the area in the
designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area from the
designation, and evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh
the benefits of inclusion. If the analysis indicates that the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may
exercise discretion to exclude the area only if such exclusion would
not result in the extinction of the species. In making the
determination to exclude a particular area, the statute on its face, as
well as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give
to any factor. In our final rules, we explain any decision to exclude
areas, as well as decisions not to exclude, to make clear the rational
basis for our decision. We describe below the process that we use for
taking into consideration each category of impacts and any initial
analyses of the relevant impacts.
Consideration of Economic Impacts
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific
[[Page 3428]]
critical habitat designation may have on restricting or modifying
specific land uses or activities for the benefit of the species and its
habitat within the areas proposed. We then identify which conservation
efforts may be the result of the species being listed under the Act
versus those attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat
for this particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed
critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both
``with critical habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.''
The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline
for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-
economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource
users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat
(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and
local regulations). Therefore, the baseline represents the costs of all
efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act (i.e.,
conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless of
whether critical habitat is designated). The ``with critical habitat''
scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with
the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental
conservation efforts and associated impacts would not be expected
without the designation of critical habitat for the species. In other
words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the
designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the baseline costs.
These are the costs we use when evaluating the benefits of inclusion
and exclusion of particular areas from the final designation of
critical habitat should we choose to conduct a discretionary 4(b)(2)
exclusion analysis.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and E.O. 13563 and direct Federal
agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives in quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative
terms. Consistent with these E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our
effects analysis under the Act may take into consideration impacts to
both directly and indirectly affected entities, where practicable and
reasonable. If sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent
practicable the probable impacts to both directly and indirectly
affected entities. To determine whether the designation of critical
habitat may have an economic effect of $200 million or more in any
given year (which would trigger section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, as
amended by E.O. 14094), we used a screening analysis to assess whether
a designation of critical habitat for the foothill yellow-legged frog
is likely to exceed this threshold.
For this particular designation, we developed an incremental
effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic
impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical
habitat (Service 2023a, entire). The information contained in our IEM
was then used to develop a screening analysis of the probable effects
of the designation of critical habitat for the four DPSs of the
foothill yellow-legged frog (Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) 2023,
entire). We began by conducting a screening analysis of the proposed
designation of critical habitat in order to focus our analysis on the
key factors that are likely to result in incremental economic impacts.
The purpose of the screening analysis is to filter out particular
geographical areas of critical habitat that are already subject to such
protections and are, therefore, unlikely to incur incremental economic
impacts.
In particular, the screening analysis considers baseline costs
(i.e., absent critical habitat designation) and includes any probable
incremental economic impacts where land and water use may already be
subject to conservation plans, land management plans, best management
practices, or regulations that protect the habitat area as a result of
the Federal listing status of the species. Ultimately, the screening
analysis allows us to focus our analysis on evaluating the specific
areas or sectors that may incur probable incremental economic impacts
as a result of the designation. The presence of the listed species in
occupied areas of critical habitat means that any destruction or
adverse modification of those areas is also likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species. Therefore, designating occupied
areas as critical habitat typically causes little if any incremental
impact above and beyond the impacts of listing the species. As a
result, we generally focus the screening analysis on areas of
unoccupied critical habitat (unoccupied units or unoccupied areas
within occupied units). Overall, the screening analysis assesses
whether designation of critical habitat is likely to result in any
additional management or conservation efforts that may incur
incremental economic impacts. This screening analysis combined with the
information contained in our IEM constitute what we consider to be our
economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation for the
four DPSs of the foothill yellow-legged frog; our economic analysis is
summarized in the narrative below.
As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of
economic activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely
affected by the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the
probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the four DPSs of the foothill
yellow-legged frog, first we identified, in the IEM dated May 2023,
probable incremental economic impacts associated with the following
categories of activities: (1) altered hydrology and stream flows; (2)
nonnative species predation and competition; (3) introduction and
spread of disease; (4) wildfire prevention and suppression; (5) effects
of climate change; and (6) anthropogenic activities and their effects
(e.g., agriculture, urbanization, and recreation). We considered each
industry or category individually. Additionally, we considered whether
their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat
designation generally will not affect activities that do not have any
Federal involvement; under the Act, designation of critical habitat
affects only activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by
Federal agencies. In areas where any of the four listed DPSs of the
foothill yellow-legged frog is present, Federal agencies would be
required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act on
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out that may affect the
species or its habitat. If we finalize this proposed critical habitat
designation, Federal agencies would be required to consider the effects
of their actions on the designated habitat, and if the Federal action
may affect critical habitat, our consultations would include an
evaluation of measures to avoid the destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat.
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the
effects that would result from the species being listed and those
attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for each of
the four DPSs' critical habitat. Because the designation of critical
habitat for the four DPSs of the foothill yellow-legged frog is being
proposed after a relatively short time after their final listing, it
has been our experience that it is more difficult to discern which
conservation efforts are attributable to the species being listed and
those which will result solely from the designation of critical
habitat. However, the following specific circumstances in this case
help to inform our evaluation: (1) The
[[Page 3429]]
essential physical or biological features identified for critical
habitat are the same features essential for the life requisites of the
species, and (2) any actions that would likely adversely affect the
essential physical or biological features of occupied critical habitat
are also likely to adversely affect the species itself. The IEM
outlines our rationale concerning this limited distinction between
baseline conservation efforts and incremental impacts of the
designation of critical habitat for this species. This evaluation of
the incremental effects has been used as the basis to evaluate the
probable incremental economic impacts of this proposed designation of
critical habitat.
The proposed critical habitat designation for the four DPSs of the
foothill yellow-legged frog includes 27 occupied units, totaling
approximately 760,071 ac (307,590 ha). The lands being considered are
Federal (47 percent), State (5 percent), local government (0.4
percent), and private (49 percent) making up the remainder of land
ownership. In these areas, any actions that may affect the species or
its habitat would also affect the proposed critical habitat, and it is
unlikely that any additional conservation efforts would be recommended
to address the adverse modification standard over and above those
recommended as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence
of any of the four DPSs of the foothill yellow-legged frog. The
entities most likely to incur incremental costs are parties to section
7 consultations, including Federal action agencies (such as the U.S.
Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Army Corps of Engineers, and
Federal Highway Administration) and, in some cases, third parties, most
frequently State (transportation agencies) and private land owners and
developers. While this additional analysis will require time and
resources by both the Federal action agency and the Service, in most
circumstances, these costs would predominantly be administrative in
nature and would not be significant.
The incremental costs for each technical assistance, informal,
formal, and programmatic section 7 consultation conducted is estimated
to total $430, $2,700, $5,500, and $10,000, respectively, across all
Federal and third party participants. These estimates assume that
consultations would occur even in the absence of critical habitat due
to the presence of the listed DPS and the amount of administrative
effort to address critical habitat during this process is relatively
minor.
Applying these incremental costs to the estimated future
consultations forecast, we estimate the incremental administrative
costs of consultations pursuant to the proposed critical habitat for
the four DPSs of the foothill yellow-legged frog is likely on the order
of $346,500 per year (2023 dollars), including approximately $220,000
for formal consultations, $116,100 for informal consultations, and
$10,400 for technical assistances.
We are soliciting data and comments from the public on the economic
analysis discussed above. During the development of a final
designation, we will consider the information presented in the economic
analysis and any additional information on economic impacts we receive
during the public comment period to determine whether any specific
areas should be excluded from the final critical habitat designation
under authority of section 4(b)(2) of the Act, our implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424.19, and the 2016 Policy. We may exclude an
area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of
excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area,
provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of this
species.
Consideration of National Security Impacts
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may not cover all DoD lands or
areas that pose potential national-security concerns (e.g., a DoD
installation that is in the process of revising its INRMP for a newly
listed species or a species previously not covered). If a particular
area is not covered under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), then national-security
or homeland-security concerns are not a factor in the process of
determining what areas meet the definition of ``critical habitat.''
However, the Service must still consider impacts on national security,
including homeland security, on those lands or areas not covered by
section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) because section 4(b)(2) requires the Service to
consider those impacts whenever it designates critical habitat.
Accordingly, if DoD, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), or
another Federal agency has requested exclusion based on an assertion of
national-security or homeland-security concerns, or we have otherwise
identified national-security or homeland-security impacts from
designating particular areas as critical habitat, we generally have
reason to consider excluding those areas.
However, we cannot automatically exclude requested areas. When DoD,
DHS, or another Federal agency requests exclusion from critical habitat
on the basis of national-security or homeland-security impacts, we must
conduct an exclusion analysis if the Federal requester provides
information, including a reasonably specific justification of an
incremental impact on national security that would result from the
designation of that specific area as critical habitat. That
justification could include demonstration of probable impacts, such as
impacts to ongoing border-security patrols and surveillance activities,
or a delay in training or facility construction, as a result of
compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the agency requesting
the exclusion does not provide us with a reasonably specific
justification, we will contact the agency to recommend that it provide
a specific justification or clarification of its concerns relative to
the probable incremental impact that could result from the designation.
If we conduct an exclusion analysis because the agency provides a
reasonably specific justification or because we decide to exercise the
discretion to conduct an exclusion analysis, we will defer to the
expert judgment of DoD, DHS, or another Federal agency as to: (1)
Whether activities on its lands or waters, or its activities on other
lands or waters, have national-security or homeland-security
implications; (2) the importance of those implications; and (3) the
degree to which the cited implications would be adversely affected in
the absence of an exclusion. In that circumstance, in conducting a
discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, we will give great
weight to national-security and homeland-security concerns in analyzing
the benefits of exclusion.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we also consider whether a
national security or homeland security impact might exist on lands
owned or managed by DoD or DHS. In preparing this proposal, we have
determined that, other than the land exempted under section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act based upon the existence of an approved INRMP
(see Exemptions, above), the lands within the proposed designation of
critical habitat for any of the four DPSs of the foothill yellow-legged
frog are not owned or managed by DoD or DHS. Therefore, we anticipate
no impact on national security or homeland security.
Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security discussed above. To identify other relevant
[[Page 3430]]
impacts that may affect the exclusion analysis, we consider a number of
factors, including whether there are approved and permitted
conservation agreements or plans covering the species in the area--such
as safe harbor agreements (SHAs), candidate conservation agreements
with assurances (CCAAs) or ``conservation benefit agreements'' or
``conservation agreements'' (CBAs) (CBAs are a new type of agreement
replacing SHAs and CCAAs in use after April 2024 (89 FR 26070; April
12, 2024)) or HCPs--or whether there are non-permitted conservation
agreements and partnerships that may be impaired by designation of, or
exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at whether
Tribal conservation plans or partnerships, Tribal resources, or
government-to-government relationships of the United States with Tribal
entities may be affected by the designation. We also consider any
State, local, social, or other impacts that might occur because of the
designation.
When analyzing other relevant impacts of including a particular
area in a designation of critical habitat, we weigh those impacts
relative to the conservation value of the particular area. To determine
the conservation value of designating a particular area, we consider a
number of factors, including, but not limited to, the additional
regulatory benefits that the area would receive due to the protection
from destruction or adverse modification as a result of actions with a
Federal nexus, the educational benefits of mapping essential habitat
for recovery of the listed species, and any benefits that may result
from a designation due to State or Federal laws that may apply to
critical habitat.
In the case of the four DPSs of the foothill yellow-legged frog,
the benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of the
presence of foothill yellow-legged frog and the importance of habitat
protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat
protection for the foothill yellow-legged frog due to protection from
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Continued
implementation of an ongoing management plan that provides conservation
equal to or more than the protections that result from a critical
habitat designation would reduce those benefits of including that
specific area in the critical habitat designation.
After identifying the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of
exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to evaluate whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. If our analysis
indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion, we then determine whether exclusion would result in
extinction of the species. If exclusion of an area from critical
habitat will result in extinction, we will not exclude it from the
designation.
Private or Other Non-Federal Conservation Plans Related to Permits
Under Section 10 of the Act
As mentioned above, as part of our 4(b)(2) analysis, we consider
whether there are approved and permitted conservation agreements or
plans covering the species in the area such SHAs, CCAAs, CBAs or HCPs.
Under sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, non-federal
entities may develop these agreements or plans when they seek
authorization for take that may otherwise be prohibited under section 9
through an enhancement of survival (EOS) or incidental take permit
(ITP), respectively.
Property owners seeking an EOS permit collaborate with the Service
to develop a CBA to support the application. The EOS permit authorizes
take associated with implementing the agreement and ongoing land
management activities that provide a net conservation benefit to the
covered species. The CBA replaces two previous types of voluntary
agreements (SHAs and CCAAs) going forward for new agreements after May
2024. However, permitted SHAs and CCAAs or those noticed in the Federal
Register prior to May 2024 remain in effect.
For incidental take permits issued under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the
Act, applicants are required to develop a conservation plan, more
commonly known as an HCP to support their application. ITPs authorize
take that is incidental to, but not the purpose of, carrying out
otherwise lawful activities provided that the impact of the taking is
minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable.
For both section 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) permits, we provide
permittees with assurances. In the case of 10(a)(1)(A) permits, we may
not require additional or different conservation measures to be
undertaken by a permittee without the consent of the permittee. In the
case of section 10(a)(1)(B), we will not impose further land-, water-,
or resource-use restrictions, or require additional commitments of
land, water, or finances, beyond those agreed to in the HCP.
We place great value on the partnerships that are developed during
the preparation and implementation of conservation plans and
agreements. In some cases, permittees agree to do more for the
conservation of the species and their habitats on private lands than
designation of critical habitat would provide alone.
When we undertake a discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion
analysis based on conservation plans or agreements, we anticipate
consistently excluding such areas if incidental take caused by the
activities in those areas is covered by the permit under section 10 of
the Act and the plan meets all of the following three factors (See the
2016 Policy for additional details. Because combining types of
agreements such as SHAs and CCAAs into the term ``CBAs'' is a recent
development (see 89 FR 26070; April 12, 2024), the 2016 Policy did not
expressly reference CBAs. However, because CBAs replace CCAAs and SHAs,
moving forward we treat CBAs similarly to how we treat CCAAs/SHAs/HCPs
described below):
a. The permittee is properly implementing the CBA/HCP and is
expected to continue to do so for the term of the agreement. A CBA/HCP
is properly implemented if the permittee is and has been fully
implementing the commitments and provisions in the CBA/HCP,
implementing agreement, and permit.
b. The species for which critical habitat is being designated is a
covered species in the CBA/HCP, or very similar in its habitat
requirements to a covered species. The recognition that the Service
extends to such an agreement depends on the degree to which the
conservation measures undertaken in the CBA/HCP would also protect the
habitat features of the similar species.
c. The CBA/HCP specifically addresses that species' habitat and
meets the conservation needs of the species in the planning area.
The proposed critical habitat designation includes areas that are
covered by a joint Federal and State habitat conservation plan (HCP)
and California State natural community conservation plan (NCCP) (Santa
Clara Valley HCP/NCCP) that has been approved and implemented for the
Central Coast DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog as a covered
species and assists in local population and habitat conservation and
restoration (ICF International 2012, entire).
Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community
Conservation Plan
The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (Plan) was permitted in 2012
and provides a framework for promoting the protection and recovery of
natural
[[Page 3431]]
resources, including endangered species, while streamlining the
permitting process for planned development, infrastructure, and
maintenance activities (ICF International 2012, entire). The foothill
yellow-legged frog is a covered species under the joint Federal and
State plan. The plan covers a 519,506-ac (210,237-ha) area in Santa
Clara County in the Central California Coast Range and includes
measures for species management and habitat protection. Covered
activities in the plan fall into seven general categories and include
urban development, in-stream capital projects, in-stream operations and
maintenance, rural capital projects, rural operations and maintenance,
rural development, and conservation strategy implementation (i.e.,
activities within the lands managed, enhanced, restored, and monitored
to conserve the natural resources targeted by the plan). Measures
identified for conservation of the foothill yellow-legged frog provided
in the plan and being implemented include land acquisition and
protection; habitat management; survey and monitoring; stream flow
management; and habitat enhancement, restoration, and creation.
The Santa Clara Valley HCP/NCCP has gone through the appropriate
approval processes from the Service and CDFW as well as through
necessary public participation; the conservation actions identified in
the plan have been implemented and protect, conserve, and enhance the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
Central Coast DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog; and the HCP/NCCP
contains an adaptive management, monitoring, and reporting program to
ensure the conservation measures are effective and can be modified in
the future in response to new information. After considering the
factors described above, we have reason to consider excluding the
approximately 57,910 ac (23,435 ha) of critical habitat within the
Central Coast DPS that occurs in the Santa Clara Valley HCP/NCCP
planning area from the final designation.
Summary of Exclusions Considered Under 4(b)(2) of the Act
We have reason to consider excluding the following areas under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final critical habitat designation
for the Central Coast DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog. Table 3
below provides approximate areas (ac, ha) of lands that meet the
definition of critical habitat but for which we are considering
possible exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final
critical habitat rule. In total, we have identified approximately
57,910 ac (23,435 ha) of proposed critical habitat to consider for
exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Table 3--Areas Considered for Exclusion for the Central Coast DPS of the Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog by Proposed
Critical Habitat Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Areas meeting the
definition of Areas considered
Unit critical habitat, for possible Reasons for considering
in acres exclusion, in exclusion
(hectares) acres (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4......................................... 63,907 (25,862) 6,604 (2,673) Santa Clara Valley HCP/NCCP.
5......................................... 40,371 (16,337) 40,386 (16,344)
6 subunit a............................... 7,772 (3,145) 1,474 (597)
6 subunit b............................... 9,459 (3,828) 9,446 (3,823)
----------------------------------------
Total................................. .................. 57,910 (23,435)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, for this proposed rule, we have reason to consider
excluding the areas identified above from the final designation based
on other relevant impacts. We specifically solicit comments on the
inclusion or exclusion of such areas. We also solicit comments on
whether there are potential economic, national security, or other
relevant impacts from designating any other particular areas as
critical habitat. As part of developing the final designation of
critical habitat, we will evaluate the information we receive regarding
potential impacts from designating the areas described above or any
other particular areas, and we may conduct a discretionary exclusion
analysis to determine whether to exclude those areas under authority of
section 4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. If
we receive a request for exclusion of a particular area and after
evaluation of supporting information we do not exclude, we will fully
describe our decision in the final rule for this action.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by E.O.s 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential
Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This
means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and
14094)
Executive Order (E.O.) 14094 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866
and E.O. 13563 and states that regulatory analysis should facilitate
agency efforts to develop regulations that serve the public interest,
advance statutory objectives, and are consistent with E.O.s 12866,
13563, and 14094. Regulatory analysis, as practicable and appropriate,
shall recognize distributive impacts and equity, to the extent
permitted by law. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that
regulations must be based on the best available science and that the
rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this proposed rule in a manner
consistent with these requirements.
Executive Order 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O. 13563 and amended by
E.O. 14094, provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs
[[Page 3432]]
(OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all
significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rulemaking action is
not significant.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA; title II of Pub. L. 104-121, March 29, 1996), whenever an
agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed
or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a
regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effects of the rule
on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and
small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility
analysis is required if the head of the agency certifies the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to
provide a certification statement of the factual basis for certifying
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine whether potential
economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered
the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under
this designation as well as types of project modifications that may
result. In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant
to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in light of recent
court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the
potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly
regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not
require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly
regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore,
under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to
the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse
modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently,
only Federal action agencies would be directly regulated if we adopt
the proposed critical habitat designation. The RFA does not require
evaluation of the potential impacts to entities not directly regulated.
Moreover, Federal agencies are not small entities. Therefore, because
no small entities would be directly regulated by this rulemaking, the
Service certifies that, if made final as proposed, the proposed
critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently
available information, we certify that, if made final, the proposed
critical habitat designation would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore,
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare statements of energy effects when ``to the extent
permitted by law'' when undertaking actions identified as significant
energy actions (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001). Executive Order 13211
defines a ``significant energy action'' as, among other things, an
action that (i) meets the definition of a ``significant regulatory
action'' under E.O. 12866, as amended by E.O. 14094; and (ii) is likely
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or
use of energy. This rule is not a significant regulatory action under
E.O. 12866 as amended by E.O. 14094 (88 FR 21879; April 11, 2023).
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and there is
no requirement to prepare a statement of energy effects for this
action.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following finding:
(1) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In
general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or
regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
Tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that
receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise
require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action,
may be indirectly impacted
[[Page 3433]]
by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to
avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests
squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-
Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal
assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical
habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above
onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments because the government lands being
proposed for critical habitat are owned by Santa Clara County, the
State of California, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Forest
Service, and none of these government entities fits the definition of
``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the designation will
not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year,
and, therefore, it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The designation of critical habitat
imposes no obligations on State or local governments and, as such, a
small government agency plan is not required.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical
habitat for the four DPSs of the foothill yellow-legged frog in a
takings implications assessment. The Act does not authorize the Service
to regulate private actions on private lands or confiscate private
property as a result of critical habitat designation. Designation of
critical habitat does not affect land ownership, or establish any
closures, or restrictions on use of or access to the designated areas.
Furthermore, the designation of critical habitat does not affect
landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or permits, nor
does it preclude development of habitat conservation programs or
issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that do require
Federal funding or permits to go forward. However, Federal agencies are
prohibited from carrying out, funding, or authorizing actions that
would destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. A takings
implications assessment has been completed for the proposed designation
of critical habitat for the foothill yellow-legged frog, and it
concludes that, if adopted, this designation of critical habitat does
not pose significant takings implications for lands within or affected
by the designation.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does
not have significant federalism effects. A federalism summary impact
statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior
and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and
coordinated development of this proposed critical habitat designation
with, appropriate State resource agencies. From a federalism
perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only
the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other
duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the proposed rule does
not have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the
distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. The proposed designation may have some benefit to these
governments because the areas that contain the features essential to
the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the
physical or biological features of the habitat necessary for the
conservation of the species are specifically identified. This
information does not alter where and what federally sponsored
activities may occur. However, it may assist State and local
governments in long-range planning because they no longer have to wait
for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur.
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be required. While
non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or
permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely
on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of
the Solicitor has determined that the rule would not unduly burden the
judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating critical habitat in
accordance with the provisions of the Act. To assist the public in
understanding the habitat needs of the species, this proposed rule
identifies the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. The proposed areas of critical habitat are
presented on maps, and the proposed rule provides several options for
the interested public to obtain more detailed location information, if
desired.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not
required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
Regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act are exempt
from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) and do not require an environmental analysis under NEPA. We
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This includes
listing, delisting, and reclassification rules, as well as critical
habitat designations and species-specific protective regulations
promulgated concurrently with a decision to list or reclassify a
species as threatened. The courts have upheld this position (e.g.,
Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) (critical
habitat); Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 2005 WL 2000928 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2005) (concurrent 4(d)
rule)).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior's
manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to
communicate meaningfully with federally recognized Tribes on a
government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretary's
[[Page 3434]]
Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-
Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we
readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes
in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that
Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public
lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information
available to Tribes. During the development of the SSA report for the
foothill yellow-legged frog, we asked for information and concerns from
all the federally recognized Tribes in the range of the species in
Oregon and California. We did not receive any information regarding the
foothill yellow-legged frog from any Tribe. We will continue to work
with Tribal entities during the development of a final rule for the
designation of critical habitat for the four DPSs of the foothill
yellow-legged frog.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from
the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and staff from
the Sacramento and Ventura Fish and Wildlife Offices.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.11, amend paragraph (h) in the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife under Amphibians by revising the entries for
``Frog, foothill yellow-legged [Central Coast DPS]'', ``Frog, foothill
yellow-legged [North Feather DPS]'', ``Frog, foothill yellow-legged
[South Coast DPS]'', and ``Frog, foothill yellow-legged [South Sierra
DPS]'' to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Amphibians
* * * * * * *
Frog, foothill yellow-legged Rana boylii....... California (All T 88 FR 59698, 8/29/2023;
[Central Coast DPS]. foothill yellow- 50 CFR 17.43(g);\4d\
legged frogs in 50 CFR 17.95(d).\CH\
the Central Coast
Range south of
San Francisco Bay
to San Benito and
Fresno Counties).
Frog, foothill yellow-legged Rana boylii....... California (All T 88 FR 59698, 8/29/2023;
[North Feather DPS]. foothill yellow- 50 CFR 17.43(g);\4d\
legged frogs in 50 CFR 17.95(d).\CH\
the North Feather
River watershed
largely in Plumas
and Butte
Counties).
Frog, foothill yellow-legged Rana boylii....... California (All E 88 FR 59698, 8/29/2023;
[South Coast DPS]. foothill yellow- 50 CFR 17.95(d).\CH\
legged frogs in
the Coast Range
from Coastal
Monterey County
south to Los
Angeles County).
Frog, foothill yellow-legged Rana boylii....... California (All E 88 FR 59698, 8/29/2023;
[South Sierra DPS]. foothill yellow- 50 CFR 17.95(d).\CH\
legged frogs in
the Sierra Nevada
Mountains south
of the American
River sub-basin
south to the
Transverse Range
in Kern County).
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.95 in paragraph (d) by adding:
0
a. An entry for ``Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii), Central
Coast DPS'' after the entry for ``Dusky Gopher Frog (Rana sevosa)'';
0
b. An entry for ``Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii), North
Feather DPS'' after the new entry for ``Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog
(Rana boylii), Central Coast DPS'';
0
c. An entry for ``Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii), South
Coast DPS'' after the new entry for ``Foothill
[[Page 3435]]
Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii), North Feather DPS''; and
0
d. An entry for ``Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii), South
Sierra DPS'' after the new entry for ``Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog
(Rana boylii), South Coast DPS''.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(d) Amphibians.
* * * * *
Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii), Central Coast DPS
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Alameda, Fresno, San
Benito, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Stanislaus Counties, California,
on the maps in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of foothill yellow-legged frog consist of
the following components:
(i) Aquatic stream habitat. (A) Stream reaches with a hydrological
pattern (including appropriate stream velocity, water depth, water
temperature, streambed substrate, and geomorphic heterogeneity) capable
of supporting foothill yellow-legged frog breeding and rearing.
Suitable stream reaches typically contain a wide and shallow channel
morphology, an intermittent canopy, and rocky substrate that is cobble-
sized or larger. These features provide habitat for breeding, feeding,
and reproduction and in some cases general aquatic or overwintering
habitat for the foothill yellow-legged frog.
(B) Tributary (nonbreeding) habitat adjacent to and accessible from
breeding and rearing habitat. Suitable tributary habitats typically
contain sources of invertebrate prey, intermittent canopy, thermally
stable microsites, and moist overwintering refugia protected from
scouring winter flows. These refugia may include springs, seeps, pools,
woody debris, root wads, undercut banks, clumps of sedges, and rocks.
(ii) Terrestrial and dispersal habitat. (A) Upland habitat adjacent
to and accessible from breeding, rearing, and tributary habitat as
identified in paragraphs (2)(i)(A) and (B) of this entry. Suitable
upland habitats typically contain sources of invertebrate prey,
intermittent canopy, thermally stable microsites, and moist
overwintering refugia. These refugia may include nonstream pools, woody
debris, root wads, clumps of sedges, and large boulders or debris.
(B) Dispersal habitat comprising permanent or ephemeral water
channels and adjacent uplands that connect breeding and overwintering
habitat sites. Suitable dispersal habitat does not need to hold
moisture for extended periods. Suitable dispersal habitat typically
connects areas containing intermittent canopy, interstitial spaces for
sheltering, and sources of invertebrate prey. Additionally, suitable
dispersal habitat is free from large physical barriers, hydrological
barriers (e.g., dams, reservoirs, and rivers with highly altered flow
regimes), and areas with high exposure to predators.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
the effective date of the final rule.
(4) Data layers defining map units were created using the National
Hydrography Dataset and California Natural Diversity Database
occurrence records and other survey information. The critical habitat
units were then mapped using Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 10N and
11N coordinates. The maps in this entry, as modified by any
accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical
habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on which
each map is based are available to the public at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2023-0157, and at the field
office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field office
location information by contacting one of the Service regional offices,
the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Unit CC-1a: Central Coast DPS--Corral Hollow Creek, Alameda
County, California.
(i) Unit CC-1a consists of 4,483 ac (1,814 ha) in Alameda County
and is composed entirely of private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit CC-1a follows:
Figure 1 to Central Coast DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (5)(ii)
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 3436]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.004
(6) Unit CC-1b: Central Coast DPS--Lower Arroyo Mocho, Alameda
County, California.
(i) Unit CC-1b consists of 7,571 ac (3,064 ha) in Alameda County
and is composed of local government (6 ac (3 ha)) and private (7,564 ac
(3,061 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit CC-1b follows:
Figure 2 to Central Coast DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (6)(ii)
[[Page 3437]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.005
(7) Unit CC-1c: Central Coast DPS--Upper Arroyo Mocho, Alameda
County, California.
(i) Unit CC-1c consists of 4,541 ac (1,838 ha) in Alameda County
and is composed entirely of private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit CC-1c follows:
Figure 3 to Central Coast DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (7)(ii)
[[Page 3438]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.006
(8) Unit CC-1d: Central Coast DPS--Colorado Creek, Santa Clara and
Stanislaus Counties, California.
(i) Unit CC-1d consists of 4,698 ac (1,901 ha) in Santa Clara and
Stanislaus Counties and is composed entirely of private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit CC-1d follows:
Figure 4 to Central Coast DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (8)(ii)
[[Page 3439]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.007
(9) Unit CC-1e: Central Coast DPS--Del Puerto Creek, Stanislaus
County, California.
(i) Unit CC-1e consists of 12,395 ac (5,016 ha) in Stanislaus
County and is composed of Federal 414 ac (168 ha)) and private (11,981
ac (4,849 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit CC-1e follows:
Figure 5 to Central Coast DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (9)(ii)
[[Page 3440]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.008
(10) Unit CC-2: Central Coast DPS--Robison Creek, Stanislaus
County, California.
(i) Unit CC-2 consists of 6,977 ac (2,824 ha) in Stanislaus County
and is composed of Federal (5,139 ac (2,080 ha)) and private (1,838 ac
(744 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit CC-2 follows:
Figure 6 to Central Coast DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (10)(ii)
[[Page 3441]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.009
(11) Unit CC-3: Central Coast DPS--Orestimba Creek, Stanislaus
County, California.
(i) Unit CC-3 consists of 4,541 ac (1,838 ha) in Stanislaus County
and is composed entirely of private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit CC-3 follows:
Figure 7 to Central Coast DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (11)(ii)
[[Page 3442]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.010
(12) Unit CC-4: Central Coast DPS--Alameda Creek, Arroyo Hondo, and
Upper Penitencia, Alameda and Santa Clara Counties, California.
(i) Unit CC-4 consists of 63,907 ac (25,862 ha) in Alameda and
Santa Clara Counties and is composed of State (2,828 ac (1,144 ha)),
local government (1,871 ac (757 ha)), and private (59,208 ac (23,961
ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit CC-4 follows:
Figure 8 to Central Coast DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (12)(ii)
[[Page 3443]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.011
(13) Unit CC-5: Central Coast DPS--Coyote Creek, Santa Clara
County, California.
(i) Unit CC-5 consists of 40,370 ac (16,337 ha) in Santa Clara
County and is composed of Federal (643 ac (260 ha)), State (16,251 ac
(6,576 ha)), local government (255 ac (103 ha)), and private (23,222 ac
(9,398 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit CC-5 follows:
Figure 9 to Central Coast DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (13)(ii)
[[Page 3444]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.012
(14) Unit CC-6a: Central Coast DPS--Guadalupe and Rincon Creeks,
Santa Clara County, California.
(i) Unit CC-6a consists of 7,772 ac (3,145 ha) in Santa Clara
County and is composed of local government (1,100 ac (445 ha)) and
private (6,672 ac (2,700 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit CC-6a follows:
Figure 10 to Central Coast DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (14)(ii)
[[Page 3445]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.013
(15) Unit CC-6b: Central Coast DPS--Llagas Creek, Santa Clara
County, California.
(i) Unit CC-6b consists of 9,459 ac (3,828 ha) in Santa Clara
County and is composed entirely of private ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit CC-6b follows:
Figure 11 to Central Coast DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (15)(ii)
[[Page 3446]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.014
(16) Unit CC-7: Central Coast DPS--Soquel and Bridge Creeks, Santa
Cruz and Santa Clara Counties, California.
(i) Unit CC-7 consists of 19,490 ac (7,887 ha) in Santa Cruz and
Santa Clara Counties and is composed of State (5,689 ac (2,302 ha)) and
private (13,800 ac (5,585 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit CC-7 follows:
Figure 12 to Central Coast DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (16)(ii)
[[Page 3447]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.015
(17) Unit CC-8: Central Coast DPS--Goat Mountain, Fresno and San
Benito Counties, California.
(i) Unit CC-8 consists of 63,739 ac (25,794 ha) in Fresno and San
Benito Counties and is composed of Federal (38,953 ac (15,764 ha)),
State (1,804 (730 ha)), and private (22,981 ac (9,300 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit CC-8 follows:
Figure 13 to Central Coast DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (17)(ii)
[[Page 3448]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.016
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii), North Feather DPS
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Butte and Plumas
Counties, California, on the maps in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of foothill yellow-legged frog consist of
the following components:
(i) Aquatic stream habitat. (A) Stream reaches with a hydrological
pattern (including appropriate stream velocity, water depth, water
temperature, streambed substrate, and geomorphic heterogeneity) capable
of supporting foothill yellow-legged frog breeding and rearing.
Suitable stream reaches typically contain a wide and shallow channel
morphology, an intermittent canopy, and rocky substrate that is cobble-
sized or larger. These features provide habitat for breeding, feeding,
and reproduction and in some cases general aquatic or overwintering
habitat for the foothill yellow-legged frog.
(B) Tributary (nonbreeding) habitat adjacent to and accessible from
breeding and rearing habitat. Suitable tributary habitats typically
contain sources of invertebrate prey, intermittent canopy, thermally
stable microsites, and moist overwintering refugia protected from
scouring winter flows. These refugia may include springs, seeps, pools,
woody debris, root wads, undercut banks, clumps of sedges, and rocks.
(ii) Terrestrial and dispersal habitat. (A) Upland habitat adjacent
to and accessible from breeding, rearing, and tributary habitat as
identified in paragraphs (2)(i)(A) and (B) of this entry. Suitable
upland habitats typically contain sources of invertebrate prey,
intermittent canopy, thermally stable microsites, and moist
overwintering refugia. These refugia may include nonstream pools, woody
debris, root wads, clumps of sedges, and large boulders or debris.
(B) Dispersal habitat comprising permanent or ephemeral water
channels and adjacent uplands that connect breeding and overwintering
habitat sites. Suitable dispersal habitat does not need to hold
moisture for extended periods. Suitable dispersal habitat
[[Page 3449]]
typically connects areas containing intermittent canopy, interstitial
spaces for sheltering, and sources of invertebrate prey. Additionally,
suitable dispersal habitat is free from large physical barriers,
hydrological barriers (e.g., dams, reservoirs, and rivers with highly
altered flow regimes), and areas with high exposure to predators.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
the effective date of the final rule.
(4) Data layers defining map units were created using the National
Hydrography Dataset and California Natural Diversity Database
occurrence records and other survey information. The critical habitat
units were then mapped using Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 10N and
11N coordinates. The maps in this entry, as modified by any
accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical
habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on which
each map is based are available to the public at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2023-0157, and at the field
office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field office
location information by contacting one of the Service regional offices,
the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Unit NF-1: North Feather DPS--North Fork Feather River and
Butte Creek, Butte and Plumas Counties, California.
(i) Unit NF-1 consists of 99,433 ac (40,239 ha) in Butte and Plumas
Counties and is composed of Federal (30,116 ac (12,188 ha)), State (383
ac (155 ha)) and private (68,934 ac (27,897 ha)) land ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit NF-1 follows:
Figure 1 to North Feather DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (5)(ii)
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.017
[[Page 3450]]
(6) Unit NF-2: North Feather DPS--Middle Fork Feather River, Plumas
and Butte Counties, California.
(i) Unit NF-2 consists of 77,145 ac (31,219 ha) in Plumas and Butte
Counties and is composed of Federal (69,251 ac (28,025 ha)), State (447
ac (181 ha)), and private (7,446 ac (3,013 ha)) land ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit NF-2 follows:
Figure 2 to North Feather DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (6)(ii)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.018
(7) Unit NF-3: North Feather DPS--South Fork Feather River, Plumas
and Butte Counties, California.
(i) Unit NF-3 consists of 11,186 ac (4,527 ac) in Plumas and Butte
Counties and is composed of Federal (4,645 ac (1,880 ha)) and private
(6,541 ac (2,647 ha)) land ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit NF-3 follows:
Figure 3 to North Feather DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (7)(ii)
[[Page 3451]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.019
(8) Unit NF-4: North Feather DPS--Clear Creek, Butte County,
California.
(i) Unit NF-4 consists of 4,512 ac (1,826 ha) in Butte County and
is composed of Federal (32 ac (13 ha)) and private (4,480 ac (1,813
ha)) land ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit NF-4 follows:
Figure 4 to North Feather DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (8)(ii)
[[Page 3452]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.020
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii), South Coast DPS
(1) A critical habitat unit is depicted for Monterey and San Luis
Obispo Counties, California, on the map in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of foothill yellow-legged frog consist of
the following components:
(i) Aquatic stream habitat. (A) Stream reaches with a hydrological
pattern (including appropriate stream velocity, water depth, water
temperature, streambed substrate, and geomorphic heterogeneity) capable
of supporting foothill yellow-legged frog breeding and rearing.
Suitable stream reaches typically contain a wide and shallow channel
morphology, an intermittent canopy, and rocky substrate that is cobble-
sized or larger. These features provide habitat for breeding, feeding,
and reproduction and in some cases general aquatic or overwintering
habitat for the foothill yellow-legged frog.
(B) Tributary (nonbreeding) habitat adjacent to and accessible from
breeding and rearing habitat. Suitable tributary habitats typically
contain sources of invertebrate prey, intermittent canopy, thermally
stable microsites, and moist overwintering refugia protected from
scouring winter flows. These refugia may include springs, seeps, pools,
woody debris, root wads, undercut banks, clumps of sedges, and rocks.
(ii) Terrestrial and dispersal habitat. (A) Upland habitat adjacent
to and accessible from breeding, rearing, and tributary habitat as
identified in paragraphs (2)(i)(A) and (B) of this entry. Suitable
upland habitats typically contain sources of invertebrate prey,
intermittent canopy, thermally stable microsites, and moist
overwintering refugia. These refugia may include nonstream pools, woody
debris, root wads, clumps of sedges, and large boulders or debris.
(B) Dispersal habitat comprising permanent or ephemeral water
channels and adjacent uplands that connect breeding and overwintering
habitat sites. Suitable dispersal habitat does not need to hold
moisture for extended periods. Suitable dispersal habitat
[[Page 3453]]
typically connects areas containing intermittent canopy, interstitial
spaces for sheltering, and sources of invertebrate prey. Additionally,
suitable dispersal habitat is free from large physical barriers,
hydrological barriers (e.g., dams, reservoirs, and rivers with highly
altered flow regimes), and areas with high exposure to predators.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
the effective date of the final rule.
(4) Data layers defining map units were created using the National
Hydrography Dataset and California Natural Diversity Database
occurrence records and other survey information. The critical habitat
units were then mapped using Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 10N and
11N coordinates. The maps in this entry, as modified by any
accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical
habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on which
each map is based are available to the public at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2023-0157, and at the field
office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field office
location information by contacting one of the Service regional offices,
the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Unit SC-1: South Coast DPS--San Carpoforo, Monterey and San
Luis Obispo Counties, California.
(i) Unit SC-1 consists of 10,077 ac (4,078 ha) in Monterey and San
Luis Obispo Counties and is composed of Federal (2,683 ac (1,086 ha))
and private (7,394 ac (2,992 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SC-1 follows:
Figure to South Coast DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (5)(ii)
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.021
[[Page 3454]]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii), South Sierra DPS
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Amador, Calaveras,
Eldorado, Fresno, Madera, Mariposa, Tulare, and Tuolumne Counties,
California, on the maps in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of foothill yellow-legged frog consist of
the following components:
(i) Aquatic stream habitat. (A) Stream reaches with a hydrological
pattern (including appropriate stream velocity, water depth, water
temperature, streambed substrate, and geomorphic heterogeneity) capable
of supporting foothill yellow-legged frog breeding and rearing.
Suitable stream reaches typically contain a wide and shallow channel
morphology, an intermittent canopy, and rocky substrate that is cobble-
sized or larger. These features provide habitat for breeding, feeding,
and reproduction and in some cases general aquatic or overwintering
habitat for the foothill yellow-legged frog.
(B) Tributary (nonbreeding) habitat adjacent to and accessible from
breeding and rearing habitat. Suitable tributary habitats typically
contain sources of invertebrate prey, intermittent canopy, thermally
stable microsites, and moist overwintering refugia protected from
scouring winter flows. These refugia may include springs, seeps, pools,
woody debris, root wads, undercut banks, clumps of sedges, and rocks.
(ii) Terrestrial and dispersal habitat. (A) Upland habitat adjacent
to and accessible from breeding, rearing, and tributary habitat as
identified in paragraphs (2)(i)(A) and (B) of this entry. Suitable
upland habitats typically contain sources of invertebrate prey,
intermittent canopy, thermally stable microsites, and moist
overwintering refugia. These refugia may include nonstream pools, woody
debris, root wads, clumps of sedges, and large boulders or debris.
(B) Dispersal habitat comprising permanent or ephemeral water
channels and adjacent uplands that connect breeding and overwintering
habitat sites. Suitable dispersal habitat does not need to hold
moisture for extended periods. Suitable dispersal habitat typically
connects areas containing intermittent canopy, interstitial spaces for
sheltering, and sources of invertebrate prey. Additionally, suitable
dispersal habitat is free from large physical barriers, hydrological
barriers (e.g., dams, reservoirs, and rivers with highly altered flow
regimes), and areas with high exposure to predators.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
the effective date of the final rule.
(4) Data layers defining map units were created using the National
Hydrography Dataset and California Natural Diversity Database
occurrence records and other survey information. The critical habitat
units were then mapped using Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 10N and
11N coordinates. The maps in this entry, as modified by any
accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical
habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on which
each map is based are available to the public at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2023-0157, and at the field
office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field office
location information by contacting one of the Service regional offices,
the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Unit SS-1: South Sierra DPS--Rock Creek, Eldorado County,
California.
(i) Unit SS-1 consists of 4,348 ac (1,760 ha) in Eldorado County
and is composed of Federal (2,630 ac (1,064 ha)) and private (1,718 ac
(695 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SS-1 follows:
Figure 1 to South Sierra DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (5)(ii)
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 3455]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.022
(6) Unit SS-2: South Sierra DPS--Chili Bar Reservoir, Eldorado
County, California.
(i) Unit SS-2 consists of 4,976 ac (2,014 ha) in Eldorado County
and is composed of Federal (1,245 ac (504 ha)) and private (3,732 ac
(1,510 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SS-2 follows:
Figure 2 to South Sierra DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (6)(ii)
[[Page 3456]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.023
(7) Unit SS-3: South Sierra DSP--South Fork American River-Camp
Creek, El Dorado County, California.
(i) Unit SS-3 consists of 42,108 ac (17,040 ha) in El Dorado County
and is composed of Federal (30,894 ac (12,502 ha)) and private (11,214
ac (4,538 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SS-3 follows:
Figure 3 to South Sierra DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (7)(ii)
[[Page 3457]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.024
(8) Unit SS-4: South Sierra DPS--North Fork Mokelumne River, Amador
County, California.
(i) Unit SS-4 consists of 34,751 ac (14,063 ha) in Amador County
and is composed of Federal (16,174 ac (6,546 ha)) and private (18,577
ac (7,518 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SS-4 follows:
Figure 4 to South Sierra DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (8)(ii)
[[Page 3458]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.025
(9) Unit SS-5: South Sierra DPS--Else Creek, Amador County,
California.
(i) Unit SS-5 consists of 4,658 ac (1,885 ha) in Amador County and
is composed of Federal (324 ac (131 ha)), State (219 ac (89 ha)), and
private (4,114 ac (1,665 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SS-5 follows:
Figure 5 to South Sierra DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (9)(ii)
[[Page 3459]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.026
(10) Unit SS-6: South Sierra DPS--Jesus Maria Creek, Calaveras
County, California.
(i) Unit SS-6 consists of 4,082 ac (1,652 ha) in Calaveras County
and is composed of Federal (1,606 ac (650 ha)) and private (2,476 ac
(1,002 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SS-6 follows:
Figure 6 to South Sierra DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (10)(ii)
[[Page 3460]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.027
(11) Unit SS-7a: South Sierra DPS--Stanislaus Confluence, Calaveras
and Tuolumne Counties, California.
(i) Unit SS-7a consists of 55,832 ac (22,595 ha) in Calaveras and
Tuolumne Counties and is composed of Federal (37,548 ac (15,195 ha)),
State (2,720 ac (1,101 ha)), and private (15,564 ac (6,299 ha))
ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SS-7a follows:
Figure 7 to South Sierra DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (11)(ii)
[[Page 3461]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.028
(12) Unit SS-7b: South Sierra DPS--Moaning Cave, Calaveras County,
California.
(i) Unit SS-7b consists of 3,625 ac (1,467 ha) in Calaveras County
and is composed of Federal (587 ac (238 ha)) and private (3,037 ac
(1,229 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SS-7b follows:
Figure 8 to South Sierra DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (12)(ii)
[[Page 3462]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.029
(13) Unit SS-8: South Sierra DPS--North Fork and Middle Fork
Tuolomne River, Tuolomne and Mariposa Counties, California.
(i) Unit SS-8 consists of 78,151 ac (31,627 ha) in Tuolomne and
Mariposa Counties and is composed of Federal (64,360 ac (26,046 ha))
and private (13,791 ac (5,581 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SS-8 follows:
Figure 9 to South Sierra DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (13)(ii)
[[Page 3463]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.030
(14) Unit SS-9: South Sierra DPS--Moccasin Creek, Tuolomne and
Mariposa Counties, California.
(i) Unit SS-9 consists of 8,280 ac (3,351 ha) in Tuolomne and
Mariposa Counties and is composed of Federal (4,509 ac (1,825 ha)) and
private (3,770 ac (1,526 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SS-9 follows:
Figure 10 to South Sierra DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (14)(ii)
[[Page 3464]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.031
(15) Unit SS-10a: South Sierra DPS--North Fork Merced River,
Mariposa County, California.
(i) Unit SS-10a consists of 15,492 ac (6,269 ha) in Mariposa County
and is composed of Federal (10,467 ac (4,236 ha)) and private (5,024 ac
(2,033 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SS-10a follows:
Figure 11 to South Sierra DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (15)(ii)
[[Page 3465]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.032
(16) Unit SS-10b: South Sierra DPS--Bull Creek, Mariposa County,
California.
(i) Unit SS-10b consists of 12,079 ac (4,888 ha) in Mariposa County
and is composed of Federal (11,087 ac (4,487 ha)) and private (992 ac
(402 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SS-10b follows:
Figure 12 to South Sierra DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (16)(ii)
[[Page 3466]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.033
(17) Unit SS-11: South Sierra DPS--Merced River and Sherlock Creek,
Mariposa County, California.
(i) Unit SS-11 consists of 16,719 ac (6,766 ha) in Mariposa County
and is composed of Federal (13,267 ac (5,369 ha)) and private (3,451 ac
(1,397 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SS-11 follows:
Figure 13 to South Sierra DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (17)(ii)
[[Page 3467]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.034
(18) Unit SS-12: South Sierra DPS--Jose Creek, Madera and Fresno
Counties, California.
(i) Unit SS-12 consists of 10,182 ac (4,121 ha) in Madera and
Fresno Counties and is composed of Federal (9,204 ac (3,725 ha)), State
(30 ac (12 ha)), and private (948 ac (384 ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SS-12 follows:
Figure 14 to South Sierra DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (18)(ii)
[[Page 3468]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.035
(19) Unit SS-13: South Sierra DPS--North Fork Tule River, Tulare
County, California.
(i) Unit SS-13 consists of 5,149 ac (2,084 ha) in Tulare County and
is composed of Federal (217 ac (88 ha)) and private (4,932 ac (1,996
ha)) ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SS-13 follows:
Figure 15 to South Sierra DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (19)(ii)
[[Page 3469]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.036
(20) Unit SS-14: South Sierra DPS--Kern River, Tulare County,
California.
(i) Unit SS-14 consists of 7,344 ac (2,972 ha) in Tulare County and
is composed of Federal (7,327 ac (2,965 ha)) and private (17 ac (7 ha))
ownership.
(ii) Map of Unit SS-14 follows:
Figure 16 to South Sierra DPS of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana
boylii) paragraph (20)(ii)
[[Page 3470]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JA25.037
* * * * *
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-31757 Filed 1-13-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C