text:
[Federal Register: March 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 51)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 12815-12959]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17mr10-23]
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Revised Designation of
Critical Habitat for California Red-Legged Frog; Final Rule
[FWS-R8-ES-2009-0089]
[MO 92210-0-0009-B4]
RIN 1018-AV90
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised
Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate
revised critical habitat for the California red-legged frog (Rana
draytonii) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
In total, approximately 1,636,609 acres (ac) (662,312 hectares (ha)) of
critical habitat in 27 California counties fall within the boundaries
of the final revised critical habitat designation.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on April 16, 2010.
ADDRESSES: This final rule, final economic analysis, and maps are
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and http://
www.fws.gov/sacramento/. Comments and materials received, as well as
supporting documentation used in preparing this final rule, are
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825;
telephone 916-414-6600; or facsimile 916-414-6712.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the revised
designation in general and information about the revised designation in
Alameda, Butte, Calaveras, Contra Costa, El Dorado, Kern, Kings, Marin,
southern Mendocino, Merced, Napa, Nevada, Placer, San Joaquin, San
Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, and Yuba Counties,
contact Susan Moore, Field Supervisor or Arnold Roessler, Fish and
Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and
telephone 916-414-6600; or facsimile 916-414-6712. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
For information about the revised designation in Los Angeles,
Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, and
Ventura Counties, contact Diane Noda, Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish
and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2394 Portola Road,
Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003; telephone 805-644-1766; facsimile 805-644-
For information about the exclusion of critical habitat in
Riverside County, contact Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish
and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6010 Hidden Valley
Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 92011; telephone 760-431-9440; facsimile
For information about the revised designation in northern Mendocino
County, contact Randy Brown, Acting Field Supervisor, Arcata Fish and
Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1655 Heindon Road,
Arcata, CA 95521; telephone 707-822-7201; facsimile 707-822-8411.
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the designation of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog
in this final rule. For more information on the California red-legged
frog and threats affecting the species, refer to the final listing rule
published in the Federal Register on May 23, 1996 (61 FR 25813) and the
recovery plan for the species (Service 2002, pp. 1-173).
Change in Nomenclature
When we made the draft economic analysis of the proposed revised
critical habitat for the California red-legged frog available on April
28, 2009 (74 FR 19184), we proposed a nomenclature change to the
California red-legged frog from Rana aurora draytonii to Rana draytonii
and for that change to be published in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) when this rule became final. In this rule, we make that change
and will now refer to the California red-legged frog by its accepted
taxonomic name of Rana draytonii.
Species Description
The California red-legged frog is the largest native frog in the
western United States. It is endemic (native and restricted) to
California and Baja California, Mexico, at elevations ranging from sea
level to approximately 5,000 feet (ft) (1,500 meters (m)). Records of
the California red-legged frog are known from Riverside County to
Mendocino County along the Coast Range; from Calaveras County to Butte
County in the Sierra Nevada; and in Baja California, Mexico (Grismer
2002, p. 79; Fidenci 2004, pp. 27-29; Smith and Krofta 2005, pp. 4, 6;
California Natural Diversity Database 2009 (CNDDB)). The California
red-legged frog gains its name from the typically red or pink color of
its posterior abdomen and hind legs. For a detailed description of the
species, see the recovery plan for the California red-legged frog
(Service 2002, pp. 1-173), references identified in the recovery plan,
and information in previous Federal Register notices (April 13, 2006,
71 FR 19244; March 13, 2001, 66 FR 14626; May 23, 1996, 61 FR 25813).
During the breeding season, which typically runs from November
through April, males call to females from the margins of ponds and slow
streams (Jennings et al. 1992, p. 3). Mating most commonly occurs in
February or March, but can vary depending on seasonal climatic
patterns. The female lays a jellylike mass of 2,000 to 5,000 reddish
brown eggs in the water attached to emergent vegetation, twigs, or
other structure. The resulting tadpoles, which likely feed on algae
(Dickman, 1968, pp. 1189-1190), typically require about 3 weeks to
hatch, and another 11 to 20 weeks to metamorphose into juvenile frogs.
Metamorphosis, therefore, typically occurs from July to September,
although some tadpoles have been observed to delay metamorphosis until
the following March or April (Bobzien et al. 2000, p. 13; Fellers et
al. 2001, pp. 156-157). Adults are predominantly nocturnal, while
juveniles can be active at any time of day (Hayes and Tennant 1985, p.
California red-legged frogs live in a Mediterranean climate, which
brings about temporal and spatial changes in habitat quality. Almost
the entire landscape, not just breeding ponds and streams, may become
suitable habitat for the adults during periods of above average
rainfall. Conversely, habitat that is suitable may be drastically
reduced during periods of prolonged drought. Due to this variability,
population sizes can vary widely from year to year. During years when
aquatic habitat (ponds and streams) is abundant as a result of adequate
rainfall, the California red-legged frog can produce large numbers of
dispersing young, resulting in an increase in the number of occupied
sites. In contrast, the California red-legged frog may temporarily
disappear from an area during periods of extended drought. Therefore,
it is essential to provide for sites that can be recolonized by
dispersing individuals (Semlitsch 2000, pp. 623, 624).
Habitats used by the California red-legged frog typically change in
extent and suitability in response to the dynamic nature of floodplain
and fluvial processes (i.e., variable natural water flow and
sedimentation regimes that create, modify, and eliminate deep pools,
backwater areas, ponds, marshes, and other aquatic habitats).
Rangewide, and even within local populations, the California red-legged
frog uses a variety of areas, including aquatic, riparian, and upland
habitats. They may complete their entire life cycle in a particular
habitat (e.g., a pond is suitable for all life stages), or they may
seek multiple habitat types depending on climatic conditions or
distance between and availability of wetland and other suitably moist
environments.
Despite the California red-legged frog's ability to utilize
multiple habitat types, there are certain habitat features they
require. Most important is a breeding pond, or slow-flowing stream
reach or deep pool within a stream with vegetation or other material to
which egg masses may be attached. These areas must hold water long
enough for tadpoles to complete their metamorphosis into juvenile frogs
that can survive outside of water. Bobzien et al. (2000, p. 12)
observed juveniles inhabiting a wide variety of habitats while adults
primarily inhabited deep pools. They postulated that juveniles might
segregate themselves away from adults to escape predation and
competition (see Dispersal section below).
In northern California, many California red-legged frog populations
occupy artificially created wetland environments. Historically, as
natural wetlands and streams were converted for agriculture, flood
control, and urban development, the California red-legged frog
colonized small artificial impoundments, or stock ponds, created by
cattle ranchers for the purpose of providing water for their cattle.
Our understanding of the role of stock ponds in the conservation of the
California red-legged frog has evolved since listing. Without these
stock ponds, the range of the California red-legged frog would be more
limited in this region.
Riparian and upland habitats adjacent to aquatic areas used by the
California red-legged frog are essential in maintaining frog
populations, and for protecting the appropriate hydrological, physical,
and water quality conditions of the aquatic areas. Riparian habitat
includes vegetation that grows along banks and in the floodplains of
streams and adjacent to ponds and that is dependent on the bordering
water source for survival. Adjacent uplands are marked by vegetation
that is not dependent on a nearby supply of surface water. The
California red-legged frog uses both riparian and upland habitats for
foraging, shelter, cover, and non-dispersal movement (Service 2002, pp.
14-15; Bulger et al. 2003, p. 87; Fellers and Kleeman 2007, p. 276).
Bulger et al. (2003, pp. 85-95) studied the California red-legged
frog's terrestrial activity in coastal forest and grassland habitats
and recommends at least a 328-ft (100-m) buffer zone for protection of
adjacent aquatic and upland habitat, as well as seasonal restrictions
for activities within this zone. In a recent study also specific to the
California red-legged frog, Fellers and Kleeman (2007, pp. 278-280)
recommend establishing zones around breeding habitat, non-breeding
habitat, and migration corridors that are sufficient to protect
function of the amphibian habitat. However, Fellers and Kleeman (2007,
p. 279) discourage setting specific distances for these zones due to
differences in biological or site-specific requirements; they further
state that any distances set for avoidance of upland habitat should be
made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the need to protect
breeding and non-breeding habitat as well as any migration corridors.
Without protecting and maintaining the upland areas surrounding
breeding and non-breeding habitats the quality of the water feature may
deteriorate to such an extent as to not support the California red-
legged frog.
California red-legged frogs will disperse from their breeding
habitat to forage and seek suitable upland and riparian habitat if
aquatic habitat is not available. Tatarian (2004, p. 33) found the
California red-legged frog inhabiting upland areas for 50 days at a
distance of 302 ft (92 m) from aquatic habitat; Bulger et al. (2003, p.
87-89) found that the species is capable of inhabiting upland habitats
within 200 ft (60 m) of aquatic habitat for continuous durations
exceeding 20 days; and Rathbun et al. (1993, p. 15) observed a
California red-legged frog inhabiting upland riparian habitat at
distances of up to 85 ft (26 m) for 65 days. These upland habitat areas
used by the California red-legged frog include structure that provides
shade, moisture, and cooler temperatures. This structure may be
natural, such as the spaces under boulders or rocks and organic debris
(e.g., downed trees or logs), or manmade, such as certain industrial
debris and agricultural features (e.g., drains, watering troughs,
abandoned sheds, or stacks of hay or other vegetation). The California
red-legged frog will also use small mammal burrows and moist leaf
litter as refugia (areas whose climate remains habitable when that of
the surrounding areas has changed) (Rathbun et al. 1993, p. 15;
Jennings and Hayes 1994, p. 64; Fellers and Kleeman 2005, p. 12).
Metapopulation Dynamics
The life history and ecology of the California red-legged frog make
it likely that this species has a metapopulation structure (Hanski and
Gilpin 1991, pp. 3-16). A metapopulation is a set of breeding sites
within an area, where typical migration from one local occurrence or
breeding site to other areas containing suitable habitat is possible,
but not routine. Within this rule we refer to these local occurrences
as populations. The movement (i.e., dispersal) of frogs between areas
containing suitable upland and aquatic habitats is restricted due to
inhospitable conditions around and between areas of suitable habitats.
Because many of the areas of suitable habitats may be small and support
small numbers of frogs, local extinction of these small populations may
be common. The persistence of a metapopulation depends on the combined
dynamics of these local extinctions and the subsequent recolonization
of these areas through dispersal (Hanski and Gilpin 1991, pp. 3-16;
Hanski 1994, pp. 151-162). Maintaining corridors for dispersal between
breeding and non-breeding habitat and between populations is essential
in preserving the population structure of the California red-legged
frog.
Adult California red-legged frogs may disperse from breeding sites
at any time of year depending on habitat availability and the
environmental conditions of the aquatic habitat. In addition, a few
frogs may disperse long distances in search of additional breeding or
non-breeding habitat. Dispersing adult California red-legged frogs in
northern Santa Cruz County traveled distances of 0.25 mile (mi) (0.4
kilometers (km)) to more than 2.0 mi (3.2 km) without apparent regard
to topography, vegetation type, or riparian corridors (Bulger et al.
2003, p. 90). California red-legged frogs have also been tracked using
radio telemetry in East Las Virgenes Creek, Ventura County, which is
characterized by a well-defined creek and riparian zone with permanent
deep pools and highly variable rainfall (Smith 2005, p. 1). The maximum
distance moved in this study was 48 ft (15 m) (Smith 2005, p. 1). In
contrast, California red-legged frog
movements in Santa Cruz County in similar habitat were found to be
substantially less, with typical movements of 9 to 16 ft (3 to 5 m)
from the water's edge. In a study in Marin County, 123 California red-
legged frogs were tracked using radio telemetry between 1997 and 2003
at 8 different sites within the Point Reyes National Seashore and
Golden Gate National Recreation Area (Fellers and Kleeman 2007, p.
277). The habitat at the sites included permanent ponds, seasonal
ponds, permanent marsh, and a seasonal seep. The majority of movement
was small scale (less than 98 ft (30 m)) and considered non-dispersal.
Movements of greater than 98 ft (30 m) occurred mostly during winter
rain events; however, some movements did occur when the ponded habitat
was almost dry (Fellers and Kleeman 2007, p. 279). The majority of
California red-legged frogs dispersed less than 1,640 ft (500 m) away
from breeding habitat, and the maximum dispersal distance recorded was
1.7 mi (2.8 km) (Fellers and Kleeman 2007, pp. 279-280). The study
concluded that most California red-legged frogs move away from breeding
sites, but only a few disperse farther than the nearest non-breeding
habitat, and that the distance moved is highly dependent on site
conditions and local landscapes (Fellers and Kleeman 2007, p. 284). The
study also concluded that, by establishing a generic dispersal distance
for the species, we may select for sedentary frogs and thus lose those
individuals that disperse farthest and reach other distant breeding
sites. This selection may thereby decrease genetic exchange and
diversity (Fellers and Kleeman 2007, p. 285). As a result the authors
recommend that the average dispersal or migration distances identified
in the study not be used; site conditions should dictate the area
needed for the species.
Newly metamorphosed juveniles tend to disperse short distances
initially from July through September, and then move farther away from
the breeding habitat during warm rain events (Jennings 2000, p. 1).
Additionally, and for reasons that are unclear, juveniles tend to
disperse away from aquatic habitat occupied by adults. Juvenile
dispersal is essential for recolonizing temporarily extirpated habitat
and for preventing genetic isolation because juveniles disperse in more
directions, and for longer distances, than do migrating adults (Wright
1999, p. 2; Bulger et al. 2003, p. 94). Dispersal habitat for juveniles
can be any habitat that provides sheltering vegetation and scattered
wetlands or streams, including forested areas, nonnative grasslands,
croplands, and pastures. It is unlikely that juveniles disperse through
urbanized or suburban areas, suburban developments, or areas separated
from breeding habitat by impassible barriers. Juveniles dispersing
along riparian corridors may have higher survivorship, as sheltering
vegetation and suitable aquatic habitat are both more common in such
corridors (Jennings 2000, p. 1). Finally, juvenile California red-
legged frogs appear to have less strict requirements for aquatic
habitat than adults, and tend to segregate away from adults in water
bodies that are shallower or faster moving than those typically used
for breeding (Hayes and Jennings 1988, p. 147; Bobzien 2000, p. 1; M.
Jennings 2000, p. 1).
Dispersal Barriers
Impassible barriers that impact dispersal of the California red-
legged frog include wide or fast-flowing rivers and streams, lakes
greater than 50 ac (20 ha), and heavily traveled roads (such as
highways or freeways) without underpasses or culverts (Reh and Seitz
1990, pp. 247, 248; Fahrig et al. 1995, pp. 179-181). Passable roadways
that are heavily used by vehicles may also result in a high rate of
mortality for California red-legged frog adults and juveniles, and
other amphibians, thereby limiting dispersal capabilities (Glista et
al. 2008, pp. 81-82).
The long-term probability of the survival and recovery of the
California red-legged frog is dependent upon the protection of existing
breeding habitat and associated uplands (Fellers and Kleeman 2005, pp.
1, 17-18), the movement of individuals between aquatic habitat patches,
and the ability to recolonize newly created or vacated habitats.
Recolonization of vacant habitat patches, which is vital to maintaining
the California red-legged frog populations and the recovery of this
species, is dependent upon landscape characteristics, including
appropriate distances between suitable breeding and non-breeding
aquatic habitat, and limited fragmentation of interconnecting habitat
(Vos and Chardon 1998, pp. 44, 53-56). For this rule, we based our
designation of critical habitat on areas of high-quality habitat that
we determined provide for persistence of California red-legged frog
populations and allow for dispersal within, and in most cases between,
populations. We did not designate areas subject to anthropogenic
activities (e.g., urban development) or those that were fragmented or
unlikely to be restorable (poor quality habitat) unless it was
determined that these areas were unique for the species (for more
information, see the Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat section
below).
Previous Federal Action
On July 20, 2007, we announced that we would review the April 13,
2006, final rule (published at 71 FR 19243) designating critical
habitat for the California red-legged frog under the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.)(Service 2007a, pp. 1-2), after questions were raised
about the integrity of scientific information used and whether the
decision made was consistent with the appropriate legal standards.
Based on our review of the 2006 final critical habitat designation, we
determined it was necessary to revise the critical habitat; however, no
specific dates for completing such revision were established.
Subsequently, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
December 12, 2007, challenging our designation of critical habitat for
the California red-legged frog (Center for Biological Diversity v.
Kempthorne, et al., Case No. C-07-6404-WHA). The court entered a
consent decree on April 2, 2008, requiring a proposed revised critical
habitat rule to be submitted to the Federal Register by August 29,
2008, and a final revised critical habitat designation to be submitted
to the Federal Register by August 31, 2009. On September 16, 2008, we
published in the Federal Register a proposed revised rule to designate
critical habitat for the California red-legged frog (73 FR 53491).
We published a document in the Federal Register on April 28, 2009
(74 FR 19184): (1) Reopening the public comment period on the revised
proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the California red-
legged frog (73 FR 53491); (2) announcing the availability of a draft
economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed rule to revise critical
habitat; (3) proposing boundary changes to Unit MEN-1 to better reflect
the occupied habitat for the species; and (4) proposing a change to the
taxonomic nomenclature for the species. The public comment period
closed on May 28, 2009.
The comments received on our DEA (IEc 2009a) during the April 28 to
May 28, 2009, public comment period led us to revise the DEA (IEc
2009b). To allow public comment on the revised DEA, an extension to the
publication deadline of the final determination of critical habitat was
required. On August 31, 2009, a consent decree was signed by the court
extending the deadline for the final revised designation of critical
habitat for the California red-legged frog
to March 1, 2010. On October 8, 2009, we published a document in the
Federal Register (74 FR 51825) announcing the availability of the
revised DEA. We reopened the comment period for an additional 30 days
to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment
simultaneously on the proposed revision of critical habitat and the
associated revised DEA. This rule represents our final revised
designation of critical habitat in compliance with the court order.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We requested written comments from the public and peer reviewers
during three comment periods on the proposed rule to revise critical
habitat for the California red-legged frog. The first comment period
opened September 16, 2008 (73 FR 53491), and closed November 17, 2008.
The second comment period opened April 28, 2009 (74 FR 19184), and
closed May 28, 2009. The third comment period opened October 8, 2009
(74 FR 51825), and closed November 9, 2009. During these three comment
periods, we contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies;
scientific organizations; and other interested parties and invited them
to comment on the proposed rule to revise critical habitat for the
California red-legged frog and the associated DEA. We did not receive
any requests for public hearings during these comment periods. We did,
however, receive a request to attend a public meeting in San Andreas,
California held on October 30, 2008. During the public meeting, we
provided information and answered questions regarding the designation
and exclusion processes.
During the three comment periods we received a total of 113 public
comments directly addressing the proposed revision of critical habitat.
In addition we received four responses from peer reviewers we solicited
to comment on the proposed revised designation. During the first
comment period we received 80 comments directly addressing the proposed
revision of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog. During
the second comment period, we received 19 new comments directly
addressing the proposed revision of critical habitat for the California
red-legged frog and the DEA; and during the third comment period we
received an additional 12 comments addressing the proposed revision of
critical habitat for the California red-legged frog and the DEA.
In accordance with our policy published in the Federal Register on
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from five
knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included
familiarity with the California red-legged frog, the geographic region
in which the species occurs, and conservation biology principles. We
received responses from four of the peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers and the
public for substantive issues and new information regarding critical
habitat for the California red-legged frog. These comments are
addressed below and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
Peer Review Comments
Comment (1): One peer reviewer stated that the Service used a
reasonable approach in determining the critical habitat boundaries for
the California red-legged frog by looking at the core recovery areas as
identified in the 2002 recovery plan. The reviewer also said the
Service appropriately evaluated the metapopulation dynamics, unoccupied
areas, dispersal, and connectivity of habitat for the California red-
legged frog. The peer reviewer concurred with our proposal to raise the
California red-legged frog to full species level. However, the peer
reviewer went on to say that the current designation represents only a
relatively small proportion of the historic geographic range of the
species and that it is unknown if the California red-legged frog can
survive long-term in such a reduced range.
Response: In this current revised designation, we acknowledge that
we did not include all areas where the California red-legged frog
occurs and that areas outside the designation either: (1) Do not
contain essential habitat features, or (2) are not essential to the
conservation of the species. We believe it is important, however, to
note that critical habitat designation is a different process than
development of a long-term management plan such as a recovery plan. A
critical habitat designation is a specific regulatory action that
defines particular areas as critical habitat in accordance with the
statutory definition. Our revised methodology incorporates new
information to best identify areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat. As a result, the final revised critical habitat designation
does not include, for example, all areas that the 2002 recovery plan
identified as necessary for the conservation of the California red-
legged frog. Therefore, we believe this final revised critical habitat
designation more precisely maps the essential physical and biological
features that occur within the geographical area occupied by the
California red-legged frog at the time of listing, and includes those
areas containing the most suitable habitat for use by the frog.
Comment (2): One peer reviewer stated that, although the review of
dispersal capabilities of the frog were well discussed, it should be
noted that the studies of dispersal capabilities rely on relatively few
individuals and likely miss the relatively rare long-range distance
dispersers. The peer reviewer also mentioned that the Service did not
discuss whether dispersal events actually result in geneflow between
metapopulations.
Response: We believe we have reviewed the most recent scientific
information on frog dispersal capabilities of the California red-legged
frog and have used this information appropriately in our designation of
critical habitat. We acknowledge that the California red-legged frog
may disperse beyond the dispersal distance of 1 mi (1.6 km) identified
in the designation (Bulger et al. 1999, p. 11; Fellers and Kleeman
2007, pp. 279-280). However, as stated by the peer reviewer, these long
distance movements are rare and represent the exception to dispersal
events for the species. In addition, the designation is not based
solely on the 1-mi (1.6-km) dispersal distance but is based on habitat
features and watershed boundaries that we have determined are connected
to those areas where the California red-legged frog occurs. We have,
therefore, included areas in this designation beyond the strict 1-mi
(1.6-km) distance. We are currently unaware of any completed genetic
studies regarding the genetic exchange between frog populations and at
what distance this genetic exchange is considered to be limited and not
important for the species. Our methodology to include the habitat areas
surrounding known populations, as well as to connect adjacent
populations together into discernable units, most likely allows for
such genetic exchange.
Comment (3): One peer reviewer applauded our decision to reevaluate
the 2006 designation, but stated that the Service should incorporate
the 2001 designation into our analysis and remove areas identified in
the 2001 designation only if the Service has justifiable scientific
information or if it can be shown that the 2001 designation
was inaccurate. The same peer reviewer mentioned that the Service
should review the units within Sonoma County to ensure that they
include all uplands within 1 mi (1.6 km). The peer reviewer also stated
that the entire Sonoma Mountain area from Annadel State Park to Sears
Point/Highway 37 area should be designated as this area has more than
15 records of the California red-legged frog, most of which are
breeding sites. The peer reviewer went on to mention that Unit SON-3
should be connected to Unit MRN-2 in Marin County to provide
connectivity between units based on habitat availability and recent
documentation of new California red-legged frog records within the
Response: We agree with the peer reviewer that habitat connectivity
is important to allow for movement between California red-legged frog
populations and to maintain genetic variation. We are aware of the
extensive amount of scientific evidence illustrating the importance of
habitat connectivity, and we considered this information during the
development of this critical habitat designation. We acknowledge that
areas potentially providing connectivity between units were included in
the 2001 critical habitat designation; however, based on our
reevaluation of the data available at the time of the 2001 designation,
data obtained since, and our revised methodology for delineating
critical habitat, we find that those areas do not meet the definition
of critical habitat because the available data do not identify specific
areas between these units that contain the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the California red-legged
frog. The 2001 designation was based on large-scale watershed
boundaries and not the local watershed boundaries in this designation.
We believe the use of the local watershed boundaries is more
appropriate based on dispersal capabilities of the species and the
information known on occupancy. The area surrounding the Sonoma and
Marin County units includes developed areas, dairies, and ranchland. We
evaluated the areas within the 1-mi (1.6-km) distance from the Sonoma
and Marin County occurrence records and potential breeding habitats and
determined that for the most part these areas, although likely used by
the frog, do not meet our criteria established for this designation. We
focused our designation to encompass areas that support viable (self-
sustaining or increasing) populations, areas that represent portions of
the geographic extent of the species within the core areas identified
in the 2002 recovery plan, and any other unique habitats. We did not
include all the areas occupied by the California red-legged frog. For
more information on our criteria for designating critical habitat for
the California red-legged frog see the Criteria Used To Identify
Critical Habitat section below.
Comment (4): One peer reviewer commented on Unit MEN-1 (as
identified in the September 2008 proposed revised designation), saying
that it includes northern red-legged frogs (Rana aurora) or hybrids
between the northern red-legged frog and the California red-legged
frog. The peer reviewer stated that hybrids between the two species
occur as far south as Manchester State Beach, but that the exact zone
of hybridization and its importance to either species is unknown.
Response: As stated in our April 28, 2009, Federal Register
publication announcing the availability of the draft economic analysis
(74 FR 19184), we revised Unit MEN-1 to better reflect new species
occurrence data within the area and the habitat surrounding those
records. On further review of the unit, we further adjusted the
boundaries to include only known California red-legged frog records and
not hybrid northern red-legged frog records. The unit currently
includes the habitat from Manchester State Beach south to Riverside
Road. Unit MEN-1 represents the northern extent of the California red-
legged frog within the North Coast of California and likely represents
a unique genetic component of the species.
Comment (5): One peer reviewer concluded that it is unclear whether
the Service considered climate change in the current designation and
what effects climate change may have on the California red-legged
frog's habitat in the future.
Response: We acknowledge that climate change may alter the
suitability of the California red-legged frog's habitat in the future.
However, we are required to designate critical habitat based upon the
best available scientific data at the time that we finalize the
designation. For species like the California red-legged frog, we
conclude relatively higher elevation and moister habitat is likely to
become increasingly important in the face of climate changes. The
designated critical habitat units include areas distributed across the
species range from southern California to Butte and Mendocino County in
northern California and vary from coastal sea-level locations to
interior Coast Range areas and higher elevation locations in the Sierra
Nevada Mountains. The variability of environmental conditions at
locations across the range of the species would likely become more
important to the extent that California red-legged frog distribution
and habitat may shift upward in elevation and northward in distribution
as temperatures increase and precipitation becomes more variable due to
climate change. However, at this point in time, reliable projections of
future climatic conditions and how those conditions may affect the
California red-legged frog's distribution and habitat in California are
not available. Consequently, we find it appropriate to designate
critical habitat for the California red-legged frog in areas occupied
by the species that currently contain the physical and biological
features or the areas essential to the conservation of the California
red-legged. Revisions to the critical habitat designation may be
necessary in the future to accommodate shifts in the occupied range of
the California red-legged frog.
Comments from Department of Defense
Comment (6): The Department of The Army, the National Guard Bureau,
and the California Army National Guard commented that we should exclude
Camp San Luis Obispo (CSLO) from critical habitat designation for the
California red-legged frog under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, for
reasons including national security and economic impacts.
Response: The Secretary has determined to exercise his discretion
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude lands at CSLO from this
final designation due to potential impacts on national security (see
Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Impacts to National Security section).
Comment (7): The Department of the Air Force commented that we
should exclude Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) from critical habitat
designation for the California red-legged frog under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act, for reasons including impacts on national security, and under
section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, for operating under a draft
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP).
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude lands at VAFB from this
Comments Related to Site-Specific Areas or Issues
Comment (8): Four commenters opposed designation of parts or all of
proposed Unit CAL-1 because they believe that the majority of the area
constitutes poor habitat for the California red-legged frog. Six
commenters stated that most of the area is too dry for the California
red-legged frog to occur, and that most ponds and streams are dry for 4
to 5 months of the year. Two commenters noted that perennial ponds and
streams support populations of predatory fish and bullfrogs and would
not support California red-legged frogs.
Response: We consider Unit CAL-1 to contain high-quality habitat
because it contains the physical and biological features essential to
the conservation of the species and has not been subject to
fragmentation due to development. The habitat within the unit includes
areas of aquatic breeding habitat that hold water for a minimum of 20
weeks in all but the driest years, areas of non-breeding aquatic
habitat, and areas of upland and dispersal habitat within 1 mi (1.6 km)
of aquatic habitat. The California red-legged frog is adapted to dry
environments. The drying of watercourses and ponds is beneficial in
that it precludes the use of these habitats by bullfrogs and predatory
fish. While water bodies free of bullfrogs and predatory fish would be
optimal, the California red-legged frog can persist in the presence of
both of these predators under specific conditions such as occur within
Unit CAL-1. In aquatic systems subject to seasonal drying, it may be
difficult for bullfrogs to become established. As discussed in the
background section of the proposed revised critical habitat rule,
Doubledee et al. (2003, pp. 424-438) studied the relationship between
bullfrogs and California red-legged frog persistence. That study showed
that bullfrogs and California red-legged frogs can coexist and persist
under certain natural and managed regimes. Additionally, periodic
drying may prevent nonnative warm water fish from becoming established
as well. Alvarez et al. (2003, pp. 9-12) presented evidence that
nonnative predatory fish can have a significant effect on juvenile
California red-legged frog survival in ponds where they co-occur. Of 90
ponds surveyed in the Los Vaqueros watershed in Contra Costa County, 7
were found to have nonnative fish. Over 3 years, one or more ponds with
nonnative fish were repeatedly drained, and all fish were exhaustively
removed. Compared to surveys conducted before fish removal, surveys
conducted after fish removal and pond recharge showed juvenile and
adult California red-legged frog abundance increased dramatically. This
suggests a strong link between nonnative fish presence and decreased
California red-legged frog survival. The California red-legged frog is
adapted to the drying of its aquatic habitat. Moreover, this drying
assists the frog by eliminating potential predators and competition for
Comment (9): Nine commenters stated that the data on the California
red-legged frog population in Unit CAL-1 are not sufficient to justify
critical habitat designation throughout the unit. Five of these claimed
there is no information to indicate the population still exists, while
others noted they had never seen such frogs within the unit despite
long residence and experience with catching bullfrogs in the area. One
commenter questioned the validity of California red-legged frog
occurrence as being natural and suggested that the California red-
legged frog was potentially introduced to the area. One commenter asked
why the unit extends 2.2 mi (3.5 km) from the frog population despite
our PCEs, which restrict the extent of upland and dispersal habitat.
Another commenter specifically noted the importance of the California
red-legged frog population at Unit CAL-1 on the grounds that it is one
of only six remaining in the Sierra foothills.
Response: We consider this population to be important to the
conservation of the California red-legged frog because it is one of six
remaining populations in the Sierra Nevada foothills, which is a
historical portion of the species' range (Service 2002, p. 5). Such
peripheral populations may also have unusual genetic characteristics
that could prove useful in maintaining the genetic variability of the
species (Gilpin and Soule 1986, p. 32). Species that are able to
maintain their genetic variability can more easily adapt to
environmental changes and therefore be less prone to extirpation or
extinction. The California Natural Diversity Database (2009) indicates
the California red-legged frog population was seen relatively recently,
and we have no evidence to suggest it is no longer extant. Information
available to the Service confirms the species' presence as recently as
October 2008. We consider repeated and comprehensive surveys by trained
personnel to be necessary to conclude a population has been extirpated.
Based on the information available on the sighting and circumstances
surrounding the discovery of California red-legged frogs, we have no
reason to question the validity of the record as being a natural
occurrence. Also, regardless of whether the population of California
red-legged frogs was introduced to the area, it is still considered a
listed species under the Act and still receives the protections of a
listed entity.
The size of Unit CAL-1 reflects our methodology and criteria for
mapping the critical habitat units. We based the proposed boundaries of
the unit on the local watershed boundaries where California red-legged
frogs have been sighted. However, in response to public comments and
site visits by Service staff, we revised the boundaries of the unit to
better reflect the available habitat within the area and the locations
used by the California red-legged frog. As a result, we revised the
extent of the unit and removed those areas that we determined do not
contain the physical and biological features essential for conservation
of the California red-legged frog.
Comment (10): Two commenters noted that Unit CAL-1 is outside the
core recovery area identified by the recovery plan (Service 2002, p.
132). One additional commenter asked if surveys had established local
salinity or temperature levels, or if a habitat suitability index had
been established for the area.
Response: We recognize this designation is different than what is
outlined as essential habitat in the 2002 recovery plan (which largely
adopted the boundary delineated in the 2001 critical habitat
designation (66 FR 14625; March 13, 2001)). While we believe the 2001
designation and the 2002 recovery plan are important for determining
the extent of habitat use by the California red-legged frog, we have
significantly more data available today than when we finalized 2001
critical habitat designation and the 2002 Recovery Plan. We have
utilized the currently available data to more precisely identify areas
meeting the definition of critical habitat, in particular, areas
related to connectivity. We include such areas in this designation
where the data support the determination that such areas contain the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
species. We believe it is important to note that critical habitat
designation is a different process than development of a recovery plan.
A critical habitat designation is a specific regulatory action that
defines specific areas as critical habitat in accordance with the
statutory definition. A recovery plan is a guidance document, developed
in cooperation with partners, that provides a roadmap with detailed
management actions to help conserve listed species and their
ecosystems. The term ``essential,'' as used in the recovery plan, is
not necessarily used in the same manner as it is used in the definition
of critical habitat (section 3(5) of the Act). The recovery plan
provides important information about the species and the actions that
are needed to bring about its recovery, while critical habitat
identifies specific areas that are essential for the species'
conservation. In addition, although Unit CAL-1 is outside the core
recovery area established for Calaveras County by the recovery plan,
that plan was completed in 2002, and could not account for the
discovery of the California red-legged frog population in 2003.
We have not conducted water quality surveys or developed habitat
suitability index models for proposed critical habitat units. The
extent of the designation would make these efforts impractical. We have
determined that specific water salinity or other water monitoring
aspects are not necessary because the California red-legged frog is
recently confirmed to be occupying the area and the landowner maintains
suitable habitat as a result of agreements with the Service. Based on
the best scientific information available to us at this time, we
believe that the area within Unit CAL-1 that we are designating as
critical habitat for the California red-legged frog is appropriate and
Comment (11): Five commenters indicated we could do more for
California red-legged frog conservation by pursuing conservation
agreements with landowners in the vicinity of Unit CAL-1, rather than
by designating the unit. Thirty-five signatories of a form letter
indicated they would be less likely to participate in conservation
partnership projects with us in the future if we designate this unit.
Response: Although we are aware that the establishment of
partnerships with private landowners is essential to the conservation
of many species including the California red-legged frog, we are not
able to forego the designation of critical habitat based on the
possibility of establishing conservation partnerships in the future. We
must adequately weigh the benefits, pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, for conserving the California red-legged frog and its habitat from
the partnerships and resulting conservation programs and plans relative
to the regulatory benefits of designating the specific areas as
critical habitat. Despite our exclusion of this unit in our 2006 final
critical habitat designation (71 FR 19243), landowners wishing to build
partnerships have not approached us despite our efforts to establish
such willing partnerships with landowners. It was not until after we
published our proposed revised designation on September 16, 2008 (73 FR
53491), that landowners within Unit CAL-1 contacted us regarding
developing potential partnerships. On October 30, 2008, we attended a
public meeting in San Andreas, California, to provide information on
the proposed revised designation, and we were subsequently approached
by several landowners interested in forming partnerships and working
with the Service on conservation measures for the California red-legged
frog on their private property. However, due to the short court-ordered
timeframe of this action, we have not been able to finalize any
agreements or management plans for the frog or its habitat with these
landowners. We have, however, been able to meet with these landowners
during site visits to discuss potential habitat restoration activities
or other conservation measures for the California red-legged frog on
their properties. We will continue to work with local landowners and
seek new partnerships regarding the frog in the future.
Comment (12): Ten commenters, and an additional 35 signatories of a
form letter, requested exclusion of Unit CAL-1 under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act. They stated that the benefits of such exclusion would outweigh
the benefits of designation for the following reasons:
(1) Routine grazing practices benefit the California red-legged
frog, and designation would increase the liabilities on such practices;
(2) Designation would trigger review of Farm Bill conservation
grant projects under section 7 of the Act, thereby decreasing the
incentive to apply for such grants;
(3) Designation negatively impacts landowners but provides little
benefit to the species;
(4) Much of the land in the unit is already protected by incentives
under the Williamson Act to keep the land in agricultural uses;
(5) Designation could impact water deliveries to farmers and
interfere with road repair, the clearing of logjams from streams, and
other infrastructure maintenance;
(6) Designation would limit development and the planting of crops;
(7) Designation would lower property values.
Response: We finalized a special rule under section 4(d) of the Act
for the California red-legged frog in 2006 (71 FR 19243; April 13,
2006) that exempts routine ranching operations from the take
prohibitions of the Act. We recognize livestock ranching as a dynamic
process, which requires the ability to adapt to changing environmental
and economic conditions. However, many of the activities essential to
successful ranching are considered routine, and are undertaken at
various times and places throughout the year as need dictates. Although
the 4(d) special rule is not intended to provide a comprehensive list
of those ranching activities considered routine, some examples include:
maintenance of stock ponds; fence construction for grazing management;
planting, harvest, and rotation of unirrigated forage crops;
maintenance and construction of corrals, ranch buildings, and roads;
discing of field sections for fire prevention management; control of
noxious weeds by prescribed fire or by herbicides; placement of mineral
supplements; and rodent control. The final version of the 4(d) special
rule includes an expanded definition of routine ranching practices and
incorporates additional activities we believe are consistent with the
conservation of the California red-legged frog. These activities are
those that may provide conservation benefits to the California red-
legged frog. The ranching activities listed in the 2006 final critical
habitat designation (71 FR 19243; April 13, 2006) are examples of
practices that we understand are routine to managing an active ranching
operation. Our intention is not to limit activities that may be
necessary to the operation of a ranch. As a result of implementing the
4(d) special rule, we are unaware of any increased liabilities
associated with ranching operations having a higher liability than
those areas not dedicated to ranching.
The final economic analysis (EA) prepared for this designation
calculates the impact of critical habitat on agricultural land values
by measuring its effect on the likelihood and profitability of
residential and commercial development. One comment stated that farm
subsidies may trigger a consultation under section 7 of the Act and
that these costs should be included in the final EA. This linkage is
speculative, and there is no instance of a farm subsidy being used as
the basis for a consultation with the Service. Further, activities
including discing, plowing, irrigation, chemical application,
harvesting, and others that are part of normal agricultural operations
are also unlikely to trigger a section 7 consultation. Incremental
costs to farming operations may result from construction of stream
crossings, water diversion, and sediment and debris removal; these
costs are discussed in the final economic analysis. Existing regulatory
mechanisms such as the California Land Conservation Act of 1965
(commonly referred to as the Williamson Act) may afford some regulatory
protection to the California red-legged frog. However, the protection
afforded by these regulations does not sufficiently protect the species
to such an extent that it would warrant consideration for exclusion
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The Williamson Act is a voluntary
contract between participating landowners and cities or counties to
voluntarily restrict land use to agricultural or open-space uses. The
term of the contracts is a minimum of 10 years, and the landowner may
petition to cancel the contract. Also the conditions of the contracts
vary by city or county or even landowner and would not specifically
identify conservation measures for the frog. Therefore, as a result of
implementing the 4(d) special rule, our review of the Williamson Act
conditions, and review of the economic costs associated with Unit CAL-
1, we have determined that the measures identified by the commenters do
not warrant further consideration for our exclusion of the unit under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Comment (13): Five commenters asked us to exclude agricultural land
in Marin County under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. They stated that the
benefits of such exclusion would outweigh the benefits of designation
for the following reasons:
(1) Routine grazing practices benefit the frog, and designation
would increase the liabilities on such practices;
(3) Designation negatively impacts landowners economically but
provides little benefit to the species;
other infrastructure maintenance; and
Response: See our response to Comment (12) above.
Comment (14): One commenter noted that we provided incorrect area
estimates for Federal and private lands in proposed unit ELD-1. The
commenter also stated that designation of private lands within the
proposed unit would be inconsistent with the El Dorado County General
Plan.
Response: We have revised the land ownership for Unit ELD-1 to
correctly reflect the landownership within the unit. When designating
critical habitat, we base our designation on the essential habitat
features required by the species. When exercising our discretion to
exclude areas from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
we must weigh the benefits of designating against the benefits of not
designating critical habitat. Such exclusions are usually based on
finalized management plans, habitat conservation plans, or other
documents and not on local general plans unless there is a high degree
of certainty that conservation measures will take place for a
particular species and that those measures are more beneficial than the
designation of critical habitat. We have reviewed El Dorado County's
general plan and found no measures specific to the conservation of the
California red-legged frog or its habitat. The County identifies
numerous goals in the Conservation and Open Space Element within its
general plan; however, no specific measures with respect to the
conservation of the primary constituent elements for the California
red-legged frog are mentioned. While we value El Dorado County's
voluntary agreement in the interagency protection of Spivey Pond, based
on the general plan, we have not exercised our discretion to exclude El
Dorado County in its entirety from designated critical habitat. We
have, however, exercised our discretion to exclude those areas managed
by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) at Spivey Pond in El Dorado
County based on an interagency land use management plan (see
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below).
Comment (15): One commenter stated that we should include
downstream portions of Weber Creek in proposed unit ELD-1, as that area
contains habitat elements essential to the conservation of the species.
Response: We used the best scientific information available in
determining those areas that contain the physical and biological
features essential for the California red-legged frog and that we
therefore proposed as critical habitat. During our determination
process, we considered several criteria in the selection of areas that
contain the features essential for the conservation of the California
red-legged frog. We did not include all available habitat or all areas
where frogs are located within the designation. Although the Weber
Creek area may contain some primary constituent elements, we believe
the arrangement and quantity of those features may not be adequate. For
more information, please see the Criteria Used to Identify Critical
Habitat section below.
Comment (16): One commenter asked us to remove a specific property
from SOL-2 on the basis that some of it is too dry to constitute good
habitat, while the rest is not within 1 mi (1.6 km) of a known
occurrence, nor is it uplands connecting several occurrences. The
commenter also requested exclusion from the critical habitat
designation on economic grounds, arguing that designation would prevent
conversion of over 900 ac (364 ha) of land suitable for winegrowing,
resulting in a cost of $3.5 million in gross revenue. Another commenter
stated that we appropriately designated land within Units SOL-1, SOL-2,
and SOL-3 in that designation of this land will assist in conserving
the California red-legged frog and its habitat. The commenter suggested
that additional areas adjacent to Unit SOL-1 be part of the designation
including areas along Highway 680 and adjacent to Suisun Marsh in
Solano County. The commenter also stated that the Service should ensure
that ``these critical habitat designations not be overridden by
presumed `public' benefits'' for other uses such as wind energy or
electrical transmission lines.
Response: We based this final revised critical habitat designation
on California red-legged frog occurrence records, habitat surrounding
those localities, and local watershed boundaries. The occurrence
records within Unit SOL-2 are associated with the drainages in the
Jameson Canyon area. Our determination of the unit boundaries focused
on incorporating not only the occurrence records but also any adjacent
habitat up to the local watershed boundary as long as we could
determine that the habitat within the watershed was reasonably
connected. In some cases where the records were isolated and habitat
not extensive, we used the 1-mi (1.6-km) dispersal distance to
determine the extent of the designation. In other cases where the
habitat was similar or included adjacent water courses within the
dispersal distance of the California red-legged frog, we looked at the
habitat and watershed boundaries to guide our designation (see Criteria
Used To Identify Critical Habitat section below). In regards to the
areas adjacent to Unit SOL-1 along Highway 680, we believe we have
properly designated the specific areas where those physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species are
found. Extending the unit to these adjacent
areas would require, as the commenter points out, the species to cross
under the multilane highway through a culvert. Our review of the use of
the area by the California red-legged frog shows the species in upland
grassland habitats with no records into the Suisun Marsh area. Although
the species may be able to access and use the Suisun Marsh area, we
believe the species is more likely to use the upland grassland habitats
and not the brackish marsh habitats associated with the Suisun Marsh.
As a result of our examining the available habitat within the area and
use of our mapping criteria, we believe we have used the best
scientific information available on determining the critical habitat
boundaries including those for Units SOL-1 and SOL-2.
The final economic analysis prepared for this designation
calculates potential impacts to agricultural crop farming activities.
According to the final economic analysis, the relative incremental
costs associated with the designation within Unit SOL-2 is less than 1
percent of the total incremental costs of the designation and only 3
percent of the total incremental costs associated with agricultural
crop farming activities. Based on these results, we do not consider the
estimated costs associated with the designation of critical habitat
within Unit SOL-2 to be disproportionate and have not exercised our
discretion to exclude any area within Unit SOL-2 under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act. See ``Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act -
Economic Exclusions'' section below for more information regarding
Comment (17): The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
(Commission) wrote in support of the two units proposed on portions of
its property. Those units are SNM-1 and ALA-2 in San Mateo and Alameda
Counties. The commenter added that the Commission has enacted
additional protections for the frog, and that it is also preparing
habitat conservation plans (HCPs) with the Service to protect
endangered and threatened species and enhance their habitats within
those areas.
Response: We appreciate the support and look forward to working
with the commenter in the future on continued conservation efforts for
the California red-legged frog. We do not expect the HCPs to be
completed by the time this designation is made effective (see the DATES
section).
Comment (18): Three commenters stated that they were not properly
notified of the proposed rule, despite being landowners in designated
areas or having submitted comments in the past.
Response: We published the proposed critical habitat designation in
the Federal Register on September 16, 2008 (73 FR 53491), and we
accepted comments from all interested parties for 60 days, ending
November 17, 2008. We then extended the public comment period for an
additional 30 days (74 FR 19184; April 28, 2009). We later reopened the
public comment period again for another 30 days (74 FR 51825; October
8, 2009). For each publication, the Service wrote press releases that
resulted in newspaper articles throughout California and specifically
noticed the proposed designation in pertinent newspapers in the range
of the California red-legged frog. We held a public meeting where we
discussed opportunities for the public to comment and provide input and
information. Thus, although we did not specifically notify individual
landowners within the designation, we believe we provided adequate
opportunity for individuals to review and provide comment on the
proposed revised rule. It is our practice to include on our mailing
lists those individuals who have made comments in the past regarding a
specific issue. We apologize for having inadvertently failed to notify
certain people of the proposed action and have updated our records
accordingly.
Comment (19): A commenter requested exclusion of approximately
3,000 ac (1,214 ha) of private land proposed within unit MNT-3 because
there is an existing conservation easement that protects habitat in
this area.
Response: Our review of the easement indicates that: (1) It
primarily is intended to protect viewshed resources; (2) it covers only
a portion of the area requested for exclusion; and (3) it allows a
variety of uses that could adversely affect the physical and biological
features essential to the California red-legged frog, including new
utilities and highway improvements, clearing of vegetation for fire
management, and changes in water use. We have therefore determined not
to exercise our discretion to exclude these areas under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act.
Comment (20): A commenter requested designation of an additional
critical habitat unit encompassing the Moss Beach, Sawmill Gulch, Seal
Rock Creek, Fan Shell, and Carmel Bay watersheds on the Monterey
Peninsula in Monterey County.
Response: Our approach to designating critical habitat includes
designating areas with a high density of California red-legged frog
occurrences and avoiding developed and fragmented areas. Our review of
the information provided by the commenter and information available in
our files indicates that the area requested for designation is highly
fragmented by recreational and residential development. The California
red-legged frog has been observed in the area, with a small number of
frogs observed at two localities. Although the California red-legged
frogs occur in watersheds of the Monterey Peninsula, the best available
information indicates these watersheds are occupied at low densities
within fragmented habitat. We have therefore determined that the
requested addition is not appropriate. For more information, please see
the Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat section below.
Comment (21): One commenter supported the expansion of critical
habitat to include the Little Sur River, North and South forks of La
Brea Creek, the North fork and Upper North fork of Matillija Creek,
Santa Paula Creek and its tributaries, and Agua Caliente Creek. The
commenter indicated that these areas are important to the survival and
recovery of the California red-legged frog.
Response: We contacted the commenter because we were unable to
locate Agua Caliente Creek on a map. The commenter stated that the
correct name was Agua Blanca Creek. In our proposed designation of
revised critical habitat for the California red-legged frog, we
determined that all occupied habitat did not need to be designated as
revised critical habitat, nor did we believe it necessary to designate
unoccupied habitat, based on our determination that enough occupied
areas representing the distribution of the frog across its range had
already been determined and that these areas would provide for the
conservation of the species. Because we have no records of the
California red-legged frog occupying the Little Sur River, North and
South forks of La Brea Creek, the North Fork and Upper North Fork of
Matillija Creek, Santa Paula Creek and its tributaries, or Agua Blanca
Creek, we consider these areas unoccupied and have not included them in
this final rule. For more information on our criteria for designating
critical habitat, please see the Criteria Used to Identify Critical
habitat to include the Cuyama River and its tributaries, Branch Creek
and Alamo Creek, the tributaries feeding Lake Cachuma, a portion of
Sespe Creek, Birabent Canyon, a portion of the
Sisquoc River, the Arroyo Seco River and its tributaries, and San
Carpoforo Creek. The commenter indicated that these areas are important
to the survival and recovery of the California red-legged frog.
Response: Our designation of revised critical habitat for the
California red-legged frog does not include all occupied areas. As
described in the proposed rule, when determining which occupied areas
are essential to the conservation of the species and meet the
definition of critical habitat, we considered theories of
metapopulation persistence, on-the-ground survey data, and California
red-legged frog longevity. We focused on areas of high California red-
legged frog abundance, areas needed to maintain connectivity between
aquatic breeding habitat, and areas of unique ecological significance.
We selected areas that are inhabited by source populations that are
capable of maintaining their current population levels and capable of
providing individuals to recruit into subpopulations found in adjacent
areas. We are aware that California red-legged frogs do occur in the
areas listed by the commenter; however, these areas are isolated,
occupied at low densities, or otherwise not essential to the
conservation of the species; therefore, we have not included them in
this final designation. For more information on our criteria for
designating critical habitat, please see the Criteria Used to Identify
Comment (23): One commenter identified the California red-legged
frog as a coastal species and stated that the species was never in any
inland counties until the early 1900s. The commenter concluded that the
designation of critical habitat for the species outside of coastal
areas is not justified.
Response: According to accepted scientific and taxonomic
information on the California red-legged frog, the species' historic
and current distribution includes inland counties in the Sacramento and
San Joaquin Valleys as well as Sierra Nevada and Interior Coast Range
counties from Riverside to Shasta County, California. According to
early species distribution accounts and collections by species experts
(Storer 1925; pp. 235-236), the species was present in the interior
portions of California well before the 1900s. As a result of the early
species' range descriptions and collections in accredited scientific
facilities and currently known occurrence records for the species, we
have determined that the historic and current range of the species does
include interior California counties. This information justifies the
designation of critical habitat within these interior areas.
Comment (24): One commenter requested not to increase the
mitigation requirements for the California red-legged frog because it
will harm the livelihood or restrict activities of private citizens.
Response: According to section 7(a)(2) of the Act, each Federal
agency shall, in consultation with the Service, insure that any action
will not result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat
of a listed species . Only activities that have a Federal nexus (i.e.,
that involve a Federal permit, license, or funding, or are carried out
by a Federal agency) and are likely to destroy or adversely modify the
area of critical habitat will be affected. If this is the case, we will
work with the Federal agency and, where appropriate, applicants for
Federal permits or license, or for Federal funding, to modify their
projects so that those projects will not adversely affect the critical
habitat. Thus, most Federal projects are likely to go forward, but some
will be modified to minimize harm to critical habitat. Critical habitat
does not set mitigation requirements for a species.
Comment (25): One commenter identified pesticide use and pesticide
drift from agricultural use, not habitat loss, as the major threat
impacting the California red-legged frog. The commenter also stated the
decline in frog populations worldwide is a result of disease and
climate change and that fish are not at all the cause of the species'
decline. The commenter stated that the designation of critical habitat
is a typical ``knee-jerk'' reaction to frog species' decline and does
not address the problem.
Response: In our May 23, 1996, final listing determination (61 FR
25813), we determined that habitat loss and fragmentation from urban
encroachment (along with other factors) constituted the dominant factor
leading to the listing of the species. Since the listing, numerous
studies have looked at pesticide drift as the potential cause of
amphibian declines in California. According to several studies, the
transport and deposition of pesticides from the agriculturally
intensive Central Valley of California to the adjacent Sierra Nevada is
well documented, and pesticides have been found in the bodies of Sierra
frogs (Davidson et al. 2002, pp. 1589-1590; Davidson 2004, pp. 1892-
1902). However, to date, no direct links have been found between
pesticides and actual amphibian population declines. We are currently
consulting with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the use of
66 pesticides on or near areas where the California red-legged frog
occurs to determine appropriate conservation measures for the species.
We disagree with the commenter that fish are not an issue in the
species' decline because the introductions of nonnative warm water fish
(e.g., bass, sunfish, and mosquito fish) have caused some declines in
the species' distribution and abundance throughout its range (Service
1996, p. 25827). We agree with the commenter that other factors in
addition to habitat loss are contributing to a world-wide decline in
frog and other amphibian populations and that, in some species, disease
is the major factor. However, in the case of the California red-legged
frog, we continue to assert that habitat loss and fragmentation
continue to be the dominant factors in preventing the recovery of the
species. In response to the commenter's statement that the designation
is only a reaction to current amphibian declines, we have designated
critical habitat according to our implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.12, by using the best scientific data available and defining
specific areas that contain those essential physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species and which may
require special management considerations or protection. Consistent
with these regulations, we have determined the areas designated as
critical habitat are appropriate for conservation of the California
red-legged frog.
Comment (26): One commenter: (1) Stated that the designation as
proposed is essential for the proper protection of this species, and
(2) emphasized the importance of maintaining buffer zones around
wetland areas, and (3) agreed that the methodologies employed in the
designation were a practical means for determining the extent of the
critical habitat boundaries. The commenter stated that that
methodologies used would assist in protecting both the aquatic features
and habitat corridors between wetland features and thus allow the
necessary genetic exchange between populations.
Response: In accordance with 50 CFR 424.12, we designated critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available, after
taking into consideration the probable economic and other impacts of
making such a designation. In designating critical habitat, we
considered those physical and biological features that are essential to
the conservation of the California red-legged frog and that may require
special management considerations or
protection. We are not designating buffer zones around those features
we determined to be essential. An area we designate as critical habitat
is not a refuge or sanctuary for the species; it serves as a reminder
to Federal agencies that they must make special efforts to protect the
important characteristics of the areas designated. Listed species and
their habitats are protected by the Act whether or not they are in an
area designated as critical habitat.
Comment (27): One commenter stated that we should exclude all areas
being considered as part of the proposed Santa Clara Valley Habitat
Conservation Plan (SCVHCP) under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, because
the California red-legged frog is a covered species, an administrative
draft has been developed and released to the public, and the exclusion
would follow past Service practice in previous exclusions such as with
the East Contra Costa HCP.
Response: When considering the exclusion of areas that are covered
by conservation plans from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act, we must determine whether the benefits of such exclusion
outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical habitat.
Such exclusions are usually based on finalized management plans, HCPs,
or other documents that provide a high degree of assurance that
conservation measures will be implemented and effective for a
particular species and its habitat, and that those measures are more
beneficial than the designation of critical habitat. The current
information on the SCVHCP made available to stakeholders and resource
agencies consists of early administrative drafts and only portions of
the entire document. The information is not intended for public review
and comment and is not final documents. Because they are incomplete,
the documents have not gone through section 7 intra-Service
consultation regarding effects to endangered species. The Service's
current position is not to consider areas for exclusion that are
covered by draft conservation programs or plans. Draft documents and
their proposed conservation measures are subject to change. Without a
high degree of assurance that conservation measures will be implemented
and effective for a particular species and its habitat, we cannot
complete a meaningful analysis under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Comment (28): One commenter objected to the redefinition of
``occupied at the time of listing'' and said the redefinition was
arbitrary and capricious because the Service did not articulate its
rational for the change.
Response: In the previous final critical habitat designation, we
interpreted the ``occupied at time of listing'' standard to include
only those specific records mentioned in the final listing rule (61 FR
25813, May 23, 1996). The purpose of the listing rule is to identify
threats to a species and determine whether or not listing the species
under the Act is necessary. The final listing rule is not intended as a
complete listing of all specific locations where a species occurs. The
records identified in the final listing rule were not the only
locations where California red-legged frogs existed but only those
reported to scientific, higher education, or informational sources.
Other occupied areas outside those specifically mentioned in the final
listing rule existed for the frog. In this designation, we interpreted
occupancy ``at time of listing'' based on the dates of occurrence
records and life history of the California red-legged frog. For
example, if an occurrence was recorded after the 1996 listing, but we
could determine based on population size, demographics, and biological
factors that the population was most likely present at time of listing,
we considered that area to be occupied at the time of listing for this
designation of revised critical habitat. When determining occupancy, we
considered theories of metapopulation persistence, on-the-ground survey
data, and California red-legged frog longevity. Bulger et al. (2003,
pp. 85, 92) found that more than 75 percent of California red-legged
frogs are resident at permanent aquatic habitats over the course of a
year, thereby providing local population stability. Survey data
provided to us during the development of this and previous critical
habitat rules show an average persistence of 19 years for the
California red-legged frog populations. Additionally, the California
red-legged frog is considered long-lived, with a minimum longevity of
male and female California red-legged frogs of between 8 and 10 years,
respectively (Jennings et al. 1992, p. 3), which also contributes to
generational and metapopulation stability. By limiting our previous
designation to only those specific records identified in the listing
rule and using an overly narrow definition of occupancy at the time of
listing, we were not including many records which were identified
before 1996, or any records present but not specifically identified in
the listing rule. The process for designating critical habitat in this
rule is consistent with the standards required by our implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12 on using the best scientific data when
designating critical habitat.
Comment (29): One commenter stated that the elimination of the
upward boundary for upland habitat was arbitrary and capricious in that
it deferred designation of critical habitat to the consultation process
under section 7 of the Act.
Response: We did identify the upland distance surrounding aquatic
features within the current designation. The primary constituent
element (PCE 3), as identified in the 2006 final critical habitat
designation, limited the upland areas to 200 ft (60 m) from the water
feature. Based on new biological information on protecting breeding and
non-breeding aquatic features for the California red-legged frog and
movements of the frog between breeding and non-breeding habitat
(Fellers and Kleeman 2007, pp. 276-286), we have extended the upland
distance surrounding the breeding and non-breeding aquatic features. In
general, the upland habitat surrounding the aquatic breeding and non-
breeding habitat (PCEs 1 and 2) would be limited to 1 mile (1.6 km) in
most cases, depending on surrounding landscape and dispersal barriers.
Comment (30): One commenter stated that several units or portions
of units be removed from the designation because they are within
planned development areas as identified in County or City general plans
and these areas, according to the preamble of the proposed revised
critical habitat rule, should not be designated according to the
methodology used in determining the critical habitat boundaries. An
additional commenter stated that we should not remove areas of planned
development because arbitrarily removing these areas is not a valid
biological reason.
Response: We are basing this final designation of revised critical
habitat on the best scientific data available, after taking into
consideration the probable economic and other impacts of making such a
designation in accordance with our implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.19. As we state in the preamble of our 2008 proposed rule to revise
critical habitat (73 FR 53500), our methodology and the criteria we
used to determine the critical habitat boundaries were not intended to
exclude all planned development as identified in city, county, or
regional general plans. The methods and criteria we used to map areas
adjacent to development removed areas only if (1) they do not contain
sufficient PCEs to support one or more of the species' life processes,
or (2) they have low-quality PCEs because either
the area is highly degraded and is likely not restorable or the area is
small, highly fragmented, or isolated and may provide little or no
long-term conservation value. As a result, we do not believe it would
be appropriate to automatically exclude planned development areas from
the designation.
Comment (31): One commenter requested exclusion from the
designation of critical habitat in Unit SLO-4 between the town of Pozo
and the National Forest boundary south of Pozo. The commenter stated
that designation of critical habitat on private land can significantly
depreciate the value of the property, affecting the landowner's ability
to acquire operating capital. The commenter further stated that
designation of critical habitat can make habitat-enhancing projects
(i.e., water troughs and delivery systems) cost-prohibitive if it is
necessary to obtain permits for the projects, thereby discouraging
voluntary measures to enhance habitat for California red-legged frogs.
The commenter also expressed concerns with our assertion that the
Salinas River, near the town of Pozo, is occupied by California-red
legged frogs.
Response: Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as
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
protection. Our criteria for determining features essential to the
conservation of the species has been to target areas known to be
occupied by the California red-legged frog at the time of listing;
including those areas discovered to be occupied since the time of
listing; or known to possess high-quality habitat likely to be occupied
based on proximity to known occurrences, contiguous habitat, or
dispersal capabilities of the California red-legged frog. We included
large blocks of contiguous habitat that: (1) Provide geographic
distribution across the range of the species; (2) represent the full
range of habitat and environmental variability the species occupies;
(3) avoid conflict with existing commercial and residential
development; (4) focus on public land, where available; and (5) overlap
with other critical habitat designations, where possible.
As noted in the unit description for SLO-4 (see Final Critical
Habitat Designation section), this area was not known to be occupied at
the time of listing but is currently occupied. Based on life history
and population dynamics of the species we have determined that the area
was most likely occupied at the time of listing. The occurrence records
for California red-legged frogs in SLO-4 were generated from surveys
conducted according to Service protocol by the U.S. Forest Service in
1999. We have reviewed these records and consider them to be our best
available science. SLO-4 contains the following features that are
essential for the conservation of the species: aquatic habitat for
breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1 and PCE 2) and upland
habitat for foraging, dispersal activities, and shelter (PCE 3 and PCE
4). Also, as noted in the unit description, threats that may require
special management in this unit include predation by nonnative species
and habitat disturbance. Therefore, based on the criteria above, we
have designated SLO-4 as revised critical habitat in this rule.
We recognize that routine ranching activities may be beneficial to
the California red-legged frog. In 2006, we published a special rule
under the authority of section 4(d) of the Act containing the actions
and prohibitions necessary to provide for the conservation of the
California red-legged frog (50 CFR 17.43(d)). Under the special rule,
incidental take of the California red-legged frog is not a violation of
section 9 of the Act, if the incidental take results from routine
ranching activities located on private or Tribal lands. We believe that
this special rule will encourage landowners and ranchers operating on
non-Federal land to continue their livestock-related practices that are
important not only for livestock operations, but also for maintaining
or enhancing habitat for the California red-legged frog.
Comment (32): One commenter opposed the designation of the Hearst
Corporation's Jack Ranch property in Unit SLO-1. The commenter stated
that many areas on the portion of the Jack Ranch within SLO-1 are
extremely arid, would not support a California red-legged frog
population, and therefore do not meet the definition of critical
habitat. The commenter also argued that the Jack Ranch property does
not meet the definition of critical habitat because the property does
not require special management considerations or protection. The
commenter stated that the Jack Ranch has been responsibly managed for
over 40 years in a manner that has protected and benefited the various
natural habitats on the ranch. Alternatively, the commenter argued that
we should exclude the Jack Ranch property from critical habitat because
the benefits of excluding the ranch outweigh the benefits of including
it. The commenter asserted that as a result of the current ranch
management practices in place on the Jack Ranch, the various habitats
and species present on the ranch are generally flourishing and will
continue to benefit if these practices are allowed to continue. The
commenter argued that designating the ranch as critical habitat would
create regulatory uncertainty, impose economic burdens on the
landowner, and increase vulnerability to legal challenge that could
threaten the area's long-term viability as a working ranch.
Response: Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat, in
part, as the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of
section 4 of the Act, on which are found only those physical and
protection. Our strategy for determining features essential to the
conservation of the species was to target areas that are known to be
occupied by the California red-legged frog at the time of listing; that
we determined to be occupied since the time of listing; or that are
known to possess high-quality habitat likely to be occupied based on
proximity to known occurrences, being part of contiguous habitat, and
the dispersal capabilities of the California red-legged frog. We
included large blocks of contiguous habitat that:
(1) Provide geographic distribution across the range of the
species;
(2) Represent the full range of habitat and environmental
variability the species occupies;
development;
(4) Focus on public land, where available; and
(5) Overlap with other critical habitat designations, where
As noted in the unit description for SLO-1 (see ``Final Critical
Habitat Designation'' section), this area was known to be occupied by
California red-legged frogs at the time of listing, is currently
occupied, and contains the following features that are essential for
the conservation of the species: aquatic habitat for breeding and non-
breeding activities (PCE 1 and PCE 2) and upland habitat for foraging
and dispersal activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4). Also as noted in the unit
description, threats that may require special management in this unit
include: highway construction, which may remove upland or aquatic
habitat; overgrazing of aquatic and riparian habitats; and dewatering
aquatic habitats due to water diversions. Therefore, based on the
criteria above, occupancy at the time of listing, and the requirement
for special management, we have designated SLO-1 as critical habitat,
including a portion of the Jack Ranch property within SLO-1.
under the authority of section 4(d) of the Act to provide for the
conservation of the California red-legged frog (50 CFR 17.43(d)). The
special rule provides that incidental take of the California red-legged
frog will not be a violation of section 9 of the Act, if the incidental
take results from routine ranching activities located on private or
Tribal lands. We believe that this special rule will encourage
landowners and ranchers operating on non-Federal land to continue their
livestock-related practices that are important not only for livestock
operations, but also for maintaining or enhancing habitat for the
California red-legged frog.
Comment (33): One commenter was opposed to the designation of lands
in Unit SLO-2 in San Luis Obispo County that are covered under the
Hearst Ranch Conservation Easement (Easement) and Hearst Ranch San
Simeon Conservation Easement Management Plan (Plan). The commenter
asserted that California red-legged frogs occurring within the
boundaries of the Easement will be protected through specific measures
addressed in the Plan, and therefore, these lands either do not fall
within the definition of critical habitat contained in section 3 of the
Act or should be excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. In
addition, the commenter argued that designation of lands covered under
the Easement would discourage voluntary conservation initiatives on
private land.
Response: We recognize the importance of voluntary conservation
measures, such as the Hearst Ranch Easement and Plan, which provide
protections for California red-legged frogs and their habitat. The
Secretary has determined to exercise his discretion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude from critical habitat 34,777 ac (14,074
ha) of Easement lands that occur in Unit SLO-2. See the Exclusions
under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section for additional information.
Comment (34): One commenter commended our abandonment of methods
used in determining ``co-extensive'' costs in previous critical habitat
designations including the previous final designation for the
California red-legged frog (April 13, 2006, 71 FR 19244). The commenter
also commended the Service for refraining from claiming in the preamble
that the designation of critical habitat provides little additional
protection to most listed species and for refraining from statements
emphasizing primarily the ``limitations'' of any ``benefits of
designating'' an area as critical habitat and using this as a basis for
excluding areas from the designation. The commenter strongly urged the
Service to ``follow through with changes in interpretations and
procedures'' as found in the Federal Register notice for the proposed
designation (September 16, 2008, 73 FR 53491).
The commenter also pointed out several concerns with the DEA and
the proposed revised designation. The commenter stated that the DEA
does not appropriately focus on or address market impacts; stated that
the DEA is not transparent on whether the ancillary benefits of
designating critical habitat were appropriately analyzed; and that the
Service did not fairly account for the benefits and costs of
Response: We acknowledge that our past practice of including
language in the preamble to critical habitat designations stating a
policy position at that time was not the appropriate forum for doing so
and has not been conducive for facilitating the appropriate dialogue to
assist in the conservation of listed species. As stated earlier, we are
revising this and certain other designations because of inappropriate
influence of past Department of Interior personnel and have taken into
account the information reported by the General Accounting Office on
critical habitat and listing designations. Comments related to the
Economic analysis are addressed below.
Comments Related to the Economic Analysis
Comment (35): One commenter requested the exclusion based on
economic costs of an area in SOL-1 where a mining company plans to
expand its existing aggregate quarry.
Response: As described in section 10.2 of the final economic
analysis (FEA), we revised the report to include discussion of the
potential economic impacts to the proposed mining project. The company
states it is already working closely with Solano County and
representatives of the Service to develop appropriate mitigation
measures. The options under consideration are consistent with the types
of project modifications considered in the FEA. Because these
discussions are already underway, costs are attributed to the baseline
scenario. Additional impacts resulting from the designation of critical
habitat are not anticipated.
Comment (36): One commenter requested exclusion of a portion of an
existing aggregate quarry overlapping the southern portion of SOL-3
because it does not contain the PCEs and out of concern that the
designation may delay implementation of the ongoing reclamation
Response: As described in section 10.2 of the FEA, we revised the
report to include a discussion of this quarry site. The company has
already submitted a revised reclamation plan to Napa County, which
incorporates the results of a biological assessment. In addition, the
company is currently working with the County and the Service to develop
mitigation measures that will minimize the impact of the reclamation
operations on the California red-legged frog. Because the company is
already working with the Service, costs of efforts to protect the
California red-legged frog are attributed to the baseline scenario.
Given that the PCEs are not present at the site, delays due to the
designation of critical habitat are not anticipated.
Comment (37): Multiple commenters requested the exclusion of
specific private properties in SLO-1, SLO-2, SLO-3, and SOL-4, based on
the assumption that the designation will trigger land use restrictions
limiting current ranching and farming practices, and in SLO-2, that the
designation will create barriers to future uses of the land for
development or agricultural purposes.
Response: The commenters do not provide information about the types
of farming and ranching activities taking place on these properties. As
described in Chapters 6 and 7 of the FEA, this analysis relies upon the
California Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program (FMMP) to identify active crop farming and grazing land within
the study area as of 2006. According to the FMMP, the private
properties identified by these commenters are classified primarily as
grazing lands with a small portion of the properties classified as
agricultural lands. For property identified as agricultural lands,
these areas are included in the analysis of impacts to agricultural
activities presented in Chapter 6. For areas identified in these
private properties as grazing lands, as described in Chapter 7, this
analysis assumes that ranchers will likely be subject to restrictions
on the use of 66 named active ingredients. However,
according to discussions with representatives of the Agricultural
Commissioner offices in several counties, the impact of the use
restrictions to date have been relatively minor, as herbicides are only
used to treat noxious weeds through spot application. To further
minimize the impact of the restrictions, some Agricultural Commissioner
offices are also working with affected ranchers to identify alternative
herbicides not subject to restrictions. Accordingly, while ranchers may
be affected by California red-legged frog related herbicide use
restrictions, the nature of the use of herbicides by ranchers is likely
to vary depending on the specific ranching operation, and the economic
impacts of any resulting herbicide use restrictions are expected to be
minor.
In addition to existing ranching activities, one of the commenters
notes that approximately 300 ac (121 ha) of the private property
located in SLO-2 are allocated for development. The commenter does not
provide specific information about plans for future residential or
commercial development of the property. As described in Chapter 4 of
the FEA, this analysis relies on local planning authorities for
estimates of the number of housing units projected to be built by 2030
in the study area. In San Luis Obispo County, this analysis relies upon
data from the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG). As shown
in Exhibit 4-4, in SLO-2 this analysis forecasts the development of 241
ac (98 ha). Baseline impacts associated with consideration of the
California red-legged frog and its habitat are estimated in this unit
to be $14.6 million to $58.0 million and incremental impacts are
estimated to be $3.9 million to $16.4 million, assuming a seven percent
discount rate.
Comment (38): Several commenters requested the exclusion of a
private property in CAL-1 engaged in ranching activities, based on the
assumption that the designation will trigger (1) land use restrictions
by local agencies limiting current ranching practices, (2) devaluation
of the property as a result of barriers to urban development, and (3)
additional costs should the landowner chose to convert a portion of
their property to agricultural uses.
Response: The private property identified by the commenter is
approximately 1,094 ac (443 ha) in size, of which 247 ac (100 ha) is
proposed for critical habitat designation in CAL-1. As described in
Chapter 7, this analysis assumes that ranchers will likely be subject
to restrictions on the use of 66 named active ingredients. However,
Commissioner offices in several counties, the impact of these
restrictions have been relatively minor, as herbicides are only used to
treat noxious weeds through spot application. To further minimize the
impact of the restrictions, some Agricultural Commissioner offices are
also working with affected ranchers to identify alternative herbicides
not subject to restrictions. Accordingly, while ranchers may be
affected by California red-legged frog related herbicide use
minor..
The commenter does not provide specific information about plans for
future residential or commercial development of the property. As
described in Chapter 4 of the FEA, this analysis relies on local
planning authorities for estimates of the number of housing units
projected to be built by 2030 in the study area. In Calaveras County,
this analysis relies upon growth projections obtained from Applied
Geographic Solutions (AGS), which develops forecasts of population and
households at the census tract level for the entire state of California
through the year 2018. Growth through 2030 was projected linearly. As
shown in Exhibit 4-4, in CAL-1 this analysis forecasts the development
of 300 ac (121 ha). Baseline impacts to development activities in CAL-1
associated with the consideration of the California red-legged frog and
its habitat are estimated to be $2.6 million to $7.6 million and
incremental impacts are estimated to be $2.1 million to $7.0 million,
assuming a seven percent discount rate.
There could also be additional property value losses if the
landowner is not able to develop portions of the property for
agricultural purposes. In that case, those losses may not be captured
because this property was not identified as agricultural lands. Without
additional information on plans for future agricultural development of
this property, data are not readily available to estimate potential
future losses.
Comment (39): One commenter states that the DEA fails to analyze
the socio-economic and cumulative impacts related to agriculture. The
commenter anticipates economic impacts stemming from the loss of
agricultural acreage in production, the loss of jobs, and reductions in
food and fiber production, and from negative impacts to local
communities, among other losses.
Response: As described in Section 6.5 of the FEA, we revised the
analysis to include the regional economic impacts expected to result
from the implementation of no-pesticide use areas for 66 pesticide
ingredients in the study area. The estimated baseline impact of a loss
16,519 ac (6,685 ha) from agricultural production to the study area in
an average year is approximately $103.3 million and approximately 2,062
jobs. The estimated impact of an incremental loss 7,286 ac (2,949 ha)
from agricultural production to the study area in an average year is
approximately $23.8 million and approximately 404 jobs. Detailed
information on direct, indirect, and induced impacts, including job
losses, is provided in Chapter 6 of the FEA.
Comment (40): The Small Business Administration (SBA) submitted a
comment recommending the Service exercise its discretion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude the agricultural acres of small business-
owned farmland that the DEA expects to be taken out of agricultural
Response: As described in Chapter 6 and Appendix A of the FEA, we
revised the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) to
incorporate refined geographic data on active farming lands in the
study area. Specifically, this analysis relies upon the Farmland
Mapping & Monitoring Program (FMMP) to identify active crop farming and
grazing lands, including a newer data set maintained internally by the
FMMP, that resulted in the reclassification of a significant number of
cropped acres within the study area as grazing lands. The number of
cropped agricultural area incrementally affected decreased from 29,413
ac (11,903 ha) in the first DEA (dated March 3, 2009) to 7,286 ac
(2,949 ha) in the FEA.
We also revised the methodology used to estimate the number of
small farms affected in each county. Small businesses in crop
production (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
subsectors 1111, 1112, and 1113) are defined by SBA as having annual
revenues less than $750,000 (hereinafter referred to as ``small
farms''). Ideally this analysis would rely on geographic data to
identify the size of farms within the study area and the percentage of
a farm's total harvested acres potentially removed from agricultural
production as a result of the pesticide use restriction. However such
geographic data are not readily available.
As described in section A.1.3 of the FEA, in the absence of this
information, this analysis uses publically-available Census data to
estimate the probability
that incrementally affected acres are located on small farms and the
percent of cropland harvested by ``small farms.'' This approach yields
a lower-bound estimate of the total number of small farms affected in
the study area of 198. Worst-case annualized incremental impacts are
anticipated to range between $500 and $168,000 per farm.
Comment (40): One commenter stated that the Service's failure to
evaluate the economic benefits of the rule is inconsistent with
administrative guidance and widely accepted professional standards.
Further, the commenter stated that the economic benefits of protecting
critical habitat for the California red-legged frog probably outweigh
the costs and are too substantial to downplay or ignore. The commenter
concludes that the Service should devote equal effort to identifying
and accounting for categories of benefits relative to the rigor devoted
to identifying costs.
Response: In the context of a critical habitat designation, the
primary purpose of the rulemaking (i.e., the direct benefit) is to
designate areas in need of special management that are essential to the
conservation of listed species. While a listed species may be the
primary beneficiary of designated critical habitat, the Act is clear
that it is the policy of the Federal government to provide a means
whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species
depend are conserved. By extension, therefore, benefits must somehow
also accrue to society from a designation or else Congress would not
have included this provision in the Act. The designation of critical
habitat may result in two distinct categories of benefits to society:
(1) use; and (2) non-use benefits. Use benefits are simply the social
benefits that accrue from the physical use of a resource. Visiting
critical habitat to see endangered species in their natural habitat
would be a primary example. Non-use benefits, in contrast, represent
welfare gains from ``just knowing that a particular listed species'
natural habitat is being specially managed for the survival and
recovery of that species.'' Both use and non-use benefits may occur
unaccompanied by any market transactions.
A primary reason for conducting the economic analysis is to provide
information regarding the economic impacts associated with a proposed
critical habitat designation. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the
Secretary to designate critical habitat based on the best scientific
data available after taking into consideration the economic impact, and
any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as
critical habitat. Economic impacts can be both positive and negative
and by definition, are observable through market transactions.
While the Act requires the specific consideration of the economic
impact of a designation, it does not require the Service to explicitly
consider any broader social benefits (or costs) that may be associated
with the designation. In fact, the Service believes that this is by
Congressional design because the Act explicitly states up front that it
is the Federal government's policy to conserve all threatened and
endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. While
section 4(b)(2) of the Act gives the Secretary discretion to exclude
certain areas from the final designation, he is authorized to do so
only if an exclusion does not result in the extinction of the species.
Thus, the Service believes that explicit consideration of broader
social values for the species and its habitat, beyond economic impacts,
is not necessary as Congress has already clarified the importance our
society places on conserving all threatened and endangered species and
their natural habitats upon which they depend. In terms of carrying out
its responsibilities under section 4(b)(2) then, the Service need only
to consider whether the economic impacts are significant enough to
merit exclusion of any particular area without causing the species to
go extinct.
To support the claim that the benefits of designating critical
habitat for the frog probably outweigh the costs, the commenter
provides examples of other situations and environmental regulations
where studies have shown that the benefits exceed costs. However, this
evidence does not support a conclusion that the same is true in this
instance. If environmental regulation always resulted in net benefits,
there would be no need to conduct economic analyses.
Finally, no guidance or executive order requires Federal agencies
to spend equal effort estimating the benefits and costs of regulations.
Specifically, OMB's Circular A-4 states (p. 26-27), ``some important
benefits and costs...may be inherently too difficult to quantify or
monetize given current data and methods''. Chapter 13 of the FEA
describes qualitatively the types of benefits that may result from the
designation of critical habitat, including open space benefits,
improved water quality, aesthetic benefits, flood control, improved
soil productivity, and regional economic benefits if increased
visitation results from the former benefits. To quantify these
benefits, information about the current environmental quality of the
habitat (e.g., current concentration of pollutants in waterways,
current capacity of the habitat to absorb flood waters, current
productivity of the soil) is necessary as a starting point. In
addition, ecological and hydrologic models are necessary to understand
how conservation measures such as reduced pesticide use will change the
concentration of contaminants in the relative waterways. Most of these
data and models are not readily available, preventing the
quantification of benefits at this time.
Comment (41): One commenter states that in its estimate of the
costs imposed on development activities, the DEA does not consider
offsetting positive market impacts, particularly in areas outside of
the designation. Specifically, the commenter states that the Service
mistakenly reports the gross, rather than net, costs of critical
habitat designation.
Response: We considered the potential for shifts in the market that
would offset the costs experienced by existing landowners and
developers within the proposed designation and concluded that
measurable offsetting gains to homeowners, developers, or landowners
are unlikely. As discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the FEA,
anticipated costs to landowners and developers include the
administrative costs to consult with the Service or to comply with the
California Environmental Quality Act, the costs of conservation
measures, and opportunity costs associated with delays in development
schedules. Anticipated conservation measures include on-site or off-
site habitat restoration and the preservation of off-site habitat
through the acquisition of mitigation banking credits (see section
4.7.2 of the FEA).
If adequate substitutes for areas projected for development are
available, developers are likely to avoid areas of critical habitat and
to develope substitute sites instead. Thus, existing owners of land
parcels that would have been developed absent critical habitat
experience a devaluation of their property equivalent to the additional
costs that would have been incurred by the developers to conserve the
California red-legged frog. As described in section 4.3 of the FEA, of
the 1,252,096 ac (506,706 ha) of private land within the proposed
designation, only 5,746 ac (2,325 ha), or less than one percent, of
this land is anticipated to be developed within the next 22 years. In
the 20 affected counties, the number of affected acres (hectares)
ranges from 2 ac (0.8 ha) to 1,034 ac (418 ha), with an average of 287
ac (116 ha) affected per
county. Given the relatively small number of affected acres relative to
the size of the affected counties (hundreds of thousands to millions of
acres), the availability of suitable substitutes is likely.
It is possible that the value of land at substitute sites outside
of critical habitat may increase; however, where many substitutes are
available, the marginal increase is likely small. Furthermore,
quantification of such increases requires significant additional data
describing the geographic characteristics of alternatives and
construction of complex, general equilibrium economic models of the
markets for raw land in each county. Finally, no reduction in the
number of new houses is anticipated. Developers will either move to
substitute locations or implement the project modifications, which do
not include conserving habitat on-site. Thus, measurable consumer
surplus gains in the market for existing houses, and consumer surplus
losses in the market for new housing, are not anticipated.
Finally, we note that Quigley and Swoboda (2007, pp. 299-318)
specifically addressed these issues in the context of critical habitat,
and found that consideration of additional losses and gains to
landowners and homeowners outside of critical habitat but within the
same market is likely to result in higher, rather than lower overall
cost estimates.
Comment (42): One commenter stated that they could not identify
clear evidence that the Service estimated ancillary benefits that are
measurable in markets through shifts in resource allocation, as
suggested in Chapter 2 of the DEA. Specifically, the commenter states
that habitat protection for an aquatic species such as the California
red-legged frog may enhance water quality or quantity, resulting in
avoided costs associated with treatment facilities or other water-
supply-related infrastructure. The commenter cites, as an example, a
study of such benefits resulting from restoring high-quality watersheds
in Portland, Oregon.
Response: Assessment of the potential changes in the costs
associated with treatment facilities or other water-supply-related
infrastructure first requires an understanding of current water
quality. In addition, complex fate and transport models of contaminants
and sediments are necessary to calculate the change in water quality
likely to result from the implementation of conservation activities
(e.g., pesticide use restrictions, habitat restoration) protecting
critical habitat. Finally, engineering cost models of alternative
treatment technologies are necessary to estimate the incremental cost
savings associates with a change in water quality. Most of these data
and models are not readily available; thus, the potential offsetting
benefit of reduced water treatment costs cannot be quantified or
monetized at this time.
Summary of Changes from the 2006 Critical Habitat Designation to the
2008 Proposed Rule to Revise Critical Habitat
In the proposed revised and final revised designation of critical
habitat for the California red-legged frog, we determined that it would
be appropriate to complete our analysis of critical habitat without
using the 2006 final critical habitat designation as a base from which
to make changes due to the involvement of Department of the Interior
personnel that may have inappropriately influenced the extent and
locations of critical habitat designated in our previous final
determination. As a result of this unrestricted analysis, the amount
and distribution of final critical habitat has increased over the 2006
final critical habitat designation and better represents those areas
that contain the features essential to the conservation of the species.
In the 2006 final critical habitat designation for the California
red-legged frog (71 FR 19281; April 13, 2006), we excluded all Forest
Service lands managed under the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment
(SNFPA) under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We based this decision on the
conservation benefits to the frog outlined in the SNFPA. In the
proposed revised critical habitat designation issued on September 16,
2008 (73 FR 53491) we asked for public comment regarding the exclusion
of these lands from the designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act
and whether the SNFPA was an appropriate mechanism for exclusion.
Although the SNFPA addresses the California red-legged frog in Chapter
4, and states generally that the ``species parameters are similar to
those applicable to other areas of California'' (USDA 2004, pp. 234-
239), no details are given as to what specific conservation measures
would be implemented and how these measures would benefit the
California red-legged frog. The SNFPA does state that the preferred
alternative is to limit streambank disturbance to 10 percent of any
reach within critical aquatic refuges and the SNFPA does limit
streambank disturbance to 20 percent of any reach in general. Again
these measures are not specific to identify how and where these
measures will be implemented and how they will benefit the California
red-legged frog. Consequently, we are not exercising our discretion to
exclude Forest Service lands from the final designation because the
SNFPA not including specific measures to protect and conserve the
California red-legged frog and its habitat.
In the 2006 final critical habitat designation, we also excluded
the entire critical habitat unit CAL-1 from Calaveras County,
California, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We based this decision on
the actions of a single private landowner who has been managing for the
frog on their property and who has been encouraging additional
landowners to join efforts to conserve the frog. Since our publication
of the proposed revised designation of critical habitat in September
2008 (73 FR 53491), we held a public meeting to discuss the revised
proposal in San Andreas, California on October 30, 2008, and to answer
questions regarding the Unit CAL-1. Shortly after the meeting we were
approached by several private landowners within the unit that are
willing to work with us on potentially developing conservation efforts
for the frog on their lands. We are also working with the County of
Calaveras on developing a Habitat Conservation Plan for the California
red-legged frog and other listed or sensitive species in the county.
However, we have not been able to finalize a HCP or other management
plans to assure development and implementation of conservation measures
and protection for the California red-legged frog or its habitat. As a
result we are not excluding the lands within Unit CAL-1 from the
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
In the 2008 proposed revised designation, we used the recovery plan
for the California red-legged frog (Service 2002, pp. 1-173) as part of
our criteria. Specifically, we used the 34 core areas described in the
recovery plan to focus our efforts on where to designate critical
habitat. We attempted to include areas in this critical habitat
designation from those 34 core areas that contain those physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of the species, that
were unique habitat types for the species, that were a representation
of the species' geographic range within each core area, and that were
most appropriate for conservation of the species across its current
range. When determining critical habitat, we included areas that met
the definition of critical habitat and that maximized the potential for
the conservation of the species, and we attempted to avoid potential
with development. As a result, we included several new areas within the
species' current range as final revised critical habitat. We did not
designate areas adjacent to development (i.e., planned development
areas) if we determined that the areas do not contain sufficient PCEs
to support one or more of the species' life processes, or that the
areas have low-quality PCEs because either the area is highly degraded
and is likely not restorable or the area is small, highly fragmented,
or isolated and may provide little or no long-term conservation value.
As a result, designations adjacent to highly developed areas are
``pulled-back'' to areas that are more biologically defensible and less
likely to be affected by anthropogenic activities. We did not exercise
our discretion to exclude areas from the designation based solely on
planned development.
In the proposed revised critical habitat we also included a new
unit in the Sierra Nevada (Unit PLA-1); bringing the total number of
units in the designation to six for the Sierra Nevada region.
In the 2006 final critical habitat designation, we interpreted the
``occupied at time of listing'' standard to include only those specific
records mentioned in the final listing rule (May 23, 1996; 61 FR
25813). The records identified in the final listing rule were not the
only locations where California red-legged frogs existed; rather, the
final listing rule identified only those records reported to
scientific, higher education, or informational sources. Other occupied
areas outside those specifically mentioned in the final listing rule
existed for the California red-legged frog. In this final revised
designation, we interpreted ``occupied at time of listing'' based on
the dates of occurrence records and life history of the California red-
legged frog. For example, if an occurrence was recorded after the 1996
listing, but we could determine based on population size, demographics,
and biological factors that the population was most likely present at
the time of listing just not specifically recorded, we would consider
the area as occupied at the time of listing for this final revised
critical habitat designation. When determining occupancy, we considered
metapopulation dynamics, population persistence, on-the-ground survey
pp. 85, 92) found more than 75 percent of California red-legged frogs
are resident at permanent aquatic habitats over the course of a year,
thereby providing local population stability. Survey data provided to
us during the development of this and previous critical habitat rules
show an average persistence of 19 years for California red-legged frog
populations. Additionally, the California red-legged frog is considered
long-lived, with a minimum longevity of male and female California red-
legged frogs of between 8 and 10 years, respectively (Jennings et al.
1992, p. 3), which also contributes to generational and metapopulation
stability.
In the 2006 rule, we only focused on designating those areas that
contain large numbers and concentrations of occurrence records. In this
final revised critical habitat designation we focused on occurrence
records as well as on areas adjacent to the occurrences that we
determined are essential or contain the features essential to the
conservation of the species.
We revised the primary constituent element that described the
upland habitat surrounding water features (PCE 3). The PCE in the 2006
rule limits the upland areas to 200 ft (60 m) from a water feature.
Based on new biological information on protecting breeding and non-
breeding aquatic features for the California red-legged frog and
movements of the California red-legged frog between breeding and non-
breeding habitat (Fellers and Kleeman 2007, pp. 276-286), we decided
that such determinations should be made on a case-by-case basis and
removed the specific distance surrounding each individual water
feature. In general, the upland habitat surrounding the aquatic
breeding and non-breeding habitat (PCEs 1 and 2) would be limited to 1
mi (1.6 km) in most cases, depending on surrounding landscape and
dispersal barriers. The 1 mi (1.6 km) distance is also the distance
used in the Service's site assessment and survey guidelines used in
analyses under section 7 and section 10 of the Act for consultation
purposes and allows for a better evaluation of habitat use and
characteristics of a given area by the frog (Service 2005, pp. 1-26).
In the 2008 proposed revised critical habitat designation we
included a new area in Mendocino County (Unit MEN-1) based on new
genetic information on the northern coastal range of the species
(Shaffer et al. 2004, pp. 2667-2677). The intent of the new unit was to
capture habitat that would represent the northern extent of the species
along the northern California coast. The occurrence information was
based on CNDDB records (CNDDB 2008).
Summary of Changes from the 2008 Proposed Rule
On September 16, 2008, we proposed revised critical habitat for the
California red-legged frog comprising a total of 1,804,865 ac (730,402
ha) (73 FR 53491). This final revised critical habitat designation
includes approximately 1,681,938 ac (680,656 ha) in 27 California
counties in 48 units, after refining areas based on public comment and
excluding approximately 121,927 ac (49,746 ha) under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act (see Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below
for a detailed discussion).
In the 2008 proposed revised critical habitat designation, we
included an area in Mendocino County (Unit MEN-1) as a result of
(Shaffer et al. 2004, pp. 2667-2677). We revised the boundary of this
unit in the Federal Register document announcing the availability of
the draft economic analysis on the proposed revised designation of
critical habitat (74 FR 19184; April 28, 2009). The revised Unit MEN-1
included approximately 26,875 ac (10,876 ha), a change of an additional
2,970 ac (1,202 ha) of critical habitat within this unit from the 2008
proposed revised designation. We revised Unit MEN-1 to better reflect
new species occurrence data within the area and the habitat surrounding
those records. On further review of the unit in this final revised
designation, we have adjusted the boundaries to include only known
California red-legged frog records or hybrid records genetically
comprised mostly (50 percent or greater) of the California red-legged
frog. This percentage was chosen because research on the exact boundary
between the two species has not yet been determined and we wanted to
avoid designating critical habitat in areas solely populated by the
northern red-legged frog (Rana aurora). By choosing such a percentage
we are ensuring that the designated unit is comprised mostly of pure
California red-legged frogs. The unit currently includes the habitat
from Manchester State Beach south to Riverside Road. Unit MEN-1
represents the northern extent of the California red-legged frog within
the North Coast of California and likely represents a unique genetic
component of the species.
In response to public comments and site visits by Service staff, we
reevaluated the boundaries of Unit CAL-1 to assess the available
habitat within the area and the locations used by the California red-
legged frog. As a result, we revised the extent of the unit and removed
those areas that we determined
do not contain the physical and biological features essential for
conservation of the California red-legged frog or that are part of the
watershed not likely used by the species.
The Secretary also exercised his discretion to exclude several
areas from the designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act due to
potential impacts on national security (see Application of Section
4(b)(2) - Impacts to National Security section for further discussion)
and the Department of Defense's efforts to conserve the California red-
legged frog on their military installations. These areas include:
Vandenberg Air Force Base (24,913 ac (10,090 ha)) (Units STB-2 and STB-
4) and Camp San Luis Obispo (5,612 ac (2,271 ha)) (Unit SLO-3). The
Secretary further exercised his discretion to exclude several other
areas either based on existing management plans or HCPs that
specifically identify and implement measures to conserve and protect
the California red-legged frog and its habitat. These areas include:
Bonnie Doon Quarries Settlement Ponds HCP, Santa Cruz County (6 ac (3
ha)) (Unit SCZ-1); East Contra Costa HCP/NCCP, Contra Costa County
(75,767 ac (30,662 ha)) (Unit CCS-2); Western Riverside Multi-species
HCP, Riverside County (4,069 ac (1,647 ha)) (Unit RIV-1); East Bay
Regional Park District lands, Contra Costa County (14,627 ac (5,919
ha)) (Unit CCS-2); Hearst Ranch lands, San Luis Obispo County (34,777
ac (14,074 ha)) (Unit SLO-2); and Spivey Pond Management Area (BLM), El
Dorado County (54 ac (22 ha)) (Unit ELD-1). See the section Exclusions
Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act for further discussion.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) essential to the conservation of the species and
(b) that may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means the use
of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring any
endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided under 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, transplantation, and in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot otherwise be
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out, funding,
or authorizing the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires consultation on Federal
actions that may affect critical habitat. The designation of critical
habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such
designation does not allow the government or public to access private
lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration,
recovery, or enhancement measures by private landowners. Where a
landowner requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an
action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the
consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply,
but even in the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding,
the landowner's obligation is not to restore or recover the species,
but to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, habitat within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed
must contain the physical and biological features that are essential to
the conservation of the species, and be included only if those features
may require special management considerations or protection. Critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific data available, habitat areas that provide essential life-
cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which are found the primary
constituent elements laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial
arrangement essential to the conservation of the species).
Under the Act, we can designate an area outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time of listing as critical habitat
only when we determine that the best available scientific data
demonstrate that the designation of that area is essential for the
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 to designate as revised
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information developed during the listing process for the species.
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and
studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished materials and
expert opinion or personal knowledge.
Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to
another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of
critical habitat may not include all habitat areas that we may
eventually determine, based on scientific data not now available to the
Service, are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these
reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat
outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be required for
recovery of the species.
Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation
actions we implement under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. They are also
subject to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2)
jeopardy standard, as determined on the basis of the best available
scientific information at the time of the Federal agency action.
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy
findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made
on the basis of the best available information at the time of
designation will not control
the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat
conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning
efforts if information available at the time of these planning efforts
calls for a different outcome.
Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs)
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and the
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to
designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species that may require
special management considerations or protection to be the PCEs laid out
in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement essential to the
conservation of the species. These include, but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific PCEs required for the California red-legged
frog from its biological needs as described below; in the Background
section of this final rule; in the proposed revised critical habitat
designation (73 FR 53491; September 16, 2008); and in the final listing
rule (61 FR 25813; May 23, 1996).
Aquatic Breeding Habitat
Aquatic breeding habitat is essential for providing space, food,
and cover necessary to sustain all aquatic life stages of the
California red-legged frog. It consists of low-gradient fresh water
bodies, including natural and manmade (e.g., stock) ponds, backwaters
within streams and creeks, marshes, lagoons, and dune ponds. It does
not include deep lacustrine water habitat (e.g., deep lakes and
reservoirs 50 ac (20 ha) or larger in size).
To be considered essential breeding habitat, the aquatic feature
must have the capability to hold water for a minimum of 20 weeks in all
but the driest of years. This is the approximate amount of time needed
for egg and tadpole development and metamorphosis so that juveniles can
become capable of surviving in upland habitats (Storer 1925, pp. 242-
243; Wright and Wright 1949, p. 418; Jennings 1988, p. 63). Drying of
the aquatic habitat after that time can be beneficial because it helps
prevent the establishment of predators such as fish in the family
Centrarchidae (bass), mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis), or bullfrogs
(Lithobates catesbeianus) (Hayes and Jennings 1988, p. 152; Cook 1997,
pp. ii, iii, 17-19; Scott 1998, p. 3; Lawler et al. 1999, pp. 613-622;
Frost et al. 2006, p. 369; Cook and Jennings 2007, p. 438; Crother et
al. 2008, p. 7). Water quality requirements for eggs and tadpoles
include low salinity (below 4.5 parts per thousand (ppt) for eggs; up
to 7.0 ppt for tadpoles) (Jennings and Hayes 1990, pp. 18, 19; Jennings
1994, p. 1), and temperatures below about 73 degrees Fahrenheit (23
degrees Celsius) (Cook 1997, p. 16; Nussbaum et al. 1983, p. 160).
Water bodies free of bullfrogs and nonnative predatory fish are
optimal, but California red-legged frog populations can persist in the
presence of one or the other of these predators (Kiesecker and
Blaustein 1998, pp. 776, 782; Lawler et al. 1999, pp. 613, 619-621;
Cook and Jennings 2007, p. 438).
Adult California red-legged frogs can survive in moist upland areas
after breeding habitat has dried, and can live up to 8 to 10 years to
make new breeding attempts. Therefore, aquatic breeding habitat need
not be available every year, but it must be available at least once
within the frog's lifespan for breeding to occur. In addition, the
aquatic features must have appropriate hydroperiods (ponded habitat
during the appropriate aquatic phase of the species) in order to
maintain a California red-legged frog population during most years.
Without aquatic breeding habitats, the California red-legged frog would
not survive, reproduce, develop juveniles, and grow into adult
California red-legged frogs that can complete their life cycles.
Non-Breeding Aquatic and Riparian Habitat
Non-breeding aquatic and riparian habitat is essential for
providing the space, food, and cover necessary to sustain the
California red-legged frog. Non-breeding aquatic habitat consists of
shallow (non-lacustrine) freshwater features not suitable as breeding
habitat, such as streams, small seeps, and ponds that dry too quickly
to support breeding. Riparian habitat consists of vegetation growing
nearby, but not typically in, a body of water on which it depends, and
usually extends from the bank of a pond or stream to the margins of the
associated floodplain.
Other non-breeding aquatic features that the California red-legged
frog is known to use include locations such as moist cracks at the
bottom of dried ponds, seeps, springs, intermittent streams, and small
ponds. Cracks in the bottom of dried ponds are used as refugia to
maintain moisture and avoid heat and solar exposure (Alvarez 2004, p.
162). Fellers and Kleeman (2007, p. 279) found that most California
red-legged frogs leave their breeding habitat once breeding is
completed and disperse to non-breeding aquatic habitat locations such
as those listed above. Without these non-breeding aquatic features, the
California red-legged frog would not be able to survive drought periods
or disperse to other breeding habitat.
Upland Habitat
Upland habitats associated with riparian and aquatic habitat are
essential to maintain California red-legged frog populations. This
habitat type provides food and shelter sites for the California red-
legged frog and assists in maintaining the integrity of aquatic sites
by protecting them from disturbance and supporting the normal functions
of the aquatic habitat. Upland habitat associated with occupied wetland
habitat often contains blackberry (Rubus spp.), poison oak
(Toxicodendron diversilobum), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), oaks
(Quercus sp.), grasses, and other upland species, and serves as
foraging habitat and provides shelter from predatory species (Service
2002, pp. 12-14; Fellers and Kleeman 2007, pp. 276-277).
Upland habitat that contains the features essential to the
conservation of the species consists of natural areas near the edge of
the riparian vegetation or the edge of the watershed boundary, and
includes the dispersal corridor between breeding and non-breeding
aquatic habitat. This is based on the dispersal capabilities of the
species (see the Dispersal Habitat section below), and research
identifying the use of upland areas by the species (Rathbun et al.
1993, pp. 15, 16; Bulger et al. 2003, pp. 93, 94; Tatarian 2004, pp.
24, 25; Fellers and Kleeman 2007, p. 279). Tatarian (2004, p. 22) found
the California red-legged frog inhabiting upland areas for 50 days at a
distance of 302 ft (92 m) from aquatic habitat; Bulger et al. (2003,
pp. 87, 88) found that the species is capable of inhabiting upland
habitats within 200 ft (60 m) of aquatic habitat for continuous
durations exceeding 20 days; and Rathbun et al. (1993, pp. 15, 16)
observed California red-legged frogs inhabiting upland riparian habitat
for durations up to 77 days. California red-
legged frogs often disperse from their breeding habitat to forage and
seek suitable upland habitat if aquatic habitat is not available.
As stated above in the Background section, the California red-
legged frog is documented to disperse from ponds and streams a distance
over 2.0 mi (3.2 km) (Bulger et al. 2003, p. 90). However, based on a
review of the most current literature and information gathered in
development of the recovery plan and subsequent critical habitat
designations for the species, we determined that the 2.0-mi (3.2-km)
distance is near the maximum dispersal distance for the species during
a single season, and that the 1-mi (1.6-km) distance is more reflective
of the average dispersal distance for the California red-legged frog
(Rathbun et al. 1993, pp. 15, 16; Wright 1999, pp. 1, 2; Bulger et al.
2003, p. 90; Tatarian 2004, table 9; Fellers and Kleeman 2005, pp. 14-
16; Fellers and Kleeman 2007, pp. 276-286). In addition, upland habitat
features will influence California red-legged frog movements in a
particular landscape. For example, in an area that contains a riparian
habitat surrounded by drier chaparral habitat you would expect the frog
to avoid movements into the drier habitat and to use the riparian area
as a corridor for movement. Based on the landscape characteristics
within the species' range and the species' reported dispersal
capabilities, the upland habitat surrounding the aquatic breeding and
non-breeding habitat (PCEs 1 and 2) would be limited to 1 mi (1.6 km)
in most cases depending on surrounding landscape and dispersal
barriers.
Upland habitat used by the California red-legged frog includes
structures that provide shade, moisture, and cooler temperatures. These
structures may be natural, such as the spaces under boulders or rocks
and organic debris (e.g., downed trees or logs), or they could be
manmade, such as construction debris or agricultural features (e.g.,
concrete blocks, drains, watering troughs, spring boxes, abandoned
sheds, stacks of hay or other vegetation). The California red-legged
frogs will also use small mammal burrows and moist leaf litter as
refugia (Jennings and Hayes 1994, p. 64; Fellers and Kleeman 2005, p.
Dispersal Habitat
Dispersal habitat provides connectivity among California red-legged
frog breeding (and associated upland) habitat patches. While the
California red-legged frog can pass many obstacles, and does not
require a particular type of habitat for dispersal, the habitat
connecting breeding locations and other aquatic habitat must be free of
barriers that prevent California red-legged frogs from dispersing.
Designated dispersal habitat consists of upland and riparian
habitat contiguous with breeding and non-breeding aquatic habitat that
is free of barriers, and connects two or more patches of aquatic
habitat within 1 mi (1.6 km) of one another. Dispersal barriers include
heavily traveled roads (Vos and Chardon 1998, pp. 44, 54; Glista et al.
2008, pp. 81-82) that possess no bridges or culverts, moderate- to
high-density urban or industrial developments with large expanses of
asphalt or concrete that do not contain the PCEs or features essential
to conservation of the species, and large lakes or reservoirs over 50
ac (20 ha). Agricultural lands such as row crops, orchards, vineyards,
and pastures do not constitute barriers to California red-legged frog
dispersal.
The California red-legged frog is documented to travel as far as
2.2 mi (3.6 km) from non-breeding to breeding habitats (Bulger et al.
2003, p. 90). These long-distance movements are likely migrations
rather than use of corridors for moving between habitats (Scott and
Rathbun 1998, pp. 2, 3). Additionally, these movements occur with
apparent disregard to topography, vegetation type, or riparian
corridors (Bulger et al. 2003, pp. 93, 94; Fellers and Kleeman 2005,
pp. 15, 16). Based on our review of the best scientific data available,
we conclude that 2.2 mi (3.6 km) is likely near the upward limit of
dispersal capability for the California red-legged frog within a single
season and that a 1-mi (1.6-km) dispersal distance will, in most
instances, provide for connectivity between breeding aquatic habitats,
non-breeding aquatic habitats, and areas of non-aquatic (i.e., upland)
habitat and can be used as a general guide for habitat use (Rathbun et
al. 1993, pp. 15, 16; Wright 1999, pp. 1, 2; Bulger et al. 2003, p. 90;
Tatarian 2004, table 9; Fellers and Kleeman 2005, pp. 14-16; Fellers
and Kleeman 2007, pp. 276-286). However, we also concur with Fellers
and Kleeman (2007, p. 279) in that the exact extent of habitat use by
the California red-legged frog is influenced by habitat availability
and the location of movement corridors.
Accessible dispersal habitat provides opportunities for the
California red-legged frog to move freely across the landscape in
search of adjacent breeding and non-breeding habitats. Accessible
dispersal habitat is considered essential to the conservation of the
species and provides for: (1) Movement and establishment of home ranges
by juvenile recruits; (2) Maintenance of gene flow through the movement
of juveniles and adults between populations; and (3) recruitment into
new breeding habitat or recolonization of breeding habitat after local
extirpations.
Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) for the California Red-Legged Frog
Within the geographical area occupied by the California red-legged
frog at the time of listing, we must identify the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species that
may require special management considerations or protection. This final
revised critical habitat designation encompasses those areas containing
the PCEs that are necessary to support one or more of the species' life
history functions and that are laid out in the appropriate quantity and
spatial arrangement essential to the conservation of the species. As
stated in the Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat section of
this rule, we believe that we can conserve the California red-legged
frog within its extant range, and we are therefore not including any
areas outside the geographical area currently occupied by the species.
Because not all life-history functions require all the PCEs, not all
areas designated as critical habitat will contain all the PCEs.
Based on the above needs and our current knowledge of the life-
history, biology, and ecology of the California red-legged frog, we
determined the California red-legged frog's PCEs are:
(1) Aquatic Breeding Habitat. Standing bodies of fresh water (with
salinities less than 4.5 ppt), including natural and manmade (e.g.,
stock) ponds, slow-moving streams or pools within streams, and other
ephemeral or permanent water bodies that typically become inundated
during winter rains and hold water for a minimum of 20 weeks in all but
the driest of years.
(2) Aquatic Non-Breeding Habitat. Freshwater pond and stream
habitats, as described above, that may not hold water long enough for
the species to complete its aquatic life cycle but which provide for
shelter, foraging, predator avoidance, and aquatic dispersal of
juvenile and adult California red-legged frogs. Other wetland habitats
considered to meet these criteria include, but are not limited to:
plunge pools within intermittent creeks, seeps, quiet water refugia
within streams during high water flows, and springs of sufficient flow
to withstand short-term dry periods.
(3) Upland Habitat. Upland areas adjacent to or surrounding
breeding and non-breeding aquatic and riparian
habitat up to a distance of 1 mi (1.6 km) in most cases (i.e.,
depending on surrounding landscape and dispersal barriers) including
various vegetational types such as grassland, woodland, forest,
wetland, or riparian areas that provide shelter, forage, and predator
avoidance for the California red-legged frog. Upland features are also
essential in that they are needed to maintain the hydrologic,
geographic, topographic, ecological, and edaphic features that support
and surround the aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat. These upland
features contribute to: (1) Filling of aquatic, wetland, or riparian
habitats; (2) maintaining suitable periods of pool inundation for
larval frogs and their food sources; and (3) providing non-breeding,
feeding, and sheltering habitat for juvenile and adult frogs (e.g.,
shelter, shade, moisture, cooler temperatures, a prey base, foraging
opportunities, and areas for predator avoidance). Upland habitat should
include structural features such as boulders, rocks and organic debris
(e.g., downed trees, logs), small mammal burrows, or moist leaf litter.
(4) Dispersal Habitat. Accessible upland or riparian habitat within
and between occupied or previously occupied sites that are located
within 1 mi (1.6 km) of each other, and that support movement between
such sites. Dispersal habitat includes various natural habitats, and
altered habitats such as agricultural fields, that do not contain
barriers (e.g., heavily traveled roads without bridges or culverts) to
dispersal. Dispersal habitat does not include moderate- to high-density
urban or industrial developments with large expanses of asphalt or
concrete, nor does it include large lakes or reservoirs over 50 ac (20
ha) in size, or other areas that do not contain those features
identified in PCE 1, 2, or 3 as essential to the conservation of the
species.
Special Management Considerations or Protections
When designating critical habitat within the geographical area that
is occupied at the time of listing, we identify the features that are
essential to the conservation of the species and assess whether those
features may require special management considerations or protection.
The area designated as revised critical habitat will require some
level of management to address current and future threats to the
California red-legged frog and maintain the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species. Special
management will be required in all units to ensure that aquatic and
upland habitats provide abundant breeding and non-breeding areas, prey
species, shelter, and connectivity within the landscape. The
designation of critical habitat does not imply that areas outside of
the final revised critical habitat designation do not play an important
role in the conservation of the California red-legged frog. Areas
outside the final revised critical habitat designation will continue to
be subject to conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of
the Act, regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2)
jeopardy standard, and the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act. These
protections and conservation tools will continue to contribute to
A detailed discussion of threats to the California red-legged frog
and its habitat can be found in the final listing rule (May 23, 1996;
61 FR 25813); the 2001 critical habitat designation (March 13, 2001; 66
FR 14626); the 2006 critical habitat designation (April 13, 2006; 71 FR
19243); the 2008 proposed revised critical habitat designation
(September 16, 2008; 73 FR 53491); and the 2002 recovery plan (Service
2002, pp. 1-173). Threats that may warrant special management
considerations or protection of those features that define essential
habitat in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement for the
California red-legged frog include, but are not limited to: disease;
direct and indirect impacts from some human recreational activities;
flood control maintenance activities; water diversions; mining;
dredging; sedimentation; water chemistry or temperature alterations;
pesticide application; overgrazing; competition and predation by
nonnative animal species; and habitat removal and alteration by
urbanization, timber activities, and nonnative plant introduction.
These threats may cause habitat alteration, degradation, or
fragmentation and the direct or indirect loss of California red-legged
frog eggs, juveniles, or adults or their habitat.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available in determining within the geographical area
occupied at the time of listing the specific areas on which are found
the features essential to the conservation of the California red-legged
frog which may require special management considerations or protection,
as well as in determining if any specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species are essential for the
conservation of the California red-legged frog. We are designating
critical habitat for the California red-legged frog within areas that
we determined were occupied at the time of listing and that contain the
species. Lands are designated based on sufficient essential features
being present to support one or more life processes.
Based on the criteria used to identify critical habitat for the
California red-legged frog, we believe those areas designated as
critical habitat within the geographical area occupied by the species
at the time of listing and those occupied areas identified subsequent
to listing are sufficient to conserve the California red-legged frog.
Our strategy for determining features essential to the conservation of
the species was to target areas known to be occupied by the California
red-legged frog at the time of listing, or known to possess high-
quality habitat likely to be occupied based on proximity to known
occurrences, contiguous habitat, and dispersal capabilities of the
California red-legged frog. We included large blocks of contiguous
habitat that: (1) provide geographic distribution across the range of
the species; (2) represent the full range of habitat and environmental
variability the species occupies; (3) avoid conflict with existing
commercial and residential development; (4) focus on public land, where
available; and (5) where possible, overlap with other critical habitat
designations. We believe the areas designated provide for the
conservation of the California red-legged frog because the areas
support large stable populations throughout the range of the species.
The areas selected represent a distribution across the species' range
and incorporate the northern and southern extent of the species within
the coastal, interior coast, interior valleys, and Sierra Nevada
Mountains. We believe the critical habitat units provide for
connectivity and dispersal opportunities within, and in most cases
between, units. Such opportunities for dispersal assist in maintaining
the population structure and distribution of the California red-legged
frog. We realize that there are areas outside of the designation that
are included in the recovery plan and past critical habitat
designations as having California red-legged frog occurrences or
containing some of the primary constituent elements and that these
areas may be utilized by the California red-legged frog for breeding,
non-breeding activities, movement, and dispersal. However, as stated
above, we believe the areas
designated in this rule provide for the conservation of the California
red-legged frog. Therefore, we do not believe that we need to designate
unoccupied areas for the species.
We believe it is important to note that critical habitat
in cooperation with partners, which provides a roadmap with detailed,
site-specific management actions to help conserve listed species and
their ecosystems. The term ``essential'' as used in the recovery plan
does not necessarily carry the same meaning as in the definition of
critical habitat. The recovery plan provides important information
about the species and the actions that are needed to bring about its
recovery, while critical habitat identifies specific areas that are
essential for the species' conservation.
As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we used the best
scientific data available in determining areas that contain the
frog, including the California red-legged frog recovery plan (Service
2002, pp. 1-173), reports submitted during section 7 consultations and
by biologists holding section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits, research
published in peer-reviewed articles and presented in academic theses
and agency reports, and regional Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
coverages. We are not designating any areas outside the geographical
area presently occupied by the species.
We examined the core areas identified in the recovery plan and used
these to focus our analysis of which areas to include in our critical
habitat designation. We included a distribution of critical habitat
within each core area that contains areas that were occupied at the
time of listing and additional occupied areas identified as such
subsequent to the time of listing. We found that the majority of newer
occurrence records were within areas already known to support the
California red-legged frog. We identified critical habitat units that
have the highest likelihood to contain populations of the California
red-legged frog based on (1) The presence of the defined PCEs; (2) the
density of the California red-legged frog occurrences; (3) the kind,
amount, and quality of habitat associated with those occurrences; and
(4) the reasonable likelihood of habitat connectivity within and
between units. The units contain the physical and biological features,
as identified by the PCEs, in the appropriate quantity and arrangement
essential to the conservation of the species.
We considered several criteria in the selection of areas that
contain the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the California red-legged frog. We designated units
throughout the geographical, elevational, and ecological distribution
of the species that: (1) Maintain the current population structure
across the species' range; (2) retain or provide for connectivity
between breeding sites to allow for the continued existence of viable
and essential metapopulations, despite fluctuations in the status of
subpopulations; (3) possess large continuous blocks of occupied
habitat, representing source populations or unique ecological
characteristics; and (4) contain sufficient upland habitat around each
breeding location to allow for sufficient survival and recruitment to
maintain a breeding population over the long term. We then compared
areas meeting these requirements to the core areas identified in the
recovery plan for the species (Service 2002, pp. 1-173) and adjusted
the number and distribution of units so that all core areas were
represented in this final revised critical habitat designation.
We delineated critical habitat boundaries using the following
steps. We examined the range of the species as identified in our 2002
recovery plan for the California red-legged frog (Service 2002, pp. 1-
173). We then determined the occupancy status of areas on the basis of
report data compiled by the California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG) (CNDDB 2009). Initially, we used the 1996 final listing rule to
establish those areas occupied at the time of listing. Subsequently, we
used information on California red-legged frog population size,
demographics, and biology to determine that additional areas were also
occupied at the time of listing. Our designation does not include all
areas where the California red-legged frog is known to occur. When
determining which occupied areas contain the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species or the specific
areas essential for the conservation of the species identified
subsequent to those areas identified at the time of listing, we
data, and the California red-legged frog's longevity. Bulger et al.
(2003, pp. 85, 92) found more than 75 percent of California red-legged
habitat rules show an average persistence of 19 years for California
red-legged frog populations. Additionally, California red-legged frogs
are considered long-lived with a minimum longevity of male and female
California red-legged frogs between 8 and 10 years respectively
(Jennings et al. 1992, p. 3), which also contributes to generational
and metapopulation stability. For the above reasons, we believe that
California red-legged frog populations located after the time of
listing were actually present at the time of listing. This is because
not all information on species locations existed or were available at
that time (1996), and because new populations were unlikely to have
been established in the interim period.
We conducted a more detailed analysis of the occurrence data
records by evaluating records where the exact site location was not
identified or confirmed, and we removed those locations from our
analysis. We then selected areas that were inhabited by source
populations that are capable of maintaining their current population
levels and providing individuals to recruit into subpopulations found
in adjacent areas. We based this on the occurrence information or
history for the site and persistence within the area. Additionally, we
selected several areas that have ecological significance because of
their unique features or settings, with the goal of representing the
full range of the habitat variability and evolutionary adaptation in
this species. These unique areas include locations on the periphery of
the current range or that are representative of the varying habitats
occupied by the California red-legged frog (i.e., coastal areas,
interior coast, interior valleys, and montane habitats) to cover the
full distribution of the species, and areas that provide connectivity
among populations.
Critical habitat units were delineated by creating approximate
areas for the units by screen-digitizing polygons (map units) using
ArcMap (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.), a GIS program.
The polygons were created by overlaying a 1-mi (1.6-km) radius around
locations with occurrence records. We then used this distance as a
guide for mapping the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species around the locations of California red-
legged frog populations (see Dispersal Habitat section). As stated
above, the California red-legged frog has been documented to disperse
from ponds and streams a distance greater than 2.0 mi (3.2 km) (Bulger
et al. 2003, p. 90). However, based on our review of the best
scientific data available, we determined that the 2.0-mi (3.2-km)
distance is likely near the maximum dispersal distance for the species
during a single season, and that the 1-mi (1.6-km) distance is more
reflective of the average dispersal distance for the California red-
legged frog (Rathbun et al. 1993, pp. 15, 16; Wright 1999, pp. 1, 2;
Bulger et al. 2003, p. 90; Tatarian 2004, Table 9; Fellers and Kleeman
2005, pp. 14-16; Fellers and Kleeman 2007, pp. 276-286). We recognize
that upland habitat features will influence California red-legged frog
movements in a particular landscape. As a result, we made adjustments
to the upland areas of the critical habitat boundaries to include lands
up to the watershed boundaries or habitat containing the PCEs beyond
the 1-mi (1.6-km) distance (where appropriate) to aggregate clumps of
occurrences and provide connectivity between occurrences. Whenever
determinable, we removed areas not containing the PCEs from this
revised designation, including agricultural, developed, disturbed, or
fragmented lands.
We evaluated the resulting units and refined the boundaries of the
units within each watershed if it could be determined that certain
areas within the units did not contain the primary constituent
elements, were developed, or had dispersal barriers. We did not
designate some areas because: (1) They do not contain sufficient PCEs
to support one or more of the species' life processes; (2) the habitat
within the area is highly degraded and is likely not restorable; (3)
the area is small, highly fragmented, or isolated and likely provides
little or no long-term conservation value; or (4) we determined that a
sufficient amount of critical habitat had already been designated for
an area. We applied this last criterion by evaluating the number of
occurrence records for an area, the area's habitat quality or
uniqueness, and the likelihood of persistence of the occurrences for an
Finally, we focused on areas of high California red-legged frog
abundance and areas needed to maintain connectivity between aquatic
breeding habitats. We used the core areas identified in the recovery
plan (Service 2002, pp.1-173) to assist in focusing the areas and
extent of the critical habitat boundaries. We refined unit boundaries
by using watershed boundaries from the State of California's CALWATER
watershed classification system (version 2.2) using the smallest
(planning watersheds) watershed designation. Visual inspection of
mapped California red-legged frog occurrence records revealed un-
surveyed regions surrounded by surveyed regions (mostly adjacent to
highly developed areas). Rather than designating critical habitat in a
development fringe (areas adjacent to development), we designated in
areas where fewer surveys may have been conducted but where California
red-legged frogs are likely to occur based on nearby records and on
similarity of habitat and presence of the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species. In areas where
planning watersheds were large or hydrology was significantly altered,
we used alternative structural, political, or topographic boundaries
(e.g., streams, roads, county boundaries, ridgeline features, elevation
contour lines) as the critical habitat boundary. These landscape
features were used as critical habitat boundaries in these planning
watershed areas because using a watershed boundary would have
incorporated areas outside the species' dispersal distance or areas of
unknown conservation value for the California red-legged frog. We made
every attempt to connect localized California red-legged frog
populations into single critical habitat units, if sufficient PCEs were
present, in an attempt to combine similar habitats and to provide for
better management of the unit.
When determining critical habitat boundaries within this final
rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as
lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such
lands lack essential features for the California red-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 structures and the land under them
inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps
of this final revised critical habitat are excluded by text in this
final rule. Therefore, a Federal action involving these lands would not
trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the
requirement of no destruction or adverse modification, unless the
specific action may affect adjacent critical habitat.
Final Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating approximately 1,636,609 ac (662,312 ha) of
critical habitat for the California red-legged frog in 48 units that we
proposed as revised critical habitat. We have determined that all units
were occupied at the time of listing. The critical habitat areas in
Tables 1 and 2, and the unit descriptions below constitute our best
assessment at this time of areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat for the California red-legged frog. Table 1 lists those units
we are excluding from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act. Table 2 identifies the approximate area designated as critical
habitat for the California red-legged frog by land ownership. Due to
the conversion of GIS data from two different geographic projection
zones (zone 10 and zone 11) and conversion of the data to acres and
hectares, some rounding adjustments may be reflected in the area
estimates.
TABLE 1. Summary of areas excluded from the designation of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Areas of Critical Habitat                    Areas Excluded
Unit               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ac                  ha                  ac                  ha
ELD-1                             5,525               2,236                54                  22
CCS-2                             138,858             56,194              90,394              36,581
SCZ-1                             72,255              29,241               6                   2
SLO-2                             117,449             47,530              34,777              14,074
SLO-3                             122,420             49,541              5,612               2,271
STB-2                             36,004              14,570              23,912              9,684
STB-4                             8,693               3,518               1,001               405
RIV-1                             4,069               1,647                4,069              1,647
Total                                                                     159,825             64,686
TABLE 2. Critical habitat units designated for the California red-legged frog.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal                                  State                               Local/Tribal*                              Private
Unit/Subunit           ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------        Total
ac                  ha                  ac                  ha                  ac                  ha                  ac                  ha
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUT-1                             3,256               1,318               281                 114                                                         1,757               711                 5,294               2,142
YUB-1                             2,494               1,009                                                                                3,828               1,549               6,322               2,558
NEV-1                             3,171               1,283               12                  5                                                           5,102               2,065               8,285               3,353
PLA-1                             814                 329                                                                                430                 174                 1,243               503
ELD-1                             705                 285                                                                                4,766               1,929               5,471               2,214
CAL-1                                                                                2,764               1,119               2,764               1,119
MEN-1                             86                  35                  296                 120                 92*                 37*                 21,340              8,636               21,814              8,828
SON-1                                                                     1,157               468                                                         407                 165                 1,564               633
SON-2                                                                                4,932               1,996               4,932               1,996
SON-3                                                                                105                 42                  2,125               860                 2,230               902
NAP-1                                                                                2,524               1,022               2,524               1,022
MRN-1                                                                     11                  4                                                           7,829               3,168               7,840               3,173
MRN-2                                                                                1,046               423                 21,513              8,706               22,559              9,129
MRN-3                             31,403              12,709              147                 60                                                          2,050               830                 33,600              13,598
SOL-1                                                                                11,971              4,845               11,971              4,845
SOL-2                                                                                3,360               1,360               3,360               1,360
SOL-3                                                                                1,087               440                 3,510               1,421               4,597               1,861
CCS-1                                                                                9,835               3,980               4,010               1,623               13,845              5,603
CCS-2A                                                                    3,006               1,217               277                 112                 944                 382                 4,227               1,711
CCS-2B                                                                    4,059               1,643               3,088               1,250               37,322              15,104              44,470              17,996
ALA-1A                                                                                603                 244                 3,047               1,233               3,650               1,477
ALA-1B                                                                                3,667               1,484               6,492               2,627               10,159              4,111
ALA-2                             6,892               2,789               3,932               1,591               39,525              15,995              103,276             41,794              153,624             62,169
SNM-1                                                                     12                  5                   2,096               848                 32,844              13,292              34,952              14,145
SNM-2                             406                 164                 4,004               1,620               6,332               2,563               85,396              34,559              96,138              38,906
STC-1                             37                  15                                                          8,451               3,420               43,795              17,723              52,283              21,158
STC-2                             604                 244                 53,267              21,556              74                  30                  150,773             61,016              204,718             82,846
SCZ-1                             226                 92                  20,562              8,321                                                       51,460              20,825              72,249              29,238
SCZ-2                             115                 46                                                                                3,942               1,595               4,057               1,642
MNT-1                                                                                519                 210                 519                 210
MNT-2                             26,098              10,562              374                 151                 1,373               556                 91,647              37,088              119,492             48,357
MNT-3                             9,960               4,030               4,245               1,718                                                       13,338              5,398               27,542              11,146
SNB-1                             13                  5                   3,109               1,258                                                       33,172              13,424              36,294              14,687
SNB-2                                                                                17,356              7,024               17,356              7,024
SNB-3                             20,048              8,113                                                                                43,706              17,687              63,753              25,800
SLO-1                             169                 68                                                                                17,849              7,223               18,018              7,292
SLO-2                             440                 178                 648                 262                                                         81,585              33,016              82,673              33,457
SLO-3                             29,104              11,778              5,737               2,322                                                       81,676              33,053              116,517             47,153
SLO-4                             26,183              10,596                                                                                8,280               3,351               34,463              13,947
STB-1                             20,896              8,456                                                                                4,269               1,727               25,164              10,184
STB-2                             35                  14                                                                                12,031              4,869               12,066              4,883
STB-3                             40,148              16,247                                                                                7,411               2,999               47,559              19,246
STB-4                             44                  18                                                                                7,641               3,092               7,685               3,110
STB-5                             1,547               626                 2,074               839                                                         9,267               3,750               12,888              5,216
STB-6                             1,881               761                 29                  12                                                          10,075              4,077               11,985              4,850
STB-7                             124,831             50,517              8                   3                                                           20,282              8,208               145,121             58,728
VEN-1                                                                                2,915               1,180               2,915               1,180
VEN-2                             8,363               3,384                                                                                474                 192                 8,837               3,576
VEN-3                             56                  23                                                          2,048               830                 2,896               1,171               5,000               2,024
LOS-1                             3,909               1,582                                                                                322                 130                 4,231               1,712
Total                             363,931             147,278             106,970             43,289              79,700              32,254              1,090,223           441,197             1,636,609           662,312
Note: Area estimates (ac, (ha)) reflect the entire area within the
critical habitat unit boundaries; areas supporting PCEs may have been
included inadvertently as a result of mapping limitations. Due to
conversion and rounding unit totals may not sum.
Presented below are brief descriptions of the units we are
designating as revised critical habitat for the California red-legged
frog. The units are listed in order geographically north to south and
west to east, with the exception of units in the Sierra Nevada
foothills, which are listed first, north to south. For more information
about the areas excluded from critical habitat, please see the
``Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' section of this final
BUT-1, Hughes Place Pond
This unit consists of approximately 5,294 ac (2,142 ha) and is
located in east-central Butte County, east of State Highway 70 and west
of Oroville-Quincy Highway. This unit is mapped entirely from
occurrences recorded subsequent to the time of listing, but based on
life history and population dynamics of the species the area was most
likely occupied at the time of listing. The unit is essential for the
conservation of the species because the area contains aquatic habitat
for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1 and PCE 2), contains
upland habitat for foraging and dispersal activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4),
and is currently occupied by the species. This unit encompasses one of
six extant Sierra Nevada foothill populations identified since the time
of listing and is located in the easternmost portion of the species'
historical range. This unit would form one of the core areas for the
species and would assist in maintaining the distribution of the species
within the Sierra Nevada Mountains. This unit represents the California
red-legged frog's adaptation to a wide range of habitat and ecological
conditions, and contains high-quality habitat. Land ownership within
this unit consists of approximately 3,256 ac (1,318 ha) of Federal
land, 281 ac (114 ha) of State land, and 1,757 ac (711 ha) of private
land.
The essential features in this unit may require special management
considerations or protection due to necessary wildland fire suppression
activities, which may dewater aquatic habitats and thereby result in
the desiccation of egg masses or direct death of adults from water
drafting; timber harvest activities; and predation by non-native
species. Please see the Special Management Considerations or Protection
section of this final rule for a detailed discussion of the threats to
California red-legged frog habitat and potential management
YUB-1, Little Oregon Creek
This unit consists of approximately 6,322 ac (2,558 ha) of land and
is located in northeastern Yuba County, north of Marysville Road and
south of La Porte Road. YUB-1 is mapped entirely from records
identified since the time of listing, but based on life history and
population dynamics of the species the area was most likely occupied at
the time of listing. The unit is considered essential for the
conservation of the species because it contains aquatic habitat for
breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1 and PCE 2), contains upland
habitat for foraging and dispersal activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4), and is
currently occupied by the species. YUB-1 is one of six known extant
Sierra Nevada foothill populations and is located in the easternmost
portion of the species' historical range. This unit would form one of
the core areas for the species and would assist in maintaining the
distribution of the species within the Sierra Nevada Mountains. This
unit represents the California red-legged frog's adaptation to a wide
range of habitat and ecological conditions, is known to be occupied,
and contains high-quality habitat. This unit consists of Federal (2,494
ac (1,009 ha)) and private (3,828 ac (1,549 ha)) lands.
NEV-1, Sailor Flat
This unit is comprised of approximately 8,285 ac (3,353 ha) of land
and is located in central Nevada County, approximately 3 mi (5 km)
northeast of Nevada City, south of Tyler Foote Road and north of State
Highway 20. NEV-1 is mapped entirely from occurrences recorded
subsequent to the time of listing, but based on life history and
occupied by the species. NEV-1 is one of six known extant Sierra Nevada
foothill populations and is located in the easternmost portion of the
species' historical range. This unit would form one of the core areas
for the species and would assist in maintaining the distribution of the
species within the Sierra Nevada Mountains. This unit represents the
California red-legged frog's adaptation to a wide range of habitat and
ecological variability, is currently known to be occupied, and contains
high-quality habitat. This unit consists of Federal (3,171 ac (1,283
ha)), State (12 ac (5 ha)) and private (5,102 ac (2,065 ha)) lands.
PLA-1, Michigan Bluff
This unit is comprised of approximately 1,243 ac (503 ha) of land
and is located in central Placer County Nevada County, approximately 4
mi (6 km) east northeast of Foresthill. Unit PLA-1 is mapped entirely
from occurrences recorded subsequent to listing, but based on life
history and population dynamics of the species the area was most likely
occupied at the time of listing. The unit is considered essential for
the conservation of the species because it contains aquatic habitat for
occupied by the species. PLA-1 is one of six known extant Sierra Nevada
high-quality habitat. This unit
consists of Federal (814 ac (329 ha)) and private (430 ac (174 ha))
lands.
species. Please see the ``Special Management Considerations or
Protection'' section of this final rule for a detailed discussion of
the threats to California red-legged frog habitat and potential
management considerations.
ELD-1, Spivey Pond
and is located in central El Dorado County, south of State Highway 50
and east of Newton Road. ELD-1 is mapped entirely from occurrences
recorded subsequent to listing. However, records at this location were
first reported 1 year after listing (1997). Based on the number of
mature, reproducing adults and non-reproducing juveniles, we have
determined that this site was occupied at the time of listing. This
unit contains features essential for the conservation of the species,
including aquatic habitat for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE
1 and PCE 2) and upland habitat for foraging and dispersal activities
(PCE 3 and PCE 4), and is occupied by the species. ELD-1 is 1 of 6
known extant Sierra Nevada foothill populations and is located in the
easternmost portion of the species' historical range. This unit would
form one of the core areas for the species and would assist in
maintaining the distribution of the species within the Sierra Nevada
Mountains. This unit represents the California red-legged frog's
adaptation to a wide range of habitat and ecological variability, is
currently known to be occupied, and contains high-quality habitat. The
unit consists of Federal (705 ac (285 ha)) land and private (4,766 ac
(1,929 ha)) lands. The essential features in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection due to necessary
wildland fire suppression activities, which may dewater aquatic
habitats and thereby result in the desiccation of egg masses or direct
death of adults from water drafting; timber harvest activities; and
predation by nonnative species. Snows Quarry does not contain the PCEs,
and we have removed it from this final designation of revised critical
habitat. However, due to technical mapping constraints we did not
physically remove the area from the map depicting unit ELD-1. A portion
of the lands containing features essential to the conservation of the
California red-legged frog in Unit ELD-1 have been excluded from
critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see
CAL-1, Young's Creek
and is located in northwestern Calaveras County, north of State Highway
26 and south of Paloma Road. CAL-1 is mapped entirely from occurrences
recorded subsequent to the time of listing and based on life history
and population dynamics of the species the area was most likely
occupied at the time of listing. The unit is essential for the
breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1 and PCE 2), and upland
occupied by the species. This unit encompasses one of six known extant
Sierra Nevada foothill populations identified since the time of listing
and is located in the easternmost portion of the species historical
range. This unit would form one of the core areas for the species and
would assist in maintaining the distribution of the species within the
Sierra Nevada Mountains. This unit represents the California red-legged
frog's adaptation to a wide range of habitat and ecological
variability, is currently known to be occupied, and contains high-
quality habitat. The unit consists entirely of private land. The
essential features in this unit may require special management
drafting; overgrazing of land; and predation by non-native species.
Please see the Special Management Considerations or Protection section
of this final rule for a detailed discussion of the threats to
MEN-1, Mills Creek
This unit is comprised of approximately 21,814 ac (8,828 ha) of
land and is located along the coast north and west of Manchester,
California, including the majority of the Mills Creek watershed in
Mendocino County. MEN-1 contains aquatic habitat for breeding and non-
breeding activities (PCE 1 and PCE 2), and upland habitat for foraging
and dispersal activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4). The records within the unit
were identified subsequent to listing as northern Mendocino County was
thought to be outside the known range of the species. Based on life
history and populations dynamics of the species this area was most
likely occupied at the time of listing. Subsequent genetic research has
confirmed the species occurs in this part of Mendocino County (Shaffer
et al. 2004, p. 2676). This unit is currently occupied and is essential
to the conservation of the species because it contains permanent and
ephemeral aquatic habitats consisting of streams and natural and
manmade ponds surrounded by emergent vegetation and marshland with
upland comprised of forested timber that provides for breeding and
other upland areas for dispersal, shelter, and foraging. The unit also
contains freshwater pond and stream habitats associated with upland
dune complexes near the coast. Additionally, the unit represents the
northernmost extent of the species' range along the coast of California
and may be genetically significant to the species (Shaffer et al. 2004,
p. 2676). The unit consists of approximately 86 acres (ac) (35 hectares
(ha)) of Federal land; 296 ac (120 ha) of State land; 92 ac (37 ha) of
Tribal land; and 21,340 ac (8,636 ha) of private land.
The physical and biological features essential to the conservation
of California red-legged frog in the MEN-1 unit may require special
management considerations or protection due to non-native animal
species, habitat alteration from invasive plant species, timber
harvesting which may alter aquatic or upland habitats and thereby
result in the direct or indirect loss of egg masses or adults due to
habitat modification and predation. Please see the Special Management
Considerations or Protection section of this final rule for a detailed
discussion of the threats to California red-legged frog habitat and
potential management considerations.
SON-1, Annadel
This unit is comprised of approximately 1,564 ac (633 ha) of land,
is located in Annadel State Park southeast of Santa Rosa, California,
in Sonoma County, and contains features that are essential for the
conservation of the species. SON-1 was known to be occupied at the time
of listing and is currently occupied. SON-1 contains aquatic habitat
for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1 and PCE 2), and upland
habitat for foraging and dispersal activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4). The
unit contains permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitat consisting of
marshland ponds with emergent vegetation surrounded by bulrush (Scirpus
spp.) and cattail (Typha spp.), annual and perennial grasslands, oak
forest, and Douglas-fir forests, which allow for breeding and non-
breeding pond activities. Upland areas in the unit provide for
dispersal, shelter, and foraging. The unit provides for connectivity
between populations farther south in the northbay area (area north of
San Francisco Bay), and contains high-quality, protected habitat. The
unit also represents the distribution of the California red-legged frog
in the northern interior Coast Range. The unit consists of State (1,157
ac (468 ha)) and private (407 ac (165 ha)) lands and is mapped from
occurrences recorded at the time of listing and subsequent to the time
of listing.
of California red-legged frog in the SON-1 unit may require special
management considerations or protection due to nonnative animal
species, habitat alteration from invasive plant species, and
recreational use which may alter aquatic or upland habitats and thereby
habitat modification and predation. Please see the ``Special Management
Considerations or Protection'' section of this final rule for a
detailed discussion of the threats to California red-legged frog
habitat and potential management considerations.
SON-2, Sonoma Mountain
and is located east of Petaluma, California, in the Sonoma Mountains in
Sonoma County. SON-2 is mapped from occurrences recorded at the time
and subsequent to the time of listing and is currently occupied. This
unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it
contains permanent and ephemeral breeding and non-breeding aquatic
habitats (PCE 1 and PCE 2) consisting of natural and manmade ponds
surrounded by emergent vegetation and marshland with appropriate upland
areas for dispersal, shelter, and foraging (PCE 3 and PCE 4). The unit
also provides for connectivity between populations farther north and
south in the northbay (Counties North of San Francisco Bay), and
contains high-quality habitat. The unit also represents the
distribution of the California red-legged frog in the northern interior
Coast Range. The unit consists entirely of private land.
management considerations or protection due to predation by nonnative
species, and habitat alteration from invasive plant species, which may
alter aquatic or upland habitats and thereby result in the direct or
indirect loss of egg masses or adults due to habitat modification.
SON-3, Petaluma
and is located southwest of Petaluma, California, near West Petaluma
Regional Park in Sonoma County. SON-3 is mapped entirely from
conservation of the species because it provides for connectivity
between populations farther west in the northbay, and contains high-
quality habitat. The unit also represents the distribution of the
California red-legged frog in the northern interior Coast Range. This
unit also contains aquatic habitat for breeding and non-breeding
activities (PCE 1 and PCE 2), and upland habitat for foraging and
dispersal activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4). SON-3 is currently occupied and
contains permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitats comprised of manmade
ponds and connecting streams surrounded by riparian and grassland
habitat that provide for breeding, and upland areas for dispersal,
shelter, and foraging. The unit consists of local government lands (105
ac (42 ha)) and private lands (2,125 ac (860 ha)).
NAP-1, Wragg Creek
This unit is comprised of approximately 2,524 ac (1,022 ha) of
land, is located in east-central Napa County, is bisected by State
Highway 128, and lies largely to the west of State Highway 121. NAP-1
was known to be occupied at the time of listing, is currently occupied,
and contains the features that are essential for the conservation of
the species. The unit contains aquatic habitat for breeding and non-
and dispersal activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4). The unit contains permanent
and ephemeral aquatic habitats suitable for breeding and upland areas
for dispersal, shelter, and food. The unit provides for connectivity
between populations northwest of the northbay; represents the northern
extent of the species' range in the northern interior Coast Range; and
contains high-quality habitat. The unit consists entirely of private
land and is mapped from occurrences recorded at the time of listing and
subsequent to the time of listing.
of California red-legged frog in the NAP-1 unit may require special
species and habitat disturbance, which may alter aquatic or upland
habitats and thereby result in the direct or indirect loss of egg
masses or adults due to habitat modification. Please see the Special
Management Considerations or Protection section of this final rule for
a detailed discussion of the threats to California red-legged frog
MRN-1, Estero
and is located in northwestern Marin County, west of State Highway 1
along the Estero de San Antonio. MRN-1 is occupied and contains
of listing. The area is occupied by the species, and contains features
essential to the conservation of the species because it contains
aquatic habitat for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1 and PCE
2), and upland habitat for foraging and dispersal activities (PCE 3 and
PCE 4). MRN-1 provides for connectivity between populations in the
northbay region. The unit also represents the distribution of the
California red-legged frog in the northbay coastal area. The unit
contains permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitats, such as shallow and
deep pools, as well as ephemeral and permanent drainages surrounded by
grasslands, emergent and other riparian vegetation that provide for
aquatic breeding and non-breeding, and upland areas for dispersal,
shelter, and foraging. The unit consists of 11 ac (4 ha) of State land
and 7,829 ac (3,168 ha) of private land.
of California red-legged frog in the MRN-1 unit may require special
management considerations or protection due to overgrazing of aquatic
and riparian habitats, introduction of exotic vegetation, and urban
development, which may alter aquatic or upland habitats and thereby
habitat modification. Please see the ``Special Management
MRN-2, Salmon Creek
land and is located in north-central Marin County, east of State
Highway 1 and north of Point Reyes Petaluma Road. MRN-2 is occupied and
contains occurrences recorded subsequent to the time of listing, but
based on life history and population dynamics of the species the area
was most likely occupied at the time of listing. The area is essential
to the conservation of the species because it contains aquatic habitat
and is occupied by the species. MRN-2 provides for connectivity between
populations in the northbay region of the species' coastal range. The
in the northbay coastal area. The unit contains permanent and ephemeral
aquatic habitats suitable for breeding; upland areas for dispersal,
shelter, and food; and high-quality habitat. The unit consists of 1,046
ac (423 ha) of local government land and 21,513 ac (8,706 ha) of
MRN-3, Point Reyes Peninsula
This unit is comprised of approximately 33,600 ac (13,598 ha) of
land and is located in western Marin County, west of State Highway 1.
MRN-3 contains the features that are essential for the conservation of
and dispersal activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4). MRN-3 was known to be
occupied at the time of listing and is currently occupied. The unit
contains high-quality permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitats suitable
for breeding, and upland areas for dispersal, shelter, and food. The
unit provides for connectivity between populations farther north and
inland and represents the southern portion of the geographic range of
the California red-legged frog within the northbay coastal region. The
unit consists of Federal land (National Park Service) (31,403 ac
(12,709 ha)), State land (147 ac (60 ha)), and private land (2,050 ac
(830 ha)) and is mapped from occurrences recorded at the time of
listing and subsequent to the time of listing.
management considerations or protection due to predation by non-native
species and to overgrazing of aquatic and riparian habitats which may
SOL-1, Sky Valley
land and is located in southwestern Solano County and a portion of
extreme southeastern Napa County, south of Interstate 80 and west of
Interstate 680. SOL-1 contains the features that are essential for the
conservation of the species. The unit contains aquatic habitat for
habitat for foraging and dispersal activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4). Unit
SOL-1 was known to be occupied at the time of listing and is currently
occupied. The unit contains high-quality permanent and ephemeral
aquatic habitats suitable for breeding, and upland areas for dispersal,
shelter, and food. The designation of this unit is expected to prevent
further fragmentation of habitat in this portion of the species' range
and represents the southern extent of the species in the interior Coast
Range north of the Suisun Bay. The unit consists entirely of private
of California red-legged frog in the SOL-1 unit may require special
and riparian habitats, and removal and alteration of habitat due to
urbanization, which may alter or eliminate aquatic or upland habitats
and thereby result in the direct or indirect loss of egg masses adults.
SOL-2, Jameson Canyon
and is located in southwestern Solano County and a portion of extreme
southeastern Napa County, south of Interstate 80 and west of Interstate
680. SOL-2 is mapped entirely from records found subsequent to the time
of listing and is currently occupied, but based on life history and
the time of listing. SOL-2 is essential for the conservation of the
species because it provides connectivity to adjacent units to the south
in the interior Coast Range north of the Suisun Bay and is expected to
prevent further fragmentation of habitat in this portion of the
species' range. This unit also contains aquatic habitat for breeding
and non-breeding activities (PCE 1 and PCE 2), and upland habitat for
foraging and dispersal activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4). The unit contains
high-quality permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitats consisting of
stream and plunge pools as well as large freshwater marsh surrounded by
open grassland, willow (Salix spp.), and oak (Quercus agrifolia) that
provide for breeding, and upland areas for dispersal, shelter, and
foraging. The unit consists entirely of private land.
species, over grazing of habitat, urbanization, habitat alteration from
invasive plant species, and recreational use which may alter aquatic or
upland habitats and thereby result in the direct or indirect loss of
egg masses or adults due to habitat modification and predation. Please
see the Special Management Considerations or Protection section of this
final rule for a detailed discussion of the threats to California red-
legged frog habitat and potential management considerations.
SOL-3, American Canyon
southeastern Napa County, north of Interstate 80 and south of Highway
12. SOL-3 was known to be occupied at the time of listing and is
currently occupied. SOL-3 contains the features that are essential for
the conservation of the species. The unit contains aquatic habitat for
unit contains high-quality permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitats
consisting of pools, stream, and spring habitat surrounded by riparian
tree species and annual grasslands that provide for breeding, and
upland areas for dispersal, shelter, and foraging. The designation of
this unit is expected to prevent further fragmentation of habitat in
this portion of the species' range and provides connectivity to other
units farther north and south in the interior Coast Range north of the
Suisun Bay. The unit consists of 1,087 ac (440 ha) of local nonprofit
ownership and 3,510 ac (1,421 ha) of private land and is mapped from
and riparian habitats, and loss and alteration of habitat due to
and thereby result in the direct or indirect loss of egg masses or
adults. Please see the Special Management Considerations or Protection
CCS-1, Berkeley Hills
land and is located in western Contra Costa County, south of Alhambra
Valley Road and north of Bear Creek Road. CCS-1 contains the features
that are essential for the conservation of the species. The unit
contains aquatic habitat for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE
1 and PCE 2), and upland habitat for foraging and dispersal activities
(PCE 3 and PCE 4). CCS-1 was known to be occupied at the time of
listing, is currently occupied, and contains high-quality permanent and
ephemeral aquatic habitats suitable for breeding and upland areas for
dispersal, shelter, and food. The designation of this unit is expected
to prevent further fragmentation of habitat in this portion of the
species' range. The unit also represents the northern extent of the
California red-legged frog in the eastbay region (area east of San
Francisco Bay). The unit consists of private (4,010 ac (1,623 ha)) and
local government (9,835 ac (3,980 ha)) lands.
of California red-legged frog in the CCS-1 unit may require special
species, and removal and alteration of habitat due to urbanization, and
overgrazing of aquatic and riparian habitats, which may alter aquatic
and upland habitats and thereby result in the direct or indirect loss
of egg masses or adults due to habitat modification. Please see the
Special Management Considerations or Protection section of this final
rule for a detailed discussion of the threats to California red-legged
frog habitat and potential management considerations.
CCS-2, Mount Diablo
This unit is comprised of two subunits (CCS-2A and CCS-2B), totals
approximately 48,697 ac (19,707 ha) of land, and is located in eastern
Contra Costa County and northeastern Alameda County, north of Highway
580. Unit CCS-2A (4,227 ac (1,711 ha)) and CCS-2B (44,470 ac (17,996
ha)) contain the features that are essential for the conservation of
the species. The subunits contain aquatic habitat for breeding and non-
and dispersal activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4). Subunits CCS-2A and CCS-2B
were known to be occupied at the time of listing and are currently
occupied. The subunits contain permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitats
suitable for breeding, and upland areas for dispersal, shelter, and
food, and they provide for connectivity between populations farther
south in the interior Coast Range. The Subunit CCS-2A also represents
the northern extent of the California red-legged frog in the interior
Coast Range. Subunit CCS-2B contains some of the highest concentrations
of California red-legged frog and frog habitat and could serve as a
source for potential reintroduction efforts. Subunit CCS-2A consists of
State (3,006 ac (1,217 ha)), local government (277 ac (112 ha)), and
private (944 ac (382 ha)) land, and subunit CCS-2B consists of State
(4,059 ac (1,643 ha)), local government (3,088 ac (1,250 ha)), and
private (37,322 ac (15,104 ha)) lands. Both subunits are mapped from
of California red-legged frog in CCS-2 may require special management
considerations or protection due to predation by nonnative species,
urbanization, overgrazing of aquatic and riparian habitats, and erosion
and siltation due to flooding, which may alter aquatic and upland
masses or adults. Please see the Special Management Considerations or
Protection section of this final rule for a detailed discussion of the
threats to California red-legged frog habitat and potential management
considerations. A portion of the lands containing features essential to
the conservation of the California red-legged frog in Unit CCS-2 have
been excluded from critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act (see Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section
ALA-1A, Dublin Canyon
This subunit is one of two subunits for the Alameda County area and
is comprised of approximately 3,650 ac (1,477 ha) of land and is
located in northwestern Alameda County and southern Contra Costa
County, north of Highway 580 and west of Dublin, California. Unit ALA-
1A contains the features that are essential for the conservation of the
species. The subunit contains aquatic habitat for breeding and non-
and dispersal activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4). ALA-1A was known to be
occupied at the time of listing and is currently occupied. The subunit
contains permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitats that provide for
breeding that
are comprised of manmade stock ponds and natural streams with emergent
vegetation, willows (Salix spp.), or are surrounded by riparian
vegetation, grasslands and oak forest. These aquatic habitats also have
adjacent upland areas for dispersal, shelter, and foraging
opportunities. The subunit provides for connectivity between
populations farther south in the eastbay foothills. The unit also
represents the southern-most distribution of the California red-legged
frog and its habitat in the east bay region. The subunit consists
entirely of local government land (603 ac (244 ha)) and private land
(3,047 ac (1,233 ha)) and is mapped from occurrences recorded at the
time of listing and subsequent to the time of listing.
of California red-legged frog in the ALA-1A subunit may require special
management considerations or protection due to removal and alteration
of habitat due to urbanization, alteration of aquatic and riparian
habitats, dumping, and erosion and siltation of ponded habitat, which
may alter aquatic or upland habitats and thereby result in the direct
or indirect loss of egg masses or adults. Please see the ``Special
Management Considerations or Protection'' section of this final rule
for a detailed discussion of the threats to California red-legged frog
ALA-1B, Cook Canyon
This subunit is the second of two subunits and is comprised of
approximately 10,159 ac (4,111 ha) of land and is located in
northwestern Alameda County, south of Highway 580. Unit ALA-1B contains
the features that are essential for the conservation of the species.
The subunit contains aquatic habitat for breeding and non-breeding
dispersal activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4). ALA-1B was known to be occupied
at the time of listing and is currently occupied. The subunit contains
permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitats comprised of manmade stock
ponds and natural streams with emergent vegetation, willows (Salix
spp.) surrounded by riparian vegetation, grasslands and oak forest that
foraging opportunities. The subunit provides for connectivity between
populations farther north in the eastbay foothills. The subunit also
frog and its habitat in the east bay region. The subunit consists of
local government land (3,667 ac (1,484 ha)) and private land (6,492 ac
(2,627 ha)) and is mapped from occurrences recorded at the time of
of California red-legged frog in the ALA-1B subunit may require special
habitats, and erosion and siltation of ponded habitat, which may result
in direct or indirect loss of egg masses or adults. Please see the
ALA-2, Arroyo Valle
This unit is comprised of approximately 153,624 ac (62,169 ha) of
land and is located in southwestern Alameda County, south of Highway
580 at Altamont Pass southeast into San Joaquin County and southwest
into Santa Clara County near Arroyo Hondo and Calaveras Reservoir. Unit
ALA-2 contains the features that are essential for the conservation of
and dispersal activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4). ALA-2 was known to be
contains permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitats comprised of natural
ponds and streams and manmade stock ponds with emergent vegetation,
willows (Salix spp.) surrounded by riparian vegetation, grasslands and
oak forest that provide for breeding, and upland areas for dispersal,
shelter, and foraging opportunities. The unit provides for connectivity
between populations farther north and south in the interior Coast
Range. The unit consists of Federal (6,892 ac (2,789 ha)), State (3,932
ac (1,591 ha)), local government (39,525 ac (15,995 ha)), and private
(103,276 ac (41,794 ha)) lands and is mapped from occurrences recorded
at the time of listing and subsequent to the time of listing.
of California red-legged frog in the ALA-2 unit may require special
management considerations or protection due to urbanization, alteration
of aquatic and riparian habitats, and erosion and siltation of ponded
habitat, which may alter aquatic or upland habitats and thereby result
in the direct or indirect loss of egg masses or adults. Please see the
SNM-1, Cahill Ridge
land and is located in north central San Mateo County, west of
Interstate 280 and south of Pacifica, California. SNM-1 contains the
features that are essential for the conservation of the species. The
unit contains aquatic habitat for breeding and non-breeding activities
(PCE 1 and PCE 2), and upland habitat for foraging and dispersal
activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4). SNM-1 was known to be occupied at the
time of listing and is currently occupied. The unit contains high-
quality permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitats consisting of ponds
and streams surrounded by riparian and emergent vegetation that
provides for breeding and upland areas for dispersal, shelter, and
food. The unit represents the only unit in the San Francisco peninsula,
and would assist in maintaining the distribution of the California red-
legged frog population within the San Francisco area, and provide
connectivity to units farther south into Santa Cruz County. The unit
consists of State (12 ac (5 ha)), private (32,844 ac (13,292 ha)), and
local government (2,096 ac (848 ha)) lands and is mapped from
of California red-legged frog in the SNM-1 unit may require special
management considerations or protection due to development and
nonnative invasive plants, which may alter aquatic and upland habitats
SNM-2, Pescadero
This unit is comprised of approximately 96,138 ac (38,906) of land
and is located in southwestern San Mateo County, south of Tunitas
Creek, west of State Route 35 south into Santa Cruz County near Big
Basin Redwoods State Park. Unit SNM-2 contains the features that are
essential for the conservation of the species. The unit contains
aquatic habitat for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1 and
PCE 2), and upland habitat for foraging and dispersal activities (PCE 3
and PCE 4). SNM-2 was known to be occupied at the time of listing and
is currently occupied. The unit contains high-quality permanent and
ephemeral aquatic habitats consisting of ponds and streams surrounded
by riparian and emergent vegetation that provides for breeding and
upland areas for dispersal, shelter, and food. The unit provides
connectivity to units farther north toward San Francisco and south into
Santa Cruz County. The unit consists of Federal (406 ac (164 ha)),
State (4,004 ac (1,620 ha)), local government (6,332 ac (2,563 ha)),
and private (85,396 ac (34,559 ha)) lands and is mapped from
STC-1, Ca[ntilde]ada de Pala
land and is located in north-central Santa Clara County, south of
Calaveras Reservoir near Los Buellis Hills south along the ridgeline
east of Santa Clara Valley to Anderson Lake and Henry Coe State Park.
Unit STC-1 contains the features that are essential for the
habitat for foraging and dispersal activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4). STC-1
and contains high-quality permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitats
consisting of artificial and natural ponds and streams surrounded by
emergent vegetation, grasslands and oak woodlands that provide for
breeding, and upland areas for dispersal, shelter, and food. The
designation of this unit is expected to assist in preventing further
fragmentation of habitat in this portion of the species' range and
represents a connectivity corridor between units farther north into
Contra Costa County and south into Merced and San Benito Counties. This
unit consists of Federal (37 ac (15 ha)), local government (8,451 ac
(3,420 ha)), and private (43,795 ac (17,723 ha)) lands and is mapped
from occurrences recorded at the time of listing and subsequent to the
time of listing.
of California red-legged frog in the STC-1 unit may require special
species, urbanization, the presence of exotic species, siltation and
erosion of ponded habitat, and overgrazing of aquatic and riparian
habitats, which may alter aquatic or upland habitats and thereby result
``Special Management Considerations or Protection'' section of this
STC-2, Wilson Peak
land and is located in southeastern Santa Clara County to western
Stanislaus County down to northern San Benito County from Henry Coe
State Park south to Mount Ararat (Merced County) and Mariposa Peak (San
Benito County) to San Felipe (Santa Clara County). Unit STC-2 contains
The unit also contains aquatic habitat for breeding and non-breeding
dispersal activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4). STC-2 was known to be occupied
at the time of listing and is currently occupied. The unit contains
high-quality permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitats suitable for
breeding and upland areas for dispersal, shelter, and food. The
designation of this unit is expected to prevent further habitat
fragmentation; provide connectivity to units farther north in Santa
Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa Counties; and represents the southern
portion of the areas designated within Santa Clara County and east bay.
The unit consists of Federal (604 ac (244 ha)), State (53,267 ac
(21,556 ha)), local government (74 ac (30 ha)), and private (150,773 ac
(61,016 ha)) lands and is mapped from occurrences recorded at the time
of listing and subsequent to the time of listing.
species, and habitat alteration from development activities which may
affect aquatic habitats and thereby result in the direct or indirect
loss of egg masses, juveniles, or adults. Please see the Special
SCZ-1, North Coastal Santa Cruz County
land and is located along the coastline of northern Santa Cruz County,
plus a small area in southern San Mateo County, from approximately
Green Oaks Creek to Wilder Creek. The unit includes the following
watersheds: Green Oaks Creek, Waddell Creek, East Waddell Creek, Scott
Creek, Big Creek, Little Creek, San Vicente Creek, Laguna Creek, and
Majors Creek. The unit is mapped from occurrences recorded at the time
of listing and subsequent to the time of listing and is currently
occupied. SCZ-1 contains the features that are essential for the
conservation of the species. The unit also contains aquatic habitat for
habitat for foraging and dispersal activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4). SCZ-1
provides connectivity between occupied sites along the coast and
farther inland. In addition, it contains high-quality habitat,
indicated by high density of extant occurrences, permanent and
ephemeral aquatic habitat suitable for breeding, and accessible upland
areas for dispersal, shelter, and food. The unit represents one of two
areas designated for critical habitat in Santa Cruz County and is the
northern extent of the central coast recovery unit. The unit consists
of Federal (226 ac (92 ha)), State (20,562 ac (8,321 ha)), and private
(51,460 ac (20,825 ha)) lands.
of California red-legged frog in the SCZ-1 unit may require special
management considerations or protection due to water diversions, which
may alter aquatic habitats and thereby result in the direct or indirect
habitat and potential management considerations. A portion of the lands
containing features essential to the conservation of the California
red-legged frog in Unit SCZ-
1 have been excluded from critical habitat designation under section
4(b)(2) of the Act (see Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
section below).
SCZ-2, Watsonville Slough
and is located along the coastal plain in southern Santa Cruz County,
north of the mouth of the Pajaro River and seaward of California
Highway 1. It includes locations in the Watsonville Slough system,
including all or portions of Gallighan, Hanson, Harkins, Watsonville,
Struve, and the West Branch of Struve sloughs. The unit includes
portions of the Corralitos Lagoon and Mouth of the Pajaro River
watersheds. The unit is mapped from occurrences recorded at the time of
listing and subsequent to the time of listing. SCZ-2 contains the
features that are essential for the conservation of the species. This
unit is currently occupied, and contains permanent and ephemeral
2), and contains upland habitat for foraging, dispersal activities, and
shelter (PCE 3 and PCE 4). SCZ-2 also provides connectivity between
occupied sites along the coast and farther inland. The unit consists of
Federal (115 ac (46 ha)) and private (3,942 ac (1,595 ha)) lands.
management considerations or protection due predation by nonnative
species, and due to urbanization and the presence of introduced
invasive plants, both of which may alter aquatic or upland habitats and
thereby result in the direct or indirect loss of egg masses or adults.
MNT-1, Elkhorn Slough
This unit is comprised of approximately 519 ac (210 ha) of land and
is located along the coastal plain in northern Monterey County, inland
from the town of Moss Landing, and it is mapped from occurrences
recorded at the time of listing and subsequent to the time of listing.
This unit is currently occupied. The unit includes the eastern edge of
the Elkhorn Slough watershed and the western edge of the Strawberry
Canyon watershed. MNT-1 contains the features that are essential for
the conservation of the species. This unit contains aquatic habitat for
designation of MNT-1 is expected to prevent further fragmentation of
habitat in this portion of the species' range, contains permanent and
ephemeral aquatic habitats suitable for breeding, and contains upland
areas for dispersal, shelter, and food. We have determined that these
attributes are essential to the conservation of the species. Elkhorn
Slough is unique in that it is a large estuary/freshwater slough system
not typically found on the California coast. The unit consists entirely
of private land.
of California red-legged frog in the MNT-1 unit may require special
management considerations or protection due to pesticide exposure,
trematode infestation, disease, and predation by nonnative species,
which may affect aquatic or upland habitats and thereby result in the
direct or indirect loss of egg masses or adults. Please see the
MNT-2, Carmel River
land, is located south and southeast of the city of Monterey, and
includes locations in the Carmel River drainage and nearby San Jose
Creek. The unit includes the following watersheds and portions of
watersheds: the southern portion of Carmel Bay, Carmel Valley, Robinson
Canyon, San Jose Creek, Las Garces Creek, Hitchcock Canyon, the western
portion of Lower Tularcitos Creek, Klondike Canyon, Black Rock Creek,
Pine Creek, Danish Creek, Cachagua Creek, Lower Finch Creek, Bear
Canyon, Bruce Fork, and Miller Canyon. It is mapped from occurrences
MNT-2 contains the features that are essential for the conservation of
the species. The unit is currently occupied and contains permanent and
ephemeral aquatic habitat for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE
1 and PCE 2), and upland habitat for foraging, dispersal activities,
and shelter (PCE 3 and PCE 4). The unit is the largest designated
within Monterey County. The unit consists of Federal (26,098 ac (10,562
ha)), State (374 ac (151 ha)), local government (1,373 ac (556 ha)),
and private (91,647 ac (37,088 ha)) lands.
species, urbanization, and water pumping and diversions, which may
indirect loss of egg masses or adults. Please see the Special
MNT-3, Big Sur Coast
land; is located along the Big Sur coastline in Monterey County,
approximately from the mouth of the Little Sur River south to McWay
Canyon; and includes locations in and around the Big Sur River
drainage. The unit includes the following watersheds: Point Sur, Big
Sur River, Ventana Creek, Sycamore Canyon, and Partington Creek. This
unit was not known to be occupied at the time of listing, but surveys
conducted subsequent to the time of listing show that this unit is
currently occupied. Based on life history and population dynamics of
the species we have determined that the area was most likely occupied
at the time of listing. MNT-3 is essential for the conservation of the
species because it contains the largest coastal habitat within Monterey
Bay region and provides for connectivity to more interior units further
north. MNT-3 also contains permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitat for
4). MNT-3 is currently occupied by the species. The unit consists of
Federal (9,960 ac (4,030 ha)), State (4,245 ac (1,718 ha)), and private
(13,338 ac (5,398 ha)) lands.
SNB-1, Hollister Hills/San Benito River
land and is located in northwestern San Benito County in the San Benito
River drainage. The unit includes the following watersheds and portions
of watersheds: the southern portions of San Justo Reservoir, Northeast
Hollister Hills, and Upper Bird Creek; Left Fork Bird Creek; Sulfur
Canyon; and the western portions of Arroyo Hondo, Willow Grove School,
Paicines Ranch, and Lower Pescadero Creek. It is mapped from
of listing near Saint Frances Retreat, San Juan Oaks, Azalea Canyon,
Bird Creek, Hollister Hills State Vehicle Recreation Area, Paicines
Reservoir, and Tres Pinos Creek. SNB-1 contains the features that are
PCE 4). SNB-1 also provides essential connectivity between sites on the
coast plain and inner Coast Range. SNB-1 is occupied by the species, is
expected to prevent further fragmentation of habitat in this portion of
the species' range, and contains permanent and ephemeral aquatic
habitats suitable for breeding and accessible upland areas for
dispersal, shelter, and food. The unit consists of Federal (13 ac (5
ha)), State (3,109 ac (1,258 ha)), and private (33,172 ac (13,424 ha))
of California red-legged frog in the SNB-1 unit may require special
species, and habitat disturbance, which may alter aquatic and upland
SNB-2, Antelope Creek/Upper Tres Pinos Creek
land and is located in central San Benito County along the Tres Pinos
Creek drainage within the Antelope Creek watershed. This unit was not
known to be occupied at the time of listing, but surveys conducted
subsequent to the time of listing show that this unit is currently
occupied, and based on life history and population dynamics of the
species we have determined that the area was most likely occupied at
the time of listing. It is mapped from occurrence records in and along
Tres Pinos Creek between the confluences of Boulder and Willow Springs
Creeks. SNB-2 is essential for the conservation of the species because
it provides aquatic habitat for breeding and non-breeding activities
activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4). SNB-2 is occupied by the species, is
expected to prevent fragmentation of habitat in this portion of the
species' range, and contains permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitats
suitable for breeding and accessible upland areas for dispersal,
shelter, and food. The unit consists entirely of private land.
species, overgrazing and trampling of aquatic and upland habitat by
feral pigs, and recreational activities, which may alter aquatic and
egg masses or adults. Please see the Special Management Considerations
or Protection section of this final rule for a detailed discussion of
SNB-3, Pinnacles National Monument
land; is located in the Gabilan Range at Pinnacles National Monument,
about 3.5 mi (5.6 km) west of the town of San Benito in southern San
Benito County; and is mapped from occurrences recorded at the time of
listing and subsequent to the time of listing. The unit includes the
following watersheds: Gloria Lake, Bickmore Canyon, Sulfur Creek, and
George Hansen Canyon. SNB-3 contains the features that are essential
for the conservation of the species. The unit contains aquatic habitat
habitat for foraging and dispersal activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4). SNB-3
is expected to prevent further fragmentation of habitat in this portion
of the species' range; contains permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitat
suitable for breeding; contains accessible upland areas for dispersal,
shelter, and food; and is occupied by the species. The unit consists of
Federal (20,048 ac (8,113 ha)) and private (43,706 ac (17,687 ha))
SLO-1, Cholame
land; and is located in northeastern San Luis Obispo, northwestern
Kern, and southwestern Kings Counties; includes locations in the
Cholame Creek drainage; and is mapped from occurrences recorded at time
of listing and subsequent to the time of listing. The unit includes
portions of the following watersheds: the southern portion of Blue
Point, the western portion of Jack Canyon, and the eastern portion of
Palo Prieto Canyon. SLO-1 contains the features that are essential for
habitat for foraging and dispersal activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4). SLO-1
contains permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitats suitable for
breeding; contains accessible upland areas for dispersal, shelter, and
food; and is occupied by the species. SLO-1 consists of Federal (169 ac
(68 ha)) and private (17,849 ac (7,223 ha)) lands.
of California red-legged frog in the SLO-1 unit may require special
management considerations or protection due to highway construction,
overgrazing, and water diversions, which may alter aquatic or upland
SLO-2, Piedras Blancas to Cayucos Creek
land and is located along the coast in northwestern San Luis Obispo
from approximately Arroyo de Los Chinos southward to just before but
not including Whale Rock Reservoir. The unit includes the following
watersheds: Arroyo de los Chinos, Lower Arroyo de la Cruz, Arroyo del
Corral, Oak Knoll Creek, Broken Bridge Creek, Pico Creek, Upper San
Simeon Creek, Lower San Simeon Creek, Steiner Creek, Upper Santa Rosa
Creek, Lower Santa Rosa Creek, and Lower Green Valley Creek. The unit
is mapped from occurrences recorded at the time of listing and
subsequent to the time of listing. SLO-2 contains the features that are
PCE 4). SLO-2 provides connectivity within the Santa Lucia Range, and
between this range and the inner Coast Range in San Luis Obispo County.
This unit is occupied by the species. The unit contains high-quality
habitat, indicated by high density of extant occurrences, permanent and
ephemeral aquatic habitats suitable for breeding, and accessible upland
areas for dispersal, shelter, and food. The unit consists of Federal
(440 ac (178 ha)), State (648 ac (262 ha)), and private (81,585 ac
(33,016 ha)) lands.
species, water diversion, overgrazing, and urbanization, which may
the conservation of the California red-legged frog in Unit SLO-2 has
SLO-3, Willow and Toro Creeks to San Luis Obispo
land and is located near the coast in central San Luis Obispo County
and extends about 1.9 mi (3 km) north of the town of Morro Bay
southward to just north and east of the city of San Luis Obispo. The
unit includes the following watersheds: Old Creek, Whale Rock
Reservoir, the southern portion of Hale Creek, Morro Bay, San Luisito
Creek, the western and southern portions of Santa Margarita Creek,
Choro Reservoir, Stenner Lake, Reservoir Canyon, Trout Creek, and Big
Falls Canyon. The unit is mapped from occurrences recorded at the time
of listing and subsequent to the time of listing. SLO-3 contains the
unit is currently occupied and contains permanent and ephemeral aquatic
habitat for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE 1 and PCE 2), and
upland habitat for foraging, dispersal, and shelter (PCE 3 and PCE 4).
SLO-3 provides connectivity within the Santa Lucia Range, and between
this range and the inner Coast Range in San Luis Obispo County. This
unit consists of Federal (29,104 ac (11,778 ha)), State (5,737 ac
(2,322 ha)) and private (81,676 ac (33,053 ha)) lands.
SLO-4, Upper Salinas River
land, is located at the base of Garcia Mountain about 17 mi (27 km)
east of the City of San Luis Obispo, is mapped from occurrences
recorded subsequent to the time of listing, and is currently occupied
by the species. Based on the life history and population dynamics of
at the time of listing. The unit includes the following watersheds:
Horse Mesa, Douglas Canyon, American Canyon, and Coyote Hole. This unit
is essential for the conservation of the species because it is the only
unit in San Luis Obispo County entirely within the interior Coast Range
and provides connectivity between populations in the coastal areas and
populations farther inland. SLO-4 also contains permanent and ephemeral
aquatic habitats consisting of natural and manmade ponds surrounded by
emergent vegetation and marshland with upland dispersal habitat
comprised of riparian areas for dispersal, shelter, and foraging. This
unit consists of Federal (26,183 ac (10,596 ha)) and private (8,280 ac
(3,351 ha)) lands.
species, and due to water diversion, overgrazing, and urbanization,
which may alter aquatic or upland habitats and thereby result in the
direct or indirect loss of egg masses or adults due to habitat
modification. Please see the Special Management Considerations or
STB-1, La Brea Creek
land, is located in Los Padres National Forest in northern Santa
Barbara County, and is mapped from occurrences recorded at the time of
following watersheds: Bear Canyon, the southern portion of Smith
Canyon, Rattlesnake Canyon, Lower South Fork La Brea Creek, and the
eastern portion of Lower La Brea Creek. STB-1 contains the features
(PCE 3 and PCE 4). The unit consists of Federal (20,896 ac (8,456 ha))
and private (4,269 ac (1,727 ha)) lands.
of California red-legged frog in the STB-1 unit may require special
management considerations or protection due to recreational activities,
direct or indirect loss of egg masses or adults. Please see the Special
STB-2, San Antonio Terrace
land, is located in northwestern Santa Barbara County near the coast,
extends from about Casmalia south to the Santa Lucia Canyon near the
Purisima Hills, and is mapped from occurrences recorded subsequent to
the time of listing. Based on the life history and population dynamics
of the species we have determined that the area was most likely
occupied at the time of listing. The unit includes the following
watersheds: Graciosa Canyon and Lions Head. STB-2 provides connectivity
between coastal populations and populations in the Transverse Ranges.
STB-2 also contains aquatic habitat for breeding and non-breeding
dispersal activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4). This unit is currently occupied
by the species. The unit consists of Federal (35 ac (14 ha)) and
private (12,031 ac (4,869 ha)) lands. A portion of the lands containing
frog in Unit STB-2 has been excluded from critical habitat designation
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Application of Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act section below).
STB-3, Sisquoc River
land and is located in northern Santa Barbara County and includes
locations in the Sisquoc River drainage and is mapped from occurrences
The unit contains the following watersheds: the southern portion of
Tunnel Canyon, Burro Canyon, Sulphur Creek, Lower Manzano Creek, Middle
Manzano Creek, Fir Canyon, Upper Cachuma Creek, and the northern
portion of Happy Canyon. STB-3 contains the features that are essential
habitat for foraging and dispersal activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4). STB-3
is occupied by the species, provides connectivity between locations
along the coast and the Transverse Ranges, and is essential in
stabilizing populations of the species in tributaries to the Santa Ynez
River. The unit consists of Federal (40,148 ac (16,247 ha)) and private
(7,411 ac (2,999 ha)) land.
species, recreational activities, and poor water management practices
STB-4, Jalama Creek
and is located along the coast in southwestern Santa Barbara County
about 4.4 mi (7 km) south of the City of Lompoc, and is mapped from
of listing. The unit includes the Casper Creek watershed. STB-4
contains the features that are essential for the conservation of the
species. The unit includes aquatic habitat for breeding and non-
and dispersal activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4). STB-4 is occupied by the
species and provides connectivity between locations along the coast and
the Santa Ynez River watershed. This unit consists of Federal (44 ac
(18 ha)) and private (7,641 ac (3,092 ha)) lands.
species and habitat disturbance, which may alter aquatic and upland
the conservation of the California red-legged frog in Unit STB-4 has
STB-5, Gaviota Creek
land, is located along the coast in southern Santa Barbara County about
3 mi (5 km) southwest of the town of Buellton, and is mapped from
of listing. The unit includes the following watersheds: Ca[ntilde]ada
de las Cruces and Ca[ntilde]ada de la Gavota. STB-5 contains the
(PCE 1 and PCE 2), and upland habitat for shelter, foraging and
dispersal activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4). STB-5 is occupied by the
the Santa Ynez River watershed. The unit consists of Federal (1,547 ac
(626 ha)), State (2,074 ac (839 ha)), and private (9,267 ac (3,750 ha)
species and poor water management practices, which may alter aquatic or
egg masses or adults. Populations in this unit may also require special
management or protection due to their potential importance in
stabilizing California red-legged frog populations in tributaries to
the Santa Ynez River. Please see the ``Special Management
STB-6, Arroyo Quemado to Refugio Creek
5 mi (8 km) south of the town of Solvang, and is mapped from
of listing. The unit includes the Tajiguas Creek watershed. STB-6
species. The unit contains aquatic habitat for breeding and non-
and dispersal
activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4). STB-6 is occupied by the species,
provides connectivity between locations along the coast and the Santa
Ynez River watershed, and contains permanent and ephemeral aquatic
habitats suitable for breeding, and upland areas for dispersal,
shelter, and food. The unit consists of Federal (1,881 ac (761 ha)),
State (29 ac (12 ha)), and private (10,075 ac (4,077 ha)) lands.
the Santa Ynez River. Please see the Special Management Considerations
STB-7, Upper Santa Ynez River and Matilija Creek
land, is located in southeastern Santa Barbara County about 5 mi (8 km)
north of the City of Santa Barbara, and extends into western Ventura
County at Matilija Creek. It is mapped from occurrences recorded at the
time of listing and subsequent to the time of listing. The unit
includes the following watersheds: Los Lauveles Canyon, Redrock Canyon,
Oso Canyon, Buckhorn Creek, Camuesa Creek, Devils Canyon, Indian Creek
Campground, Upper Mono Creek, Lower Mono Creek, Blue Canyon Upper Agua
Caliente Canyon, Diablo Canyon, Lower Agua Caliente Canyon, Juncal
Canyon, Lower Matilija Creek, North Fork Matilija Creek, and Cozy Dell
Canyon. STB-7 contains the features that are essential for the
conservation of the species. This unit contains aquatic habitat for
is occupied by the species and provides connectivity between locations
along the coast, in the Sierra Madre Mountains, and in the Ventura
River watershed. It is important to species conservation and the
persistence of the species in the Matilija watershed because it
breeding, and upland areas for dispersal, shelter, and food in that
portion of the unit, which will provide connectivity between
populations within the Transverse Ranges and will prevent further
isolation of breeding locations near the limit of the geographic range
of the species. The unit as a whole contains high-quality habitat,
indicated by the high density of extant occurrences, permanent and
(124,831 ac (50,517 ha)), State (8 ac (3 ha), and private (20,282 ac
species, flood control activities, road maintenance, and recreational
activities, which may alter aquatic and upland habitats and thereby
result in the direct or indirect loss of egg masses or direct death of
VEN-1, San Antonio Creek
land, is located in western Ventura County at San Antonio Creek, and is
mapped from occurrences recorded at the time of listing and subsequent
to the time of listing, and is currently occupied. The unit includes
portions of the following watersheds: a small southern portion of Upper
San Antonio Creek, a small western portion of Lion Creek, and the
eastern portion of Lower San Antonio Creek. VEN-1 contains the features
(PCE 3 and PCE 4). Persistence of the species in this area will prevent
further isolation of breeding locations near the limit of the
geographic range of the species. The unit contains permanent and
ephemeral aquatic habitats suitable for breeding and accessible upland
areas for dispersal, shelter, and food, and provides connectivity
between populations within the Transverse Ranges. The unit consists
entirely of private land.
of California red-legged frog in the VEN-1 unit may require special
species, recreational activities, and sedimentation of aquatic
Special Management Considerations or Protection''section of this final
VEN-2, Piru Creek
land, is located in eastern Ventura County and northwestern Los Angeles
County, and is mapped from occurrences recorded at the time of listing
at Piru Creek. The unit includes the Michael Creek watershed. VEN-2
and dispersal activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4). VEN-2 is occupied by the
species. Persistence of the species in this area is important to
prevent further isolation of breeding locations near the limit of the
geographic range of the species, and the unit contains permanent and
ephemeral aquatic habitats suitable for breeding, and upland areas for
dispersal, shelter, and food. The unit consists of Federal (8,363 ac
(3,384 ha)) and private (474 ac (192 ha)) land.
species, off-road vehicle use, and conversion of native habitat by
introduced invasive plant species, which may alter aquatic or upland
masses or direct death of adults. Please see the ``Special Management
VEN-3, Upper Las Virgenes Canyon
land, is located in southeastern Ventura County, and is mapped from
occurrences recorded subsequent to the time of listing. Based on the
was most likely occupied at the time of listing. The unit includes the
upper portion of Las Virgenes Creek watershed that is north of the
Ventura County line. VEN-3 is considered an area that is essential for
the conservation of the species because it is currently occupied by the
species and provides connectivity between coastal populations and
populations in the Transverse Ranges. Further, VEN-3 contains aquatic
upland habitat for shelter, foraging, and dispersal activities (PCE 3
and PCE 4). The unit consists of Federal (56 ac (23 ha)) and private
(2,896 ac (1,171 ha)) land. Approximately 2,048 ac (830 ha) of land
within the unit is managed by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy.
masses or direct death of adults. Please see the Special Management
LOS-1, San Francisquito Creek
land, is located in northwestern Los Angeles County, and is mapped from
occurrences recorded at the time of listing and is currently occupied.
LOS-1 contains the features that are essential for the conservation of
breeding activities (PCE 1 and PCE 2), and upland habitat for shelter,
foraging, and dispersal activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4). The unit consists
of Federal (3,909 ac (1,582 ha)) and private land (322 ac (130 ha))
of California red-legged frog in the LOS-1 unit may require special
species on egg masses, tadpoles, juveniles, or adults. Please see the
RIV-1, Cole Creek
We have excluded the lands containing features essential to the
conservation of the California red-legged frog in Unit RIV-1 from
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or
destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Decisions by
the courts of appeals for the Fifth and Ninth Circuits have invalidated
our definition of ``destruction or adverse modification'' (50 CFR
402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9\th\ Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5\th\ Cir. 2001)), and
we do not rely on this regulatory definition when analyzing whether an
action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Under
the statutory provisions of the Act, we determine destruction or
adverse modification on the basis of whether, with implementation of
the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would remain
functional (or retain those physical and biological features that
relate to the ability of the area to periodically support the species)
to serve its intended conservation role for the species.
If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species or to destroy or adversely modify
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency)
must enter into consultation with us. As a result of this consultation,
we document compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) 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;
(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 or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we also provide
reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are
identifiable. We define ``Reasonable and prudent alternatives'' at 50
CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during 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 Director's opinion, avoid jeopardizing the
continued existence of the listed species or 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 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where a new
species is listed or critical habitat is subsequently designated that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action or such discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law. Consequently, Federal
agencies may need to request reinitiation of consultation with us on
actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if those
actions with may affect subsequently listed species or designated
critical habitat.
Federal activities that may affect the California red-legged frog
or its designated critical habitat will require section 7(a)(2)
consultation under the Act. Activities on State, tribal, local, or
private lands requiring a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from us under section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act) or involving some other Federal action (such as
funding from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency) are
examples of agency actions that may be subject to the section 7(a)(2)
consultation process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or
critical habitat, and actions on State, tribal,
local, or private lands that are not federally funded, authorized, or
permitted, do not require section 7(a)(2) consultations.
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended
conservation role for the species, or would retain its current ability
for the primary constituent element(s) to be functionally established.
Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are
those that alter the physical and biological features to an extent that
appreciably reduces the conservation value of critical habitat for
California red-legged frog. Generally, the conservation role of
California red-legged frog critical habitat units is to support viable
populations representative of each geographic area where the frog
exists, as identified in the 2002 recovery plan and other information
available to the Service.
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 destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a
Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and therefore should result
in consultation for the California red-legged frog include, but are not
(1) Actions that significantly alter water chemistry or
temperature. Such activities could include, but are not limited to:
release of chemicals, biological pollutants, or heated effluents into
the surface water or into connected groundwater at a point source or by
dispersed release (non-point source). These activities alter water
conditions beyond the tolerances of the California red-legged frog and
result in direct or cumulative adverse effects to these individuals and
their life cycles.
(2) Actions that would significantly increase sediment deposition
within a stream channel or pond or disturb upland foraging and
dispersal habitat. Such activities could include, but are not limited
to: excessive sedimentation from livestock overgrazing; road
construction; commercial or urban development; channel alteration;
timber harvest; off-road vehicle or recreational use; and other
watershed and floodplain disturbances. These activities could eliminate
or reduce the habitat necessary for the growth and reproduction of the
California red-legged frog by increasing the sediment deposition to
levels that would adversely affect a frog's ability to complete its
life cycle.
(3) Actions that would significantly alter channel/pond morphology
or geometry. Such activities could include, but are not limited to:
channelization; impoundment; road and bridge construction; development;
mining; dredging; and destruction of riparian vegetation. These
activities may lead to changes to the hydrologic functioning of the
stream or pond by altering flow timing or duration, or altering water
levels, which would degrade or eliminate the California red-legged frog
or its habitat. These actions can also lead to increased sedimentation
and degradation in water quality to levels that are beyond the
tolerances of the California red-legged frog.
(4) Actions that eliminate upland foraging or aestivating habitat,
as well as dispersal habitat, for the California red-legged frog. Such
activities could include, but are not limited to: road construction;
commercial or urban development; timber harvest; off-road vehicle or
recreational use; and other watershed and floodplain disturbances.
(5) Actions that result in the introduction, spread, or
augmentation of nonnative aquatic species in stream segments or ponds
used by the California red-legged frog. Possible actions could include,
but are not limited to: introduction of chytrid fungus or other
diseases; fish or bullfrog stocking for sport; nonnative aquatic plant
species for aesthetics; or other related actions. These activities
could affect the growth and reproduction of the California red-legged
frog by subjecting eggs, larvae, tadpoles, and adult California red-
legged frogs to increased predation pressure or could limit the amount
of habitat available for the species, which would adversely affect the
California red-legged frog's ability to complete its life cycle.
Note that the scale of these activities is a crucial factor in
determining whether they may directly or indirectly alter critical
habitat to the extent that the value of the critical habitat for the
survival and recovery of California red-legged frog would be
appreciably diminished.
If you have questions regarding whether specific activities may
constitute adverse modification of critical habitat, contact the Field
Supervisor of the appropriate Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).
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:
An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
A statement of goals and priorities;
A detailed description of management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs; and
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)) now provides: ``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 670a of this title, if the Secretary
determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species
for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.''
INRMPs developed by military installations located within the range
of the California red-legged frog and which contain those features
essential to the species' conservation were analyzed for exemption
under the authority of section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
Previous Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act for Camp San Luis
Obispo (Unit SLO-2) and Vandenberg Air Force Base (Units STB-2 and STB-
In the previous final critical habitat designation for the
California red-legged
frog (71 FR 19243; April 13, 2006), we exempted Camp San Luis Obispo
(CSLO) in San Luis Obispo County, and Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB)
in Santa Barbara County, from the designation of critical habitat under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. Currently CSLO and VAFB do not have
Service-approved INRMPs in place. Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act
requires that an approved INRMP be in place in order to qualify for an
exemption. As a result of CSLO and VAFB not having Service approved
INRMPs, we have reevaluated our previous decision and are not exempting
CSLO and VAFB from portions of Unit SLO-2, Unit STB-2, and Unit STB-4
under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act. However, we have determined to
exclude CSLO and VAFB from designated critical habitat under section
4(b)(2) of the Act (see ``Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Impacts to
National Security'' section below).
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must designate
and revise 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 critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the
critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that
determination, the legislative history is clear that the Secretary has
broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight
to give to any factor.
In the following sections, we address a number of general issues
that are relevant to the exclusions we are considering. In addition, we
have conducted an economic analysis of the impacts of the proposed
critical habitat designation and related factors, which was made
available for public review and comment. Based on public comment on
that document and the proposed designation itself, as well as the
information in the final economic analysis, the Secretary may exclude
from critical habitat areas different from those identified for
possible exclusion in the proposed rule under the provisions of section
4(b)(2) of the Act, up to and including all areas proposed for
designation. This is also addressed in our implementing regulations at
50 CFR 424.19.
Benefits of Designating Critical Habitat
The process of designating critical habitat as described in the Act
requires that the Service identify those lands within the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time of listing on which are found
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the species that may require special management considerations or
protection, and those areas outside the geographical area occupied by
the species at the time of listing that are essential to the
conservation of the species. In identifying those lands, the Service
must consider the recovery needs of the species, such that, on the
basis of the best scientific data available at the time of designation,
the habitat that is identified, if protected or managed appropriately,
could provide for the survival and recovery of the species.
The identification of areas that contain features essential to the
conservation of the species and that if managed or protected, can
provide for the recovery of a species, is beneficial. The process of
proposing and finalizing a critical habitat rule provides the Service
with the opportunity to determine the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species within the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time of listing, as well as to
determine other areas essential for the conservation of the species.
The designation process includes peer review and public comment on the
identified physical and biological features and areas. This process is
valuable to land owners and managers in developing conservation
management plans for identified areas, as well as any other occupied
habitat or suitable habitat that may not be included in the areas the
Service identifies as meeting the definition of critical habitat.
The consultation provisions under section 7(a)(2) of the Act
constitute the regulatory benefits of critical habitat. As discussed
above, Federal agencies must consult with the Service on actions that
may affect critical habitat and must avoid destroying or adversely
modifying critical habitat. Federal agencies must also consult with us
on actions that may affect a listed species and refrain from
undertaking actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of such species. The analysis of effects to critical habitat
is a separate and different analysis from that of the effects to the
species. Therefore, the difference in outcomes of these two analyses
represents the regulatory benefit of critical habitat. For some
species, and in some locations, the outcome of these analyses will be
similar, because effects to habitat will often result in effects to the
species. However, the regulatory standard is different, as the jeopardy
analysis investigates the action's impact on survival and recovery of
the species, while the adverse modification analysis investigates the
action's effects on the designated habitat's contribution to
conservation. This will, in many instances, lead to different results
and different regulatory requirements. Thus, critical habitat
designations may provide greater regulatory benefits to the recovery of
a species than would listing alone.
There are two limitations to the regulatory effect of critical
habitat. First, a consultation is required only where there is a
Federal nexus (an action authorized, funded, or carried out by any
Federal agency)--if there is no Federal nexus the designation of
private lands as critical habitat itself does not restrict any actions
that destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Second, the
designation only limits destruction or adverse modification. By its
nature, the prohibition on adverse modification is designed to ensure
that the conservation role and function of those areas that contain the
species or of unoccupied areas that are essential for the conservation
of the species are not appreciably reduced. Critical habitat
designation alone, however, does not require property owners to
undertake specific steps toward recovery of the species.
Once an agency determines that consultation under section 7(a)(2)
of the Act is necessary, the process may conclude informally when the
Service concurs in writing that the proposed Federal action is not
likely to adversely affect critical habitat. However, if we determine
through informal consultation that adverse impacts are likely to occur,
then formal consultation is initiated. Formal consultation concludes
with a biological opinion issued by the Service on whether the proposed
Federal action is likely to result in destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat.
For critical habitat, a biological opinion that concludes in a
determination of no destruction or adverse modification may contain
discretionary conservation recommendations to minimize adverse effects
to primary constituent elements, but it would not suggest the
implementation of any reasonable and prudent alternative. We suggest
reasonable and prudent alternatives to the proposed Federal action only
when our biological opinion results in an adverse modification
As stated above, the designation of critical habitat does not
require that any management or recovery actions take place on the lands
included in the designation. Even in cases where consultation is
initiated under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, the end result of
consultation is to avoid jeopardy to the species and/or adverse
modification of its critical habitat, but not necessarily to manage
critical habitat or institute recovery actions on critical habitat.
Conversely, voluntary conservation efforts implemented through
management plans institute proactive actions over the lands they
encompass and are put in place to remove or reduce known threats to a
species or its habitat and, therefore, implement recovery actions.
Another benefit of including lands in critical habitat is that
designation of critical habitat serves to educate landowners, State and
local governments, and the public regarding the potential conservation
value of an area. This helps focus and promote conservation efforts by
other parties by clearly delineating areas of high conservation value
for the affected species. In general, critical habitat designation
always has educational benefits; however, in some cases, they may be
redundant with other educational effects. For example, HCPs have
significant public input and may largely duplicate the educational
benefits of a critical habitat designation. Including lands in critical
habitat also would inform State agencies and local governments about
areas that could be conserved under State laws or local ordinances.
Conservation Partnerships on Non-Federal Lands
Most federally listed species in the United States will not recover
without cooperation of non-Federal landowners. More than 60 percent of
the United States is privately owned (National Wilderness Institute
1995, pp. 1-2), and at least 80 percent of endangered or threatened
species occur either partially or solely on private lands (Crouse et
al. 2002, p. 720). Stein et al. (1995, p. 400) found that only about 12
percent of listed species were found almost exclusively on Federal
lands (90 to 100 percent of their known occurrences restricted to
Federal lands) and that 50 percent of federally listed species are not
known to occur on Federal lands at all.
Given the distribution of listed species with respect to land
ownership, conservation of listed species in many parts of the United
States is dependent upon working partnerships with a wide variety of
entities and the voluntary cooperation of many non-Federal landowners
(Wilcove and Chen 1998, p. 1407; Crouse et al. 2002, p. 720; James
2002, p. 271). Building partnerships and promoting voluntary
cooperation of landowners are essential to understanding the status of
species on non-Federal lands, and are necessary to implement recovery
actions such as reintroducing listed species, habitat restoration, and
habitat protection.
Many non-Federal landowners derive satisfaction from contributing
to endangered species recovery. We promote these private-sector efforts
through the Department of the Interior's Cooperative Conservation
philosophy. Conservation agreements with non-Federal landowners (HCPs,
safe harbor agreements, other conservation agreements, easements, and
State and local regulations) enhance species conservation by extending
species protections beyond those available through section 7
consultations. We encourage non-Federal landowners to enter into
conservation agreements, based on a view that we can achieve greater
species conservation on non-Federal land through such partnerships than
we can through regulatory methods (61 FR 63854).
Many private landowners, however, are wary of the possible
consequences of encouraging endangered species to their property.
Mounting evidence suggests that some regulatory actions by the
government, while well intentioned and required by law, can (under
certain circumstances) have unintended negative consequences for the
conservation of species on private lands (Wilcove et al. 1996, pp. 5-6;
Bean 2002, pp.2-3; Conner and Mathews 2002, pp.1-2; James 2002, pp.
270-271; Koch 2002, pp. 2-3; Brook et al. 2003, pp. 1639-1643). Many
landowners fear a decline in their property value due to real or
perceived restrictions on land-use options where threatened or
endangered species are found. Consequently, harboring endangered
species is viewed by many landowners as a liability. This perception
results in anti-conservation incentives because maintaining habitats
that harbor endangered species represents a risk to future economic
opportunities (Main et al. 1999, pp. 1264-1265; Brook et al. 2003, pp.
1644-1648).
According to some researchers, the designation of critical habitat
on private lands significantly reduces the likelihood that landowners
will support and carry out conservation actions (Main et al. 1999, p.
1263; Bean 2002, p. 2; Brook et al. 2003, pp. 1644-1648). The magnitude
of this negative outcome is greatly amplified in situations where
active management measures (such as reintroduction, fire management,
and control of invasive species) are necessary for species conservation
(Bean 2002, pp. 3-4). We believe that the judicious exclusion of
specific areas of non-federally owned lands from critical habitat
designations can contribute to species recovery and provide a superior
level of conservation than critical habitat alone.
The purpose of designating critical habitat is to contribute to the
conservation of threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. The outcome of the designation, triggering
regulatory requirements for actions funded, authorized, or carried out
by Federal agencies under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, can sometimes be
counterproductive to its intended purpose on non-Federal lands. Thus
the benefits of excluding areas that are covered by partnerships or
voluntary conservation efforts can, in specific circumstances, be high.
Benefits of Excluding Lands with HCPs or other Management Plans
The benefits of excluding lands with HCPs or other approved long-
term management plans from critical habitat designation include
relieving landowners, communities, and counties of any additional
regulatory burden that might be imposed as a result of the critical
habitat designation. Many HCPs and other conservation plans take many
years to develop, and upon completion, are consistent with the recovery
objectives for listed species that are covered within the plan area.
Many conservation plans also provide conservation benefits to unlisted
sensitive species.
A related benefit of excluding lands covered by approved HCPs and
management plans that cover listed species from critical habitat
designation is that it can make it easier for us to seek new
partnerships with future plan participants, including States, counties,
local jurisdictions, conservation organizations, and private
landowners, which together can implement conservation actions that we
would be unable to accomplish otherwise. HCPs often cover a wide range
of species, including species that are not State and
Federally listed, and that would otherwise receive little protection
from development. By excluding these lands, we preserve our current
partnerships and encourage additional future conservation actions.
We also note that permit issuance in association with HCP and
Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP)-HCP applications requires
consultation under section 7 and section 10 of the Act, which would
include the review of the effects of all HCP-covered activities that
might adversely impact the species under a jeopardy standard, including
possibly significant habitat modification (see definition of ``harm''
at 50 CFR 17.3), even without the critical habitat designation.
Additionally, all other Federal actions that may affect the listed
species still require consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act,
and we review these actions for possibly significant habitat
modification in accordance with the definition of harm referenced
Information provided in the previous sections applies to all the
following discussions of benefits of inclusion or exclusion of critical
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise
critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after
taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national
security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular
area as critical habitat. In compliance with section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, we have prepared an economic analysis (EA) of this final
designation of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog. The
final EA considers the potential economic effects of actions relating
to the conservation of the California red-legged frog, including costs
associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, and including those
attributable to designating critical habitat. It further considers the
economic effects of protective measures taken as a result of other
Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat conservation for the
California red-legged frog in essential habitat areas. The EA considers
both economic efficiency and distributional effects. In the case of
habitat conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the
``opportunity costs'' associated with the commitment of resources to
comply with habitat protection measures (for example, lost economic
opportunities associated with restrictions on land use). The EA also
addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be distributed,
including an assessment of any local or regional impacts of habitat
conservation and the potential effects of conservation activities on
small entities and the energy industry. The information in the EA can
be used by the Service and the Secretary to assess whether the effects
of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic
sector. Finally, the EA considers those costs that may occur in the 22
years following the designation of critical habitat. The EA estimates
the foreseeable economic impacts and the potential incremental costs as
a result of the revised critical habitat designation; these are those
costs attributed to critical habitat over and above those baseline
costs coextensive with listing. The EA described economic impacts of
California red-legged frog conservation efforts associated with the
following categories of activity: (1) Residential and Commercial
Development; (2) Water Management; (3) Agriculture; (4) Ranching/
Grazing; (5) Timber Harvest; (6) Transportation; (7) Fire Management;
(8) Utility and Oil and Gas Pipeline Construction and Maintenance; and
(9) Habitat and Vegetation Management.
The pre-critical habitat designation (baseline) (1996-2008) costs
associated with species conservation activities are estimated at $44 to
$113 million on an annualized basis discounted at 7 percent. The EA
estimated the total potential incremental economic impacts likely to
result from the designation over the next 22 years (2009 to 2030) to be
$159 million to $500 million ($14.4 to $45.2 million annualized) in
present value terms using a 7 percent discount rate. Impacts to urban
development represent approximately 90 percent of the incremental
impacts. Impacts to agriculture activities account for 10 percent of
the incremental costs due to the assumed establishment of no-pesticide
use areas as part of the stipulated injunction as established by the
Northern District Court of California for use of 66 pesticides (Center
for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency et
al., Case No. C-02-1580-JSW (ND Ca. 2006)). This injunction and order
will remain in effect for each of the 66 pesticides listed in the
settlement until the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) completes
formal section 7(a)(2) consultation with the Service on the effects of
each of the 66 active ingredients on the California red-legged frog.
The EA did identify areas within the designation that had
disproportionate costs when compared to other areas within the
designation. We have reviewed the units that were associated with the
disproportionate costs and have determined that only two units have the
majority (over 30 percent) of the costs identified in the EA. Those
units are Unit SLO-3 in San Luis Obispo County and Unit ALA-2 in
Alameda County. However, due to the methodologies used in determining
the costs to development that are associated with the designation of
critical habitat, we are unable to specifically identify the exact
areas where those costs may occur. Because the areas within the units
where the high costs are attributed cannot be specifically identified,
we have determined that it would be inappropriate to exercise our
discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act to exclude portions of Unit
SLO-3, and Unit ALA-2 from the designation. Because the EA did not
identify any disproportionate costs that are likely to result from the
remainder of the designation outside Unit SLO-3 and Unit ALA-2, we did
not consider exercising our discretion to exclude any other areas from
this designation of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog
based on economic impacts. A copy of the final EA with supporting
documents is included in our administrative record and may be obtained
by contacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or by downloading
from the Internet at www.regulations.go/.
Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Impacts to National Security
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows the Secretary to exercise his
discretion to exclude areas from critical habitat for reasons of
national security if he determines the benefits of such an exclusion
exceed the benefits of designating the area as critical habitat.
However, this exclusion cannot occur if it will result in the
extinction of the species concerned.
Camp San Luis Obispo
Camp San Luis Obispo (CSLO) is a 5,612 ac (2,271 ha) State-owned
training site managed by the California Army National Guard, which
provides training grounds for National Guard, U.S. Army Reserve, and
other Department of Defense troops, as well as law enforcement agencies
and the U.S. State Department. CSLO currently trains approximately
100,000 soldiers annually and supports overseas deployments to Iraq,
Afghanistan, Kosovo, and other theaters.
An Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (INRMP) for CSLO was
adopted by the California Army National Guard in 2001, but has not
been approved and signed by the Service. The Endangered Species
Management Plan for California red-legged frogs, included as part of
the INRMP, specifies conservation measures including: annual monitoring
of California red-legged frog populations on CSLO lands; monitoring of
grazing and training impacts on riparian and upland habitats;
installation of cattle exclusion fencing to protect riparian habitat;
bank stabilization and revegetation, and nonnative/invasive plant
removal; a 3:1 mitigation ratio for riparian vegetation lost during
construction and maintenance projects; and actively seeking funding for
habitat improvement and conservation projects. California red-legged
frog management efforts would continue to be implemented regardless of
whether we designate CSLO as critical habitat.
The Department of the Army, the National Guard Bureau, and the
California Army National Guard stated in their comments that critical
habitat designation on CSLO lands would impact national security.
Designation of these lands could limit or restrict the amount of
natural infrastructure available for ongoing and future mission
execution and training needed for national security. The California
Army National Guard expressed concern that critical habitat designation
would impede troop readiness by requiring consultation for activities
that may affect California red-legged frog critical habitat, and that
delays or limitations to mission-essential training at CSLO directly
affect the ability of soldiers to perform mission-essential tasks when
deployed abroad or when assigned to National, State, local, and
Homeland Security missions.
Benefits of Inclusion - Camp San Luis Obispo
The benefit of including CSLO lands in this critical habitat
designation is that designation can serve to educate the public
regarding potential conservation value of the area and help focus
conservation efforts. The California Army National Guard is well aware
of the presence of California red-legged frogs on CSLO and the value of
CSLO lands to the conservation of the California red-legged frog. The
California Army National Guard currently implements management measures
to conserve California red-legged frogs and their habitat. The
California Army National Guard is actively working with the Service and
the CDFG to develop an approved INRMP that will ensure conservation of
this species on CSLO lands. Furthermore, we included all CSLO lands in
the proposed designation, which itself reached a wide audience.
Therefore, the educational benefits that might follow critical habitat
designation (such as providing information to the California Army
National Guard on areas important to the long-term conservation of this
species) may have been already provided by consultation, development of
the INRMP including the Endangered Species Management Plan, and
proposing these areas as critical habitat.
In light of the continued commitment by the California Army
National Guard to manage their lands in a manner that promotes
conservation of the California red-legged frog and because we will
continue to complete consultations on activities that may impact
California red-legged frogs, we believe designation of critical habitat
would provide few, if any, additional regulatory and conservation
benefits to the species beyond those that will result from continued
species consultations.
Benefits of Exclusion - Camp San Luis Obispo
The benefits of excluding approximately 5,612 ac (2,271 ha) of
California Army National Guard lands are significant. The CSLO lands
are used for realistic, intensive military training that provides
soldiers with essential war-fighting skills that they utilize on the
battlefield. As described above, designation of CSLO lands could limit
or restrict the amount of natural infrastructure available for ongoing
and future training needed for national security. Excluding these
California Army National Guard lands from critical habitat designation
will remove the potential impact that a designation of critical habitat
could have on the military's ability to maintain our national security.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh Benefits of Inclusion - Camp San Luis
We have determined that approximately 5,612 ac (2,271 ha) of the
Camp San Luis Obispo National Guard Training Site (CSLO), located in
Unit SLO-3, contain features essential to the conservation of the
California red-legged frog, thereby meeting the definition of critical
habitat under the Act. In the revised proposed rule to designate
critical habitat we incorrectly identified approximately 5,902 ac
(2,388 ha) owned by CSLO. On further review of the ownership of the
lands for this designation within Unit SLO-3, we now correctly identify
approximately 5,612 ac (2,271 ha) of land owned by CSLO that is subject
to exclusion. In making our final decision with regard to CSLO lands,
we considered several factors, including potential impacts to national
security associated with a critical habitat designation as described by
California Army National Guard; existing consultations; and
conservation measures in place at this facility that benefit the
California red-legged frog. We reviewed and evaluated the benefits of
inclusion and benefits of exclusion for California Army National Guard
lands in Unit SLO-3. We believe the benefits of designating these lands
as California red-legged frog critical habitat are small, whereas the
benefits of excluding these lands from critical habitat will result in
the removal of potential impacts to national security. Therefore, we
determined the benefits identified above of excluding approximately
5,612 ac (2,271 ha) of CSLO lands from the critical habitat designation
outweigh the benefits of including these lands. Under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act, the Secretary is exercising his discretion to exclude all
CSLO lands in SLO-3 from this final revised critical habitat
designation as a result of impacts to national security.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species - Camp San Luis
We have determined that the exclusion of the CSLO lands from the
final revised designation of critical habitat for the California red-
legged frog will not result in the extinction of the species. The
benefits of excluding 5,612 ac (2,271 ha) of lands from critical
habitat are more significant than the benefits of inclusion and include
the removal of impacts to national security. While some loss of habitat
for the California red-legged frog may occur with the continued
activities on CSLO lands, we conclude that, due to the measures
outlined in the California red-legged frog management component of the
pending INRMP, and the continued commitment from the California Army
National Guard to consult with us on projects that may adversely impact
California red-legged frogs, these continued activities will not result
in extinction of this species. The jeopardy standard of section 7 of
the Act and routine implementation of conservation measures through the
section 7 process provide assurances that the species will not go
extinct as a result of this exclusion.
Vandenberg Air Force Base
Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) operates a 99,100 ac (40,104 ha)
missile test base and aerospace center supporting west coast launch
activities for the United States Air Force (Air
Force). The base extends along approximately 42 miles (68 km) of Santa
Barbara County coastline and includes variable elevations and unique
habitats that contribute to VAFB's distinct biological diversity. VAFB
provides airspace for space launches, ballistic missile tests,
aeronautical operations and military exercises.
An INRMP for VAFB was developed by the Air Force, but has not been
approved and signed by the Service. The draft INRMP has served as the
foundation for implementation of conservation measures including:
periodic surveys of California red-legged frog populations on VAFB,
coordination with VAFB water quality staff to prevent degradation and
contamination of California red-legged frog habitat, protection of
various sites from human activities and grazing, prohibition of non-
native fish introduction into VAFB water bodies, and consultation with
the Service on all actions that may affect California red-legged frogs
on VAFB.
The Air Force expressed concern that critical habitat designation
on VAFB lands would impact national security and believes that
designation of these lands as critical habitat would generally reduce
the availability of unencumbered, natural infrastructure to support
space and missile operations and essential maintenance activities.
Additionally, the Air Force expressed concern that critical habitat
designation would potentially delay short-notice, mission-critical
activities that had not been previously analyzed in a consultation with
the Service and that may affect critical habitat that has not been
observed to be occupied by California red-legged frogs.
Benefits of Inclusion - Vandenberg Air Force Base
One benefit of including VAFB lands in this critical habitat
designation is the designation can educate the public regarding
potential conservation value of the installation and may help focus
conservation efforts. The Air Force is aware of the value of VAFB lands
to the conservation of the California red-legged frog and currently
implements management measures to conserve California red-legged frogs
and their habitat. The Air Force is actively working with the Service
and the CDFG to develop a revised INRMP that will ensure conservation
of this species on VAFB lands. Further, we included all VAFB lands in
designation (such as providing information to the military on areas
important to the long-term conservation of this species) may have been
already provided by consultation, development of the INRMP, and
proposing VAFB as critical habitat.
In light of the continued commitment by the Department of the Air
Force to manage their lands in a manner that promotes conservation of
the California red-legged frog and because we will continue to complete
consultations on activities that may impact California red-legged
frogs, we believe designation of critical habitat would provide few, if
any, additional regulatory and conservation benefits to the species
beyond those that will result from continued species consultations.
Benefits of Exclusion - Vandenberg Air Force Base
The benefits of excluding approximately 24,913 ac (10,090 ha) of
Air Force lands are significant. The VAFB lands are used to provide
restricted airspace for space launches, ballistic missile tests,
aeronautical operations, and military exercises. Designation of VAFB
lands as critical habitat for California red-legged frogs would
generally reduce the availability of unencumbered, natural
infrastructure to support space missile operations and essential
maintenance activities, and may potentially delay short-notice,
mission-critical activities that were not previously analyzed in a
consultation with the Service. Excluding these Air Force lands from the
critical habitat designation will remove the potential impact that a
designation of critical habitat could have on the military's ability to
maintain our national security.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh Benefits of Inclusion - Vandenberg Air
Force Base
We determined that approximately 24, 913 ac (10,090 ha) of Air
Force lands at VAFB, 23,912 ac (9,684 ha) located in Unit STB-2 and
1,001 ac (405 ha) in STB-4, contain the features essential to the
conservation of the California red-legged frog, and therefore meet the
definition of critical habitat under the Act. In the unit description
for Unit STB-2 in the revised proposed rule, we erroneously identified
only 4,992 ac (1,992 ha) as being part of VAFB (73 FR 53510). We
corrected this error, and we now identify approximately 24,913 ac
(10,090 ha) as being part of VAFB and as a result subject to exclusion.
In making our final decision with regard to these Air Force lands, we
considered several factors including potential impacts to national
security associated with critical habitat designation as described by
the Air Force, existing consultations, and conservation measures in
place at VAFB that benefit the California red-legged frog.
We reviewed and evaluated the benefits of inclusion and benefits of
exclusion for Air Force lands in Unit STB-2 and STB-4. We believe the
benefits of designating these lands as California red-legged frog
critical habitat are small, whereas the benefits of excluding these
lands from critical habitat will result in the removal of potential
impacts to national security. Therefore, we determined the benefits
identified above of excluding approximately 24,913 ac (10,090 ha) of
VAFB lands from the critical habitat designation outweigh the benefits
of including these lands. Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are
excluding all Air Force lands in Unit STB-2 and STB-4 from this final
revised critical habitat to prevent impacts to national security.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species - Vandenberg Air
We determined that the exclusion of the VAFB lands from the final
revised critical habitat designation for the California red-legged frog
will not result in the extinction of the species. The benefits of
excluding 24,913 ac (10,090 ha) of lands from critical habitat are more
significant than the benefits of inclusion and include the prevention
of impacts to national security as determined by the Air Force. While
some loss of habitat for the California red-legged frog may occur with
the continued activities on VAFB lands, we conclude that, due to the
measures outlined in the draft INRMP, and the continued commitment from
the Air Force to consult with us on projects that may adversely impact
California red-legged frogs, these continued activities would not
jeopardize the continued existence of this species. The jeopardy
standard of section 7 of the Act and routine implementation of
conservation measures through the section 7 process provide assurances
that the species will not go extinct as a result of this exclusion.
Application of Section 4(b)(2) - Other Relevant Impacts - Conservation
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows the Secretary to exclude areas
from critical habitat for other relevant impacts if he determines that
the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such
area as part of critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the
best scientific data available, that the failure to designate such area
as critical habitat will result in the
extinction of the species. As discussed above in the Conservation
Partnerships on Non-Federal Lands section, we believe that designation
can negatively impact the working relationships and conservation
partnerships we have formed with private landowners. The Service
recognizes that 80 percent of endangered or threatened species occur
either partially or solely on private lands (Crouse et al. 2002, p.
270), and we will only achieve recovery of federally listed species
with the cooperation of private landowners.
In making the following exclusions, we evaluated the benefits of
designating these non-Federal lands that may not have a Federal nexus
for consultation while considering if our existing partnerships have
resulted, or will result, in greater conservation benefits to the
California red-legged frog and the physical or biological features
essential to its conservation than a critical habitat designation. As
discussed in the ``Benefits of Designating Critical Habitat'' section
above, conservation partnerships that result in implementation of an
HCP or other management plan that considers enhancement or recovery as
the management standard often provide as much or more benefit than
consultation on projects that may affect critical habitat (the primary
benefit of a designation).
In considering the benefits of including lands in a designation
that are covered by a current HCP or other management plan, we evaluate
a number of factors to help us determine the conservation benefit that
the plan or program provides the species or its habitat:
(1) Whether the plan is complete and provides protection from
destruction or adverse modification of areas proposed as critical
habitat;
(2) Whether there is a reasonable expectation the conservation
management strategies and actions will be implemented for the
foreseeable future, based on past practices, written guidance, or
regulations; and
(3) Whether the plan provides conservation strategies and measures
consistent with currently accepted principles of conservation biology.
We balance the benefits of inclusion against the benefits of
exclusion by considering the benefits that may accrue from
consultations versus the benefits of preserving partnerships and
encouraging development of additional HCPs and other conservation plans
in the future.
After consideration under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the Secretary
has determined to exercise his discretion to exclude the following
specific areas from the final revised critical habitat for the
California red-legged frog: Bonnie Doon Quarries Settlement Ponds HCP
in Santa Cruz County (6 ac (3 ha)) (Unit SCZ-1); East Contra Costa
County HCP and Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) in Contra
Costa County (75,767 ac (30,662 ha)) (Unit CCS-2); Western Riverside
Multi-species HCP in Riverside County (4,069 ac (1,647 ha)) (Unit RIV-
1); East Bay Regional Park District lands in Contra Costa County
(14,627 ac (5,919 ha)) (Unit CCS-2); Spivey Pond Management Area (BLM)
in El Dorado County (54 ac (22 ha)) (Unit ELD-1); and Hearst Ranch
Conservation Easement in San Luis Obispo County (34,777 ac (14,074 ha))
(Unit SLO-2).
Bonny Doon Quarries Settlement Ponds Habitat Conservation Plan (Bonny
Doon HCP) (Unit SCZ-1)
The Bonny Doon HCP encompasses approximately 6 ac (3 ha) of
privatelyowned lands in the Santa Cruz Mountains near the town of
Davenport, Santa Cruz County, California. California red-legged frogs
are present in both of the watersheds (San Vicente Creek and Liddell
Creek) where seven settlement ponds were constructed at the Bonny Doon
Quarries. The Bonny Doon HCP was completed and finalized in 1998,
concurrently with a final environmental assessment on the HCP under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). We
issued a non-jeopardy biological opinion under section 7 of the Act on
the Bonny Doon HCP on July 29, 1999 (Service, 1-8-99-FW-70, 1999, pp.
1-13). The Bonny Doon HCP contains measures to minimize and mitigate
impacts to the California red-legged frog and its habitat from the
quarry's operations, maintenance, and possible reclamation activities.
The primary components of the minimization and mitigation include:
developing and implementing an employee training program and community
outreach program; conducting annual breeding and pre-activity surveys
for California red-legged frogs at all settlement and mitigation ponds;
avoiding or relocating California red-legged frog adults, tadpoles, and
egg masses during maintenance activities; minimizing impacts of water
releases to breeding populations of California red-legged frogs;
inspecting the ground for California red-legged frogs that may be under
vehicles prior to use; establishing a speed limit of 10 mi/hour (16 km/
hour) on roads within the operational area; using pesticides and
herbicides that do not affect aquatic organisms and applying them in
accordance with label precautions; disposing of all food-related trash
in closed containers; controlling nonnative predators; and enhancing
habitat suitability of the mitigation ponds and Settlement Pond 1 for
the California red-legged frog. The Bonny Doon HCP and its accompanying
implementing agreement, which delineates the responsibilities of the
Service and the permittee for the implementation of the HCP, are
designed to allow the operation and maintenance activities of up to
seven settlement ponds and the reclamation of two additional settlement
ponds totaling 4.9 ac (2 ha) in a manner that will result in
conservation of the California red-legged frog and its habitat.
Based on the reasoning below, the Secretary has determined to
exercise his discretion to exclude approximately 6 ac (3 ha) of land
from unit SCZ-1 in Santa Cruz County under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Benefits of Inclusion - Bonny Doon HCP
The inclusion of approximately 6 ac (3 ha) of lands within the
Bonny Doon HCP could be beneficial because it identifies lands that
require management for conservation of California red-legged frogs. The
process of proposing and finalizing the revised critical habitat rule
provided the Service with the opportunity to evaluate and refine the
features essential to the conservation of the species within the
geographical area occupied by it at the time of listing, as well as to
evaluate whether there are other areas essential for the conservation
of the species. The designation process included peer review and public
comment on the identified features and areas. This process is valuable
to landowners and managers in developing conservation management plans
for identified areas, as well as any other occupied habitat or suitable
habitat that may not have been included in the Service's determination
of essential habitat.
The educational benefits of designation are small and largely
redundant to those derived through conservation efforts currently being
implemented in the approximately 6 ac (3 ha) of lands within the Bonny
Doon HCP. The educational benefits of critical habitat designation
derived through informing landowners and other members of the public of
areas important for the long-term conservation of the California red-
legged frog may have been and continue to be achieved through: (1)
Development and implementation of the Bonny Doon HCP, (2) the original
critical habitat designation process in 2001 (66 FR
14626), and (3) publication of the revised critical habitat designation
in 2006 (71 FR 19244).
The consultation provisions under section 7 of the Act constitute
the regulatory benefits of inclusion for critical habitat. As discussed
above, Federal agencies must consult with us on actions that may affect
critical habitat and must avoid destroying or adversely modifying
critical habitat. There is some, albeit limited, potential for future
activities within the lands we are excluding having a Federal nexus for
the California red-legged frog as a result of actions by Federal
agencies, such as the Army Corps of Engineers. Therefore, including
this area may provide some regulatory benefits under section 7 of the
However, the Bonny Doon HCP addresses conservation issues from a
coordinated, integrated perspective rather than a piecemeal, project-
by-project approach (as would occur on these lands under sections 7 of
the Act absent this plan) and will arguably achieve more California
red-legged frog conservation within the Bonny Doon HCP Plan Area than
through section 7 consultations involving consideration of critical
habitat. The PCEs required by California red-legged frogs will benefit
from the conservation objectives and required measures outlined in the
Bonny Doon HCP.
In light of the conservation planning used in the development of
the Bonny Doon HCP and the conservation that will occur under the HCP,
we conclude that the potential regulatory benefit of designating this
area in Unit SCZ-1 as critical habitat is minimal.
Benefits of Exclusion - Bonny Doon HCP
HCPs foster a cooperative, coordinated approach to species
protection and habitat conservation. The benefits of excluding HCP
lands are: (1) Retaining and fostering the existing partnership and
working relationship with the landowner(s) and other entities, and (2)
encouraging future HCP development or development of other species/
habitat conservation plans. The benefits of excluding lands within
approved plans that specifically benefit listed or sensitive species
from critical habitat discussed above applies fully to the Bonny Doon
HCP. Additionally, exclusion of an HCP (such as the Bonny Doon HCP)
demonstrates our good faith effort and collaborative working
relationships, which should encourage initiation and completion of
other HCPs.
We developed close partnerships with all participating entities
through the development of the Bonny Doon HCP, which incorporates
appropriate protections and management for the California red-legged
frog, its habitat, and the features essential to the conservation of
this species. By excluding 6 ac (3 ha) of lands in Unit SCZ-1 from
designation, we are eliminating an essentially redundant layer of
regulatory review for projects covered by the Bonny Doon HCP, helping
to preserve our ongoing partnership with the plan participants, and
encouraging new partnerships with other landowners and jurisdictions.
These partnerships are critical for the conservation of California red-
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion -Bonny Doon
As discussed in the ``Benefits of Inclusion - Bonny Doon HCP''
section above, we believe the regulatory benefit of designating
critical habitat on lands covered by the Bonny Doon HCP would be low.
The Bonny Doon HCP addresses conservation issues from a coordinated,
integrated perspective rather than a piecemeal project-by-project
approach and will achieve more California red-legged frog conservation
than we would achieve through multiple site-by-site, project-by-
project, section 7 consultations involving consideration of critical
habitat. We believe the conservation benefits for California red-legged
frogs that would occur as a result of designating those 6 ac (3 ha) in
Unit SCZ-1 as critical habitat (e.g., protection afforded through the
section 7(a)(2) consultation process) is minimal compared to the
overall conservation benefits for the species that will be realized
through the implementation of the Bonny Doon HCP.
Furthermore, the educational benefits of critical habitat
designation, including informing the public of areas important for the
long-term conservation of the species, are accomplished from material
provided on our website and through notices of public comment periods
associated with the original California red-legged frog critical
habitat rule (66 FR 14626), the first revised critical habitat rule (71
FR 19244), and the Bonny Doon HCP (Service 1998, pp. 1-23). Further,
many educational benefits of critical habitat designation will be
achieved through the overall designation, and will occur whether or not
this particular location is designated. For these reasons, we believe
that designating critical habitat has little benefit in areas covered
by the Bonny Doon HCP.
The exclusion of the Bonny Doon HCP lands from California red-
legged frog critical habitat will help preserve the partnerships that
we developed for this HCP, which provides for California red-legged
frog conservation. It may also help encourage new partnerships with
other landowners and jurisdictions. These partnerships are critical for
the conservation of California red-legged frog.
We reviewed and evaluated the exclusion of 6 ac (3 ha) of private
lands within the Bonny Doon HCP plan area from the final revised
critical habitat designation for the California red-legged frog and
determined that the benefits of excluding these lands in Unit SCZ-1
outweigh the benefits of including them. As discussed above, the HCP
will provide for preservation and management of habitat for and
features essential to the conservation of the species.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species - Bonny Doon HCP
In keeping with our analysis and conclusion detailed in our
biological opinion for the Bonny Doon HCP (Service, 1-8-99-FW-70, 1999,
pp 1-13), we determined the exclusion of 6 ac (3 ha) of permittee-owned
lands within the Bonny Doon HCP from this final critical habitat
designation will not result in the extinction of the species. The
amount of habitat we are excluding within the Bonny Doon HCP is only a
minute fraction (less than 0.001 percent) of the amount of designated
critical habitat in Unit SCZ-1. Additionally, the jeopardy standard of
section 7 of the Act and routine implementation of conservation
measures through the section 7 process provide assurances that the
species will not go extinct as a result of this exclusion.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(Western Riverside County MSHCP) (Unit RIV-1)
The Western Riverside County MSHCP is a large-scale,
multijurisdictional HCP encompassing 1.26 million ac (510,000 ha) in
western Riverside County and addresses 146 listed and unlisted
``covered species,'' including the California red-legged frog.
Participants in the Western Riverside County MSHCP include 14 cities in
western Riverside County; the County of Riverside, including the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation Agency (County
Flood Control), Riverside County Transportation Commission, Riverside
County Parks and Open Space District (County Parks), and Riverside
County Waste Department; California Department of Parks and Recreation
(State Parks); and the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans).
The Western Riverside County MSHCP was designed to establish a
multi-species conservation program that minimizes and mitigates the
expected loss of habitat and associated incidental take of covered
species. The Service issued an incidental take permit (TE-088609-0)
under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act on June 22, 2004, to 22 permittees
under the Western Riverside County MSHCP for a period of 75 years. This
HCP requires establishment of approximately 153,000 ac (61,916 ha) of
new conservation lands (Additional Reserve Lands) to complement the
approximately 347,000 ac (140,426 ha) of pre-existing natural and open
space areas defined by the Western Riverside County MSHCP as Public/
Quasi-Public (PQP) lands. These PQP lands include those under Federal
ownership, primarily managed by the Forest Service and BLM, and also
permittee-owned, open-space areas, primarily managed by State and
County Parks. Collectively, the Additional Reserve Lands and PQP lands
form the overall Western Riverside County MSHCP Conservation Area. The
configuration of the 153,000 ac (61,916 ha) of Additional Reserve Lands
is not mapped or precisely identified in the Western Riverside County
MSHCP, but rather is based on textual descriptions within the bounds of
a 310,000-ac (125,453-ha) Criteria Area and is interpreted as
implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP takes place. All
lands in Unit RIV-1 are located within the Western Riverside County
MSHCP Plan Area.
To address the primary threats to the California red-legged frog
(i.e., habitat destruction and alteration) (61 FR 25813; May 23, 1996),
the Western Riverside County MSHCP provides enhancement of habitat by
removing or reducing these threats. Conservation objectives specific to
the California red-legged frog in the MSHCP include the conservation of
occupied and historical breeding habitat, and the conservation of
intervening lands that provide for movement between core areas and
upland habitat adjacent to occupied or suitable breeding habitat (Dudek
and Associates, Inc. 2003, pp. A19-A20).
The only known population of California red-legged frogs in the
boundaries of the Western Riverside County MSCHP occurs along Cole
Creek on the Santa Rosa Plateau. The occupied area along Cole Creek is
entirely within the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve, which is
owned and managed by the CDFG. The management of the Santa Rosa Plateau
Ecological Reserve includes measures that protect the habitat of the
California red-legged frog and focus on restoration activities that
benefit this species (Service 2004, p. 54). This area is included in
Unit RIV-1, which consists of 4,069 ac (1,647 ha) of lands owned or
controlled by the permittees. A total of 3,997 ac (1,618 ha) of these
lands are currently conserved and referred to as PQP lands in the
analysis of the Western Riverside County MSHCP, and 72 ac (29 ha) of
lands that are privately owned. The provisions of the Western Riverside
County MSHCP strengthen the management for the California red-legged
frog and ensure that any projects that take place on the private land
will not reduce the viability of the population within Unit RIV-1.
Specifically, in the area proposed as critical habitat, the Western
Riverside County MSHCP directs reserve managers of the PQP lands to
maintain ecological processes within occupied habitat and appropriate
new areas for the California red-legged frog (Dudek and Associates,
Inc. 2003, pp. 5-13). Private lands included in Unit RIV-1 are in the
survey area for the California red-legged frog, where 90 percent of
areas that provide long-term conservation value for the species will be
avoided until the conservation objectives for the California red-legged
frog are met (Dudek and Associates, Inc. 2003, pp. 6-65-6-71). The
Western Riverside County MSHCP indicates that the PQP reserve lands
within Unit RIV-1 will be monitored to determine if successful
reproduction is occurring (Dudek and Associates, Inc. 2003, p. 5-13).
These lands will be managed to ensure that the threats to this species
from altered hydrology, flood control, nonnative plant species, mining,
human collecting, and predation will not negatively impact the
population and that ecological processes necessary for the California
red-legged frog breeding populations will be maintained (Dudek and
Associates, Inc. 2003, p. 5-13). The Western Riverside County MSHCP
preserves the habitat that supports identified core population(s) of
this species and therefore contributes to recovery of this species in
the Western Riverside County MSHCP area. The conservation objectives,
required surveys, and adaptive management program for the California
red-legged frog (and its PCEs) provided by the Western Riverside County
MSHCP may exceed any conservation value provided as a result of
regulatory protections that have been or may be afforded through
critical habitat designation. Projects in these areas conducted or
approved by Western Riverside County MSHCP permittees are subject to
the conservation requirements of the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
The Secretary has determined to exercised his discretion to exclude the
entire approximately 4,069 ac (1,647 ha) of permittee-owned PQP and
private lands from revised critical habitat designation within Unit
RIV-1 (Cole Creek) under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Benefits of Inclusion - Western Riverside County MSHCP
The benefits of inclusion in a critical habitat designation will
provide little additional benefit to the California red-legged frog
within the boundaries of the approved Western Riverside County MSHCP.
The principal benefit of any designated critical habitat is that
federally funded, permitted, or authorized activities that may affect
critical habitat will require consultation under section 7 of the Act.
Such consultations ensure that adequate protection is provided to avoid
adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat. The approved
Western Riverside County MSHCP covers the California red-legged frog
and is designed to ensure the conservation of the species within the
Plan area and incorporates special management and protection measures
for California red-legged frog habitat within Plan boundaries. The
Western Riverside County MSHCP's measures to protect the California
red-legged frog and its habitat have undergone thorough evaluation in
the section 7 consultation prior to approval of the Plan, and,
therefore, there is no benefit of section 7 consultation by including
these areas in critical habitat. Development and implementation of the
Western Riverside County MSHCP has provided other important
conservation benefits for the California red-legged frog, including the
development of biological information to guide conservation efforts and
assist in the species' recovery within the Plan area. The educational
benefits of designating critical habitat, including informing the
public of areas that are important to the conservation of listed
species, are essentially the same as those that have occurred during
the process of reviewing and approving the Western Riverside County
MSHCP. Specifically, the Western Riverside County MSHCP involved public
participation through public notices and public comment periods, prior
to being approved. For these reasons, we believe that designation of
critical habitat would provide little additional benefit in areas
covered by the approved Western Riverside County MSHCP. Federal actions
that may affect the California
red-legged frog will still require consultation under section 7 of the
Benefits of Exclusion -- Western Riverside County MSHCP
The benefits of excluding the Western Riverside County MSHCP from
critical habitat designation include relieving landowners, communities,
and portions of Riverside County of any additional regulatory burden
that might be imposed by critical habitat. Many HCPs, particularly
large regional HCPs, take many years to develop and, upon completion,
become regional conservation plans that are consistent with the
recovery objectives for listed species that are covered within the Plan
area. Additionally, many of these HCPs provide conservation benefits to
unlisted sensitive species. Imposing an additional regulatory review
after an HCP is completed solely as a result of the designation of
critical habitat may undermine conservation efforts and partnerships in
many areas. In fact, it could result in the loss of species' benefits
if participants abandon the voluntary HCP process. Designation of
critical habitat within the boundaries of approved HCPs could also be
viewed as a disincentive to those entities currently developing HCPs or
contemplating them in the future. The benefits of excluding lands
within approved plans that specifically benefit listed or sensitive
species from critical habitat discussed above applies fully to the
Western Riverside County MSHCP. A related benefit of excluding lands
within approved HCPs that cover the California red-legged frog from the
critical habitat designation is the continued ability to seek new
partnerships with future HCP participants, including States, counties,
would be unable to accomplish otherwise. If lands within approved HCP
plan areas are designated as critical habitat, it would likely have a
chilling effect on our ability to establish new partnerships to develop
HCPs, particularly large regional HCPs that involve numerous
participants and address landscape-level conservation of the California
red-legged frog and its habitat. By excluding the lands covered within
the Western Riverside County MSHCP, we preserve our current
partnerships and encourage additional conservation actions in the
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion - Western
Riverside County MSHCP
We believe that the regulatory benefit of designating critical
habitat on private lands covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP
would be low and may hinder the effective implementation of the Plan.
The Western Riverside County MSHCP addresses conservation issues from a
coordinated, integrated perspective and will achieve better California
red-legged frog conservation than would be achieved through multiple
site-by-site, project-by-project, section 7 consultations involving
consideration of critical habitat. The Western Riverside County MSHCP
provides for the proactive monitoring and management of conserved lands
(as previously described), reducing known threats to California red-
legged frog and its habitat.
Conservation and management of California red-legged frog habitat
is essential to the survival and recovery of this species. Such
conservation needs are typically not addressed through the application
of the statutory prohibition on adverse modification or destruction of
critical habitat. The Western Riverside County MSHCP provides as much
or more conservation benefit to the species than a consultation for
critical habitat designation conducted under the standards required by
the Ninth Circuit in the Gifford Pinchot decision. Furthermore,
educational benefits that may be derived from a critical habitat
designation are low in this case and largely redundant to the
educational benefits achieved through the significant public, State,
and local government input solicited and received during the
development of the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
We have developed close partnerships with the 22 Western Riverside
County MSHCP permittees through the development of this regional HCP
that incorporates appropriate protections and management of the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of this
species. Those protections are consistent with the mandates under
section 7 of the Act to avoid adverse modification or destruction of
critical habitat and go beyond that prohibition by including active
management and protection of essential habitat areas. By excluding
these lands from designation, we are eliminating a largely redundant
layer of regulatory review for a limited set of projects on non-Federal
lands that are addressed by the Western Riverside County MSHCP, and we
are helping to preserve our ongoing partnerships with the permittees
and encouraging new partnerships with other landowners and
jurisdictions. Those partnerships, and the landscape-level, multiple-
species conservation planning efforts they promote, are critical for
the conservation of the California red-legged frog. Designating
critical habitat on non-Federal lands within the Western Riverside
County MSHCP could have a detrimental effect on our partnerships with
the 22 Western Riverside County MSHCP permittees and could be a
significant disincentive to the establishment of future partnerships
and HCPs with other partners.
We reviewed and evaluated the exclusion of 4,069 ac (1,647 ha) of
private lands within the Western Riverside County MSHCP area from the
final revised critical habitat designation for the California red-
legged frog and determined that the benefits of excluding these lands
in Unit RIV-1 outweigh the benefits of including them. As discussed
above, the HCP will provide for preservation and management of habitat
for and features essential to the conservation of the species.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species - Western
biological opinion for the Western Riverside County MSHCP (Service
2004, p. 334), we do not believe that the exclusion of non-Federal
lands that meet the definition of critical habitat within the Western
Riverside County MSHCP plan area from the final designation of critical
habitat for the California red-legged frog will result in the
extinction of the species. Additionally, the jeopardy standard of
measures through the section 7 process also provide assurances that the
East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural
Community Conservation Plan (East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP) (Unit
CCS-2)
The East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP was finalized on July 25,
2007 (Service 2007b, pp. 1-6). Participants in this HCP/NCCP include
the County of Contra Costa; the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley,
and Pittsburg, California; and the Contra Costa Water District. The
East Contra Costa County HCP encompasses the eastern portion of Contra
Costa County from approximately west of Concord to Sand
Mound Slough and Clifton Court Forebay on the east. The East Contra
Costa County HCP/NCCP is also a subregional plan under the State's NCCP
process and was developed in cooperation with the CDFG. The East Contra
Costa County HCP/NCCP includes areas where urban growth and development
are expected to occur and has identified the California red-legged frog
as a covered species. The East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP
specifically seeks to provide management and protection of the
California red-legged frog through several conservation measures
including: (1) Preserve between 24,455 to 29,467 ac (9,897 to 11,925
ha) of upland foraging and dispersal habitat (not including additional
lands identified in open space and parks); (2) preserve between 28 to
36 wetted ac (11 to 15 wetted ha) of non-stream breeding habitat and
between 85 to 98 mi (137 to 158 km) of stream breeding habitat; (3)
create approximately 33 wetted ac (13 wetted ha) of ponds; (4) restore
approximately 85 ac (34 ha) of perennial wetland complex; (5) preserve
major habitat connections linking existing public lands; (6)
incorporate a range of habitat and population management and
enhancement measures; (7) fully mitigate the impacts of covered species
and species, including the California red-legged frog; (8) maintain
ecosystem processes; and (9) contribute to the recovery of covered
species and species. These conservation measures will benefit
California red-legged frog conservation by preserving and restoring
existing wetland and upland habitat and creating new wetland habitat
for the species. We expect the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP to
provide substantial protection of the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species and provide special
management considerations and protection of conservation lands. This
will provide a greater level of management for the California red-
legged frog on these private lands than would designation of critical
Benefits of Inclusion - East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP
Critical habitat designation will provide little additional benefit
to the California red-legged frog within the boundaries of the approved
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP through the section 7 consultation
process. The principal benefit of any designated critical habitat is
that federally funded, permitted, or authorized activities that may
affect critical habitat will require consultation under section 7 of
the Act. Such consultations ensure that adequate protection is provided
to avoid adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat. The
approved East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP covers the California red-
legged frog and is designed to ensure the conservation of the species
within the Plan area and incorporates special management and protection
measures for California red-legged frog habitat within Plan boundaries.
The adequacy of the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP measures to
protect the California red-legged frog and its habitat has undergone
thorough evaluation in the section 7 consultation completed prior to
approval of the Plan, and, therefore, there is no benefit of including
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP has provided other important
the process of reviewing and approving the East Contra Costa County
HCP/NCCP. Specifically, the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP involved
public participation through public notices and public comment periods,
prior to being approved. For these reasons, we believe that designation
of critical habitat would provide little additional benefit in areas
covered by the approved East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP. Federal
actions that may affect the California red-legged frog will still
require consultation under section 7 of the Act.
Benefits of Exclusion -- East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP
The benefits of excluding the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP
from critical habitat designation include relieving landowners,
communities, and portions of eastern Contra Costa County of any
additional regulatory burden that might be imposed by critical habitat.
Many HCPs, particularly large regional HCPs, take many years to develop
and, upon completion, become regional conservation plans that are
consistent with the recovery objectives for listed species that are
covered within the Plan area. Additionally, many of these HCPs provide
conservation benefits to unlisted sensitive species. Imposing an
additional regulatory review after a HCP is completed solely as a
result of the designation of critical habitat may undermine
conservation efforts and partnerships in many areas. In fact, it could
result in the loss of species' benefits if participants abandon the
voluntary HCP process. Designation of critical habitat within the
boundaries of approved HCPs could also be viewed as a disincentive to
those entities currently developing HCPs or contemplating them in the
future. The benefits of excluding lands within approved plans that
specifically benefit listed or sensitive species from critical habitat
discussed above applies fully to the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP.
A related benefit of excluding lands within approved HCPs that cover
the California red-legged frog from the critical habitat designation is
the continued ability to seek new partnerships with future HCPs
participants, including States, counties, local jurisdictions,
conservation organizations, and private landowners, which together can
implement conservation actions that we would be unable to accomplish
otherwise. If lands within approved HCPs plan areas are designated as
critical habitat, it would likely have a chilling effect on our ability
to establish new partnerships to develop HCPs, particularly large
regional HCPs that involve numerous participants and address landscape
level conservation of the California red-legged frog and its habitat.
By excluding the lands covered within the East Contra Costa County HCP/
NCCP, we preserve our current partnerships and encourage additional
conservation actions in the future.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
habitat on private lands covered by the East Contra Costa County HCP/
NCCP would be low and may hinder the effective implementation of the
plan. The East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP addresses conservation
issues from a coordinated, integrated perspective and will achieve
better California red-legged frog conservation than would be achieved
through multiple site-by-site, project-by-project, section 7
consultations involving consideration of critical habitat. East Contra
Costa County HCP/NCCP provides for the proactive monitoring and
management of conserved lands (as previously described), reducing known
threats to California red-legged frog and its habitat.
conservation needs
are typically not addressed through the application of the statutory
prohibition on adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat.
The East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP provides as much or more
conservation benefit to the species than a consultation for critical
habitat designation conducted under the standards required by the Ninth
Circuit in the Gifford Pinchot decision. Furthermore, educational
benefits that may be derived from a critical habitat designation are
low in this case and largely redundant to the educational benefits
achieved through the significant public, State, and local government
input solicited and received during the development of the East Contra
Costa County HCP/NCCP.
We have developed close partnerships with the eight East Contra
Costa County HCP/NCCP permittees through the development of this
regional HCP/NCCP that incorporates appropriate protections and
management of the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of this species. Those protections are consistent with the
mandates under section 7 of the Act to avoid adverse modification or
destruction of critical habitat and go beyond that prohibition by
including active management and protection of essential habitat areas.
By excluding these lands from designation, we are eliminating a largely
redundant layer of regulatory review for a limited set of projects on
non-Federal lands that are addressed by the East Contra Costa County
HCP/NCCP, and we are helping to preserve our ongoing partnerships with
the permittees and encouraging new partnerships with other landowners
and jurisdictions. Those partnerships, and the landscape-level,
multiple-species conservation planning efforts they promote, are
critical for the conservation of the California red-legged frog.
Designating critical habitat on non-Federal lands within the East
Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP could have a detrimental effect to our
partnerships with the eight East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP
permittees and could be a significant disincentive to the establishment
of future partnerships and HCPs with other partners.
As a result of the specific conservation measures in the Plan being
implemented for the California red-legged frog, the Secretary has
determined to exercise his discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act
to exclude approximately 75,767 ac (30,662 ha) of land that will
receive protection and the special management they require through
funding mechanisms that will be implemented under the East Contra Costa
County HCP/NCCP.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species
biological opinion for the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP (Service
2007c, pp. 1-189), we do not believe that the exclusion of non-Federal
lands that meet the definition of critical habitat within the East
Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP plan area from the final designation of
critical habitat for the California red-legged frog will result in the
Other Conservation Plans
East Bay Regional Park District Lands (EBRPD) (Unit CCS-2)
The East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) manages 65 regional
parks, recreation areas, wilderness, shorelines, preserves, and land
bank areas covering over 95,000 ac (34,446 ha) in Alameda and Contra
Costa Counties. The EBRPD Board of Directors adopted the EBRPD Plan on
December 17, 1996, under Resolution Number 1996-12-349 (EBRPD 1997, pp.
1-87). The EBRPD Plan provides for monitoring and conservation of rare,
threatened, and endangered taxa, including the California red-legged
frog. The Service issued an incidental take permit (817400) under
section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act to the EBRPD and they have been actively
conducting California red-legged frog surveys and research over the
last 15 years. In 1996, 2000, 2004, and most recently in 2007 (Bobzien
and DiDonato 2007, pp. 1-87), EBRPD staff conducted California red-
legged frog surveys across all park lands for the purpose of population
trend monitoring and habitat assessment. Research conducted by EBRPD
has also focused on California red-legged frog habitat requirements,
tolerances related to water quality, adult and juvenile movements, and
the effect of livestock grazing on habitat and frog reproduction. EBRPD
provides educational outreach through park interpretive programs and
presentation of California red-legged frog research findings at
scientific conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. Habitat
restoration and nonnative predator control are special management
actions the EBRPD uses for the conservation of the California red-
legged frog. The majority of the EBRPD land holdings are protected and
managed as natural parklands, thereby providing protection for the
California red-legged frog. Conservation efforts including conserving,
enhancing, and restoring rare, threatened, endangered, or locally
important species of plants and animals and their habitats take
precedence over other park activities if EBRPD activities are
determined to have a significant adverse effect (change in any of the
physical conditions within the area affected by a potential activity)
on these resources (EBRPD 1997, pp. 1-83). As identified in their
Master Plan, the EBRPD will accomplish this by using scientific
research, field experience, and other proven methodologies. Populations
of listed species will be monitored through periodic observations of
their condition, size, habitat, reproduction, and distribution (EBRPD
1997, p. 20).
We expect the EBRPD to provide substantial protection of the
California red-legged frog on EBRPD lands within unit CCS-2. We expect
the EBRPD to provide a greater level of management for the California
red-legged frog on EBRPD lands than would designation of critical
habitat on private lands. Moreover, inclusion of these non-Federal
lands as critical habitat would not necessitate additional management
and conservation activities over and above those already in place by
the EBRPD. We do not anticipate any action on these lands would destroy
or adversely modify the areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat. Therefore, we do not expect that including those areas in the
final designation will lead to any changes to actions on the
conservation lands to avoid destroying or adversely modifying that
Benefits of Inclusion - East Bay Regional Park District Lands
to the California red-legged frog within the areas owned and managed by
the EBRPD. The principal benefit of any designated critical habitat is
that federally-\ funded, permitted, or authorized activities that may
approved EBRPD Master Plan covers the California red-legged
frog and is designed to ensure the conservation of the species within
the Plan area and incorporates special management and protection
The adequacy of the EBRPD measures to protect the California red-legged
frog and its habitat has undergone thorough public evaluation prior to
approval of the Plan. Development and implementation of the EBRPD
Master Plan has provided other important conservation benefits for the
California red-legged frog, including the development of biological
information to guide conservation efforts and assist in the species'
recovery within the Plan area. The educational benefits of designating
critical habitat, including informing the public of areas that are
important to the conservation of listed species, are essentially the
same as those that have occurred during the public involvement process
of reviewing and approving the EBRPD Master Plan. Specifically, the
EBRPD Master Plan involved public participation through public notices
and public comment periods, active participation of the District's
citizen-based Park Advisory Committee (PAC) and with extensive review
and comment from the community prior to being approved. For these
reasons, we believe that designation of critical habitat would provide
little additional benefit in areas covered by the approved EBRPD Master
Plan. Any actions that may affect the California red-legged frog will
still require consultation under section 7 or section 10 of the Act.
Benefits of Exclusion -- East Bay Regional Park District Lands
The benefits of excluding the EBRPD Master Plan from critical
habitat designation include relieving landowners, communities, and
portions of eastern Contra Costa County of any additional regulatory
burden that might be imposed by critical habitat. Many such plans,
particularly large regional plans such as this, take many years to
develop and, upon completion, are consistent with the recovery
Additionally, many of these plans provide conservation benefits to
after such as plan that specifically identifies measures to protect and
conserve listed and other sensitive species is completed solely as a
result in the loss of species' benefits if participants abandon
currently implemented conservation activities. Designation of critical
habitat within the boundaries of approved plan could also be viewed as
a disincentive to those entities currently developing similar plans or
EBRPD Master Plan. A related benefit of excluding lands within approved
plans that cover the California red-legged frog from the critical
habitat designation is the continued ability to seek new partnerships
with future participants, including States, counties, local
jurisdictions, conservation organizations, and private landowners,
which together can implement conservation actions that we would be
unable to accomplish otherwise. If lands within approved plan areas are
designated as critical habitat, it would likely have a chilling effect
on our ability to establish new partnerships to develop other such
plans or HCPs, particularly large regional plans or HCPs that involve
numerous participants and address landscape level conservation of the
California red-legged frog and its habitat. By excluding the lands
covered within the EBRPD Master Plan within eastern Contra Costa
County, we preserve our current partnerships and encourage additional
habitat on lands managed and owned by the EBRPD would be low and may
hinder the effective implementation of the 1997 EBRPD Master Plan. The
EBRPD Master Plan addresses conservation issues from a coordinated,
integrated perspective and will achieve better California red-legged
frog conservation than would be achieved through multiple site-by-site,
project-by-project, section 7 consultations involving consideration of
critical habitat. The EBRPD Master Plan provides for the proactive
monitoring and management of conserved lands (as previously described),
reducing known threats to California red-legged frog and its habitat.
Conservation and management of viable California red-legged frog
habitat is essential to the survival and recovery of this species. Such
conservation needs are typically not addressed through the action-by-
action application of the statutory prohibition on adverse modification
or destruction of critical habitat. The implementation of the EBRPD
Master Plan provides as much or more conservation benefit to the
species than a consultation for critical habitat designation conducted
under the standards required by the Ninth Circuit in the Gifford
Pinchot decision. Furthermore, educational benefits that may be derived
from a critical habitat designation are low in this case and largely
redundant to the educational benefits achieved through the significant
public, State, and local government input solicited and received during
the development of the EBRPD Master Plan.
For these reasons, we believe that designating critical habitat has
little benefit in areas covered by the identified EBRPD lands. As a
result, the Secretary has determined to exercise his discretion to
exclude those EBRPD lands totaling approximately 14,627 ac (5,919 ha)
within Unit CCS-2 from the designation of critical habitat under
The exclusion of East Bay Regional Park lands within Unit CCS-2
would not result in the extinction of the California red-legged frog.
Actions that may adversely affect the species are expected to have a
Federal nexus, and would thus undergo a consultation with the Service
under section 7 of the Act. The jeopardy standard of section 7 of the
Act, and routine implementation of conservation measures through the
section 7 process, provide assurance that the species will not go
extinct. Additionally, the species is protected from the take
prohibitions under section 9 of the Act. The exclusion leaves these
protections unchanged from those that would exist if the excluded areas
were designated as critical habitat.
We do not believe that this exclusion would result in the
extinction of the species because: (1) The species occurs on lands
protected and managed either explicitly for the species, or indirectly
through more general objectives to protect natural values. This factor
along with the other protections provided under the Act for these lands
absent designating them as critical habitat, combined with protections
afforded the species by the remaining critical habitat designation for
the species, leads us to find that exclusion of these lands will not
result in extinction of the California red-legged frog; and (2) the
species is found in other areas and the EBRPD Plan provides for
monitoring and conservation of rare, threatened, and endangered taxa,
including the California red-legged frog. EBRPD has been actively
conducting California red-
legged frog surveys and research over the last 15 years. Nearly 90
percent of the EBRPD land holdings are protected and managed as natural
parklands, thereby providing protection for the PCEs (Bobzien 2005, pp.
1-2), and conservation efforts take precedence over other park
activities if EBRPD activities are determined to have a significant
adverse effect on rare, threatened, or endangered taxa (EBRPD 1997, pp.
1-83).
Spivey Pond Management Area (SPMA) (Unit ELD-1)
The SPMA encompasses 54 ac (22 ha) of BLM-owned lands surrounding
Spivey Pond in El Dorado County, California. Spivey Pond is one of five
known extant California red-legged frog breeding populations in the
Sierra Nevada foothills. In 1997, a population of reproducing
California red-legged frogs was discovered in Spivey Pond on the north
fork of Webber Creek. The previously confirmed sightings of a
California red-legged frog in the Webber Creek watershed were in 1972
and 1975. At the time of discovery, the Spivey Pond parcel was
privately owned and slated for timber harvest and subdivision
development. The Service urged the American River Conservancy (ARC) to
initiate negotiations with the owners of the Spivey Pond for purchase
of the property. With financial assistance from the Service and the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), ARC succeeded in purchasing the 54
ac (22 ha) Spivey Pond parcel on April 28, 1998. Additional grant
funding from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation was received on
September 15, 1998, which allowed for initial pond stabilization and
restoration work.
On May 3, 1999, all preliminary acquisition and restoration
activities were completed, and the parcel was transferred to the BLM to
be managed as a wildlife reserve specifically for the benefit of the
California red-legged frog. We issued a non-jeopardy biological opinion
for development of a new breeding pond for the species (Service File 1-
1-03-F-0289) on March 4, 2004. A management plan for the California
red-legged frog was finalized by BLM, the Service, Forest Service (El
Dorado National Forest), USBR, CDFG, ARC, El Dorado County, and the El
Dorado Irrigation District in July 2004 (BLM 2004, pp. 1-26). The
Management Plan for the SPMA consists of six management objectives
specifically for the conservation of the California red-legged frog
including: (1) Control of bullfrogs and predatory fish; (2) monitoring
of water quality for potential contaminants; (3) maintenance of the
pond's integrity and habitat/water quality; (4) creation and management
of additional California red-legged frog breeding habitat; (5)
promotion of research and maintenance of a GIS database; (6) and
providing input for watershed level planning and activities that may
benefit Spivey Pond (BLM 2004, pp. 1-26).
Benefits of Inclusion - Spivey Pond Management Area
The approved Spivey Pond Management Plan covers the California red-
The Spivey Pond Management Plan's measures to protect the California
red-legged frog and its habitat underwent thorough evaluation by the
Service and other stakeholders prior to approval of the Plan.
Development and implementation of the Spivey Pond Management Plan has
provided other important conservation benefits for the California red-
legged frog, including the development of biological information to
guide conservation efforts and assist in the species' recovery within
the Plan area. The educational benefits of designating critical
habitat, including informing the public of areas that are important to
the conservation of listed species, are essentially the same as those
that have occurred during the public involvement process of designating
critical habitat in 2006, and again within this designation in 2009. In
addition, Federal actions that may affect the California red-legged
frog will still require consultation under section 7 of the Act. For
these reasons, we believe that designation of critical habitat would
provide little additional benefit in areas covered by the approved
Spivey Pond Management Plan.
Benefits of Exclusion - Spivey Pond Management Area
The benefits of excluding the Spivey Pond Management Plan from
critical habitat designation include relieving the BLM of any
Imposing an additional regulatory review after such a plan that
specifically identifies measures to protect and conserve the California
red-legged frog is completed, solely as a result of the designation of
critical habitat, may undermine the conservation efforts and
partnerships developed during the development and implementation of
this Plan. In fact, it could result in the loss of species' benefits if
participants abandon currently implemented conservation activities.
Designation of critical habitat within the boundaries of the approved
Plan could also be viewed as a disincentive to those entities currently
developing similar plans or contemplating them in the future. The
previously discussed benefits of excluding lands within approved plans
that specifically benefit listed or sensitive species from critical
habitat apply fully to the Spivey Pond Management Plan. A related
benefit of excluding lands within approved plans that cover the
California red-legged frog from the critical habitat designation is the
continued ability to seek new partnerships with future participants,
including States, counties, local jurisdictions, conservation
organizations, and private landowners, which together can implement
conservation actions that we would be unable to accomplish otherwise.
If lands within approved plan areas are designated as critical habitat,
it would likely have a chilling effect on our ability to establish new
partnerships to develop other such plans or HCPs that involve numerous
participants. By excluding the lands covered within the Spivey Pond
Management Plan within El Dorado County, we preserve our current
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion - Spivey Pond
Management Area (SPMA)
We believe that the benefits of excluding the entire 54-ac (22-ha)
SPMA from the designation of critical habitat for the California red-
legged frog outweigh the benefits of including the SPMA in critical
habitat. We find that including the SPMA would result in very minimal,
if any, additional benefits to the California red-legged frog as
explained above. The critical habitat designation would remain on lands
surrounding the SPMA, thereby providing a measure of protection for the
PCEs outside the area, while the management plan would protect the PCEs
and provide additional benefits of nonnative predator control, habitat
management and creation, and pollution monitoring within the Plan area.
We have worked cooperatively with the BLM and other agencies and
assisted in development of the SPMA Plan. We believe that utilizing the
Secretary's discretion in excluding the portions of this unit managed
under the SPMA will encourage other willing landowners in the unit to
continue their conservation activities and allow the Service to
expand interest of other private landowners in the unit into
conservation partnerships for conserving additional frog habitat. The
benefits of exclusion include providing an incentive for continued
conservation and restoration on private lands where landowners have
shown a willingness to participate in such activities.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species - SPMA
We find that the exclusion of these lands will not lead to the
extinction of the species, nor hinder its recovery because the
management emphasis of the SPMA is to protect and enhance habitat for
the California red-legged frog. The SPMP consists of six management
objectives specifically designed for the conservation of the California
red-legged frog. Additionally, the jeopardy standard of section 7 of
section 7 process also provide assurances that the species will not go
extinct as a result of this exclusion. As a result of ongoing
management and protection of California red-legged frogs and their
habitat at Spivey Pond through the development and implementation of
the 2004 Management Plan for the Spivey Pond Management Area, the
Secretary has determined to exercise his discretion to exclude the
entire 54 ac (22 ha) of land owned by the Bureau of Land Management
from Unit ELD-1 at Spivey Pond from critical habitat under section
4(b)(2) of the Act.
Hearst Ranch Conservation Easement
The Hearst Ranch Conservation Easement (Easement), held by the
California Rangeland Trust, encompasses 81,000 ac (33,000 ha) of
privately owned lands near the town of San Simeon in northern San Luis
Obispo County of which 34,777 ac (14,074 ha) occur within Unit SLO-2.
The Easement was signed on February 18, 2005, and the Hearst Ranch San
Simeon Conservation Easement Management Plan (Plan) was put into place
on February 17, 2006. The Easement and Plan provide protective measures
for California red-legged frogs, which occur in several drainages
within the boundaries of the Easement. The Easement and Plan also
include: (1) Protective measures for the diverse communities and
habitats, including wetlands, marshes, riparian areas, grasslands, and
stock ponds, that collectively constitute California red-legged frog
habitat; and (2) connectivity both within the boundaries of the
Easement and connectivity to other open spaces surrounding the
Easement, which is important for California red-legged frog dispersal.
The Easement allows for grazing, farming, and development to occur in
some areas. Future development is limited to an inn at Old San Simeon
Village, limited employee housing, and a maximum of 27 new owner
homesites. However, the Plan provides management directives that
protect California red-legged frogs and their habitat including:
maintaining cross fencing and livestock water systems to achieve good
cattle distribution and to keep cattle from damaging riparian areas;
locating salt blocks at least 0.25 mi (0.4 km) from water sources to
encourage good cattle distribution and prevent salt from entering
riparian areas; preventing overgrazing by establishing limits on
residual dry matter; maintaining a residual dry matter cushion during
drought conditions by reducing the size of the cattle herd or using a
supplemental forage mix; selecting homesite locations to avoid impacts
to conservation values, including California red-legged frogs and their
habitat; and in farmed areas, mechanically managing weeds, preventing
all irrigation water from entering flowing water courses and ponds, and
mandating setbacks to buffer riparian areas from farming operations.
Monitoring is conducted to ensure that the Plan continually provides
sufficient protection of the Easement conservation values. Monitoring
that provides information about the status of California red-legged
frog habitat includes: annual photo point monitoring of Pico Creek,
Little Pico Creek, Arroyo Laguna, San Carpoforo Creek, representative
stock ponds, and representative wetland plant communities; annual
residual dry matter monitoring; proper stream function evaluations of
Pico Creek, Little Pico Creek, Arroyo Laguna, Arroyo de la Cruz, and
San Carpoforo Creek every 5 years; and rangeland and habitat health
evaluations every 5 years. Monitoring results are summarized and made
available to the public by the California Rangeland Trust. If drainages
show impairment
due to the operations of the ranch, corrective actions will be taken
and may include: deferred grazing; changing the seasonality or length
of grazing; reducing cattle grazing numbers near stream corridors;
changing rotational grazing patterns; installing additional riparian
pasture fencing; installing additional off-stream water troughs;
placing salt and supplements farther away from impacted areas; removing
noxious plants within the riparian area; installing additional erosion
control structures; and/or instituting greater cropland setbacks from
stream corridors. At least once every 5 years, the property is audited
by a committee consisting of the Director of the California Rangeland
Trust, the Executive Director of the Wildlife Conservation Board (a
board under the California Department of Fish and Game with the
authority and funding to conduct wildlife conservation programs and
acquisitions), and a Certified Range Manager, for compliance with the
Conservation Easement.
exercise his discretion to exclude approximately 34,777 ac (14,074 ha)
of land from Unit SLO-2 in San Luis Obispo County under section 4(b)(2)
Benefits of Inclusion - Hearst Ranch
One benefit of including an area in a critical habitat designation
is the requirement of Federal agencies to ensure actions they fund,
authorize, or carry out are not likely to result in destruction or
adverse modification of designated critical habitat, which is one of
the regulatory standards under which consultation is completed. Unlike
a jeopardy analysis, which looks at an action's impact on survival and
recovery of the species, an adverse modification analysis looks at the
action's effects on the designated habitat's contribution to the
species' conservation. If, through consultation, the Service determines
that a project may result in adverse modification, the Service will
suggest reasonable and prudent alternatives that can be taken by the
Federal agency or applicant to avoid adversely modifying the designated
critical habitat while implementing the proposed action. Consultations
that conclude that a proposed action is not likely to result in adverse
modification may recommend additional conservation measures, but such
measures would be discretionary on the part of the Federal agency.
Another benefit of including lands in a critical habitat
designation is the designation can serve to educate the public
regarding the potential conservation value of an area, and may help
focus conservation efforts to designated areas of high conservation
value for certain species. The process of proposing and finalizing the
revised critical habitat rule provided the Service with the opportunity
to evaluate and refine the features essential to the conservation of
the species within the geographical area occupied by it at the time of
listing, as well as to evaluate
whether there are other areas essential for the conservation of the
species. The designation process included peer review and public
of essential habitat. However, the educational benefits of designating
lands within the Hearst Ranch Conservation Easement are small because,
as discussed above, Hearst Ranch is aware of the value of its lands to
the conservation of the California red-legged frog, and currently
and their habitat. Further, much of Hearst Ranch was included in the
proposed designation, which itself reached a wide audience. The
educational benefits that might follow critical habitat designation
(such as providing information to Hearst Ranch managers on areas
important to the long-term conservation of this species) were already
provided by: (1) Developing the Easement and Plan, (2) the original
designation process in 2001 (66 FR 14626), and (3) publication of the
revised critical habitat designation in 2006 (71 FR 19244).
In light of the continued commitment by Hearst Ranch to manage
their lands in a manner that promotes conservation of the California
red-legged frog and because monitoring is conducted and reviewed by a
third party to ensure the Easement and Plan are being complied with, we
believe designation of Easement lands within Unit SLO-2 as critical
habitat would provide few, if any, additional regulatory and
conservation benefits to the species.
Benefits of Exclusion - Hearst Ranch
Hearst Ranch Easement lands are significant. Benefits include relieving
landowners from any additional regulatory burden that might be imposed
by a critical habitat designation. The Easement took years to develop
in cooperation with several State agencies and non-governmental
organizations, and is consistent with conservation objectives for
California red-legged frogs. Furthermore, the Easement and Plan provide
conservation benefits for unlisted sensitive species. Imposing
additional regulatory review as a result of the designation may
undermine conservation efforts and partnerships that would otherwise
benefit the California red-legged frog as well as other species.
Designation of critical habitat within the boundaries of a conservation
easement that provides conservation measures for a species could be
viewed as a disincentive to those entities currently developing these
plans or contemplating them in the future, because one of the
incentives for undertaking conservation is greater ease of permitting
where listed species are affected. Excluding Easement lands will also
preserve a partnership between the Service and Hearst Ranch, which may
encourage other conservation partnerships between our two entities in
the future.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh Benefits of Inclusion - Hearst Ranch
As discussed in the ``Benefits of Inclusion - Hearst Ranch''
critical habitat on lands covered by the Hearst Ranch Conservation
Easement and Plan would be low. The Easement and Plan address
conservation issues from a coordinated, integrated perspective rather
than a piecemeal project-by-project approach and will achieve more
California red-legged frog conservation than we would achieve through
multiple site-by-site, project-by-project, section 7 consultations
involving consideration of critical habitat. We believe the
conservation benefits for California red-legged frogs that would occur
as a result of designating those 34,777 ac (14,074 ha) in Unit SLO-2 as
critical habitat (e.g., protection afforded through the section 7(a)(2)
consultation process) is minimal compared to the overall conservation
benefits for the species that will be realized through the Hearst Ranch
Conservation Easement and Plan.
FR 19244), and the development of the Easement and Plan. Further, many
educational benefits of critical habitat designation will be achieved
through the overall designation, and will occur whether or not this
particular location is designated. For these reasons, we believe that
designating critical habitat has little benefit in areas covered by the
Hearst Ranch Easement and Plan.
The exclusion of the Hearst Ranch lands from California red-legged
frog critical habitat will help preserve the partnerships that we
developed with Hearst Ranch. It may also help encourage new
partnerships with other landowners and jurisdictions. These
partnerships are critical for the conservation of California red-legged
frogs.
We reviewed and evaluated the exclusion of 34,777 ac (14,074 ha) of
private lands within the Hearst Ranch Easement area from the final
and determined that the benefits of excluding these lands in Unit SLO-2
outweigh the benefits of including them. As discussed above, the
Easement and Plan will provide for preservation and management of
habitat for and features essential to the conservation of the species.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species - Hearst Ranch
extinction of the species because the Hearst Ranch Conservation
Easement and Plan provides for conservation of the species in this area
through the detailed management practices and monitoring described
Special Rule Under Section 4(d) of the Act
In the April 13, 2006, Federal Register (71 FR 19244), we finalized
a special rule for the California red-legged frog as defined under
section 4(d) of the Act to ease the general take prohibitions for
routine ranching activities by non-Federal entities on private and
tribal lands. Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary may publish
a special rule that modifies the standard protections for threatened
species under the Service's regulations implementing section 9 of the
Act at 50 CFR 17.31 with special measures tailored to the conservation
of the species that are determined to be necessary and advisable. We
reviewed the special rule at 50 CFR 17.43(d), and we determined that
the special rule is appropriate and will remain in place for the
California red-legged frog. For more information on the ``Special Rule
Under Section 4(d) for Routine Livestock Ranching Activities'' see the
April 13, 2006, Federal Register (71 FR 19244).
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review - Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
rule is not significant under E.O. 12866. OMB
bases its determination upon the following four criteria:
(1) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector,
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
(2) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies' actions.
(3) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants,
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their
recipients.
(4) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5
U.S.C. 802(2)), 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 effect 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
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act amended the Regulatory Flexibility
Act 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.
In this final rule, we are certifying that the critical habitat
designation for the California red-legged frog will not have a
The following discussion explains our rationale.
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 if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result.
In general, the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a
typical small business firm's business operations.
To determine if the revised designation of critical habitat for the
California red-legged frog would affect a substantial number of small
entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within
particular types of economic activities, such as residential and
commercial development. We apply the ``substantial number'' test
individually to each industry or category to determine if certification
is appropriate. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially
affected, we also considered whether their activities have any Federal
involvement; some kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal
involvement and thus will not be affected by the designation of
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted,
funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies; non-Federal
activities are not affected by the designation. In areas where the
species is present, Federal agencies already are required to consult
with us under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or
implement that may affect the California red-legged frog (see Section 7
Consultation section). Federal agencies also must consult with us if
their activities may affect critical habitat. Designation of critical
habitat, therefore, could result in an additional economic impact on
small entities due to the requirement to reinitiate consultation for
ongoing Federal activities (see Application of the ``Adverse
Modification'' Standard section)
In the DEA of the proposed revision of critical habitat, we
evaluated the potential economic effects on small business entities
resulting from conservation actions related to the proposed revision of
critical habitat for the California red-legged frog. The analysis is
based on the estimated incremental impacts associated with the
rulemaking as described in section 2 of the analysis. In the FEA, we
resulting from implementation of conservation actions related to the
proposed revision to critical habitat for the California red-legged
frog. The economic analysis identifies the estimated incremental
impacts associated with the proposed rulemaking as described in
chapters 4 through 12, and evaluates the potential for economic impacts
related to activity categories including: urban development; water
management; agricultural crop farming; grazing and ranching; timber
harvest activities; transportation; utility and oil and gas pipeline
construction and maintenance and mining activities; fire management
activities; and habitat and vegetation management activities. The
analysis concludes that incremental impacts to development and
agriculture may affect small entities. However, for urban development,
less than 1 percent (0.04) (19 out of 46,240) of small developers are
anticipated to be impacted in the next 22 years. Similarly, for
agriculture, only 1.6 percent (198 out of 12,060) of small farms are
expected to be affected. Please refer to our final economic analysis of
critical habitat designation for the California red-legged frog for a
more detailed discussion of potential economic impacts.
In summary, we considered whether the final rule to revise critical
habitat 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 this rule will not have a
Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use - Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy
Effects when undertaking certain actions. This revision to critical
habitat for the California red-legged frog is not considered a
significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. OMB has provided
guidance for implementing E.O. 13211 that outlines nine outcomes that
may constitute ``a significant adverse effect'' when compared without
the regulatory action under consideration. The economic analysis finds
that none of these criteria are relevant to this designation of
critical habitat. Thus, based on information in the economic analysis
(Appendix A), energy-related impacts associated with California red-
legged frog conservation activities within the areas included in this
final designation of critical habitat are not expected. As such, this
final designation of revised critical habitat is not expected to
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use,
and a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the Service
makes the following findings:
(1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, 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 [T]ribal 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 [T]ribal governments under entitlement
authority,'' if the provision would ``increase the stringency of
conditions of assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease,
the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding,'' and the
State, local, or Tribal governments ``lack authority'' to adjust
accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were:
Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social
Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster
Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support
Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal private
sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities who receive Federal
funding, assistance, permits, or otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat
rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that
non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive
Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program,
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical
habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above
onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because it would not produce a Federal mandate
of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. Small governments will be affected only to the extent that any
programs having Federal funds, permits, or other authorized activities
must ensure that their actions will not adversely affect the critical
habitat. Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with Executive Order (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 California red-legged frog in a
takings implications assessment. Critical habitat designation 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. The takings
implications assessment concludes that this final designation of
revised critical habitat for California red-legged frog does not pose
significant takings implications for lands within or affected by the
Federalism - Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), the final rule does not
have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of
Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated
development of, this critical habitat designation with appropriate
State resource agencies in California. During the public comment
periods, we contacted appropriate State and local agencies and
jurisdictions, and invited them to comment on the proposed revised
critical habitat designation for the California red-legged frog. We
used the comments we received to help us refine this final designation.
We received one comment letter from the State of California, Military
Department Office of the Adjutant General (see ``Summary of Comments
and Recommendations'' section). The designation may have some benefit
to these governments in that the areas that contain the features
essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly defined,
and the primary constituent elements of the habitat essential to 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 local governments in long-
range planning (rather than having them wait for case-by-case section 7
consultations to occur).
Civil Justice Reform - Executive Order 12988
In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), it has been
determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and
meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We
are revising critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the
Act. This final rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies
the primary constituent elements within the designated areas to assist
the public in understanding the habitat needs of the California red-
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This
rule will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State
or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
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, and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial 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.
As a result of changing the extent of Unit MEN-1 in Mendocino
County, the proposed revised critical habitat designation contained
approximately 92 ac (37 ha) of Tribal land. We contacted the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and the Manchester Point Arena Band of Pomo Indians
regarding our proposed revision of critical habitat (Service File
81420-2009-TA-0751). As of the date of this notice, we have not
received any concerns from or been contacted by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs or the Manchester Point Arena Band of Pomo Indians regarding
the designation of critical habitat on the tribal lands identified in
Unit MEN-1. Therefore, we have designated the tribal lands within Unit
MEN-1 as critical habitat for the California red-legged frog.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq.)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the Circuit
Court of the United States for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to
prepare environmental analyses as defined by NEPA in connection with
designating critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This assertion was upheld by the
Circuit Court of the United States for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas
County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S.
1042 (1996)).
A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is
available on http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Field
Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section).
The primary authors of this notice are staff from the Sacramento,
Ventura, Arcata, and Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Offices (see FOR
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. In Sec.  17.11(h), revise the entry for ``Frog, California red-
legged,'' under ``AMPHIBIANS,'' to read as follows:
Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species                                           Vertebrate
------------------------------------------------                   population where                                         Critical
Historic range     endangered or        Status         When listed        habitat       Special rules
Common name            Scientific name                       threatened
Frog, California red-legged    Rana draytonii    U.S.A. (CA),      Entire            T                 583              17.95(d)         17.43
3. In Sec.  17.95(d), revise the entry for ``California Red-legged Frog
(Rana aurora draytonii)'' to read as follows:
Sec.  17.95  Critical Habitat--Fish and Wildlife.
(d) Amphibians.
California Red-legged Frog (Rana draytonii)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Alameda, Butte,
Calaveras, Contra Costa, El Dorado, Kern, Kings, Los Angeles, Marin,
Mendocino, Merced, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Riverside, San
Benito, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa
Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Ventura, and Yuba
Counties, California, on the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements for the
California red-legged frog consist of four components:
(i) Aquatic Breeding Habitat. Standing bodies of fresh water (with
(ii) Aquatic Non-Breeding Habitat. Freshwater pond and stream
habitats, as described in paragraph (2)(i) of this entry, that may not
hold water long enough for the species to complete its aquatic life
cycle but which provide for shelter, foraging, predator avoidance, and
aquatic dispersal of juvenile and adult California red-legged frogs.
Other wetland habitats considered to meet these criteria include, but
are not limited to: plunge pools within intermittent creeks, seeps,
quiet water refugia within streams during high water flows, and springs
of sufficient flow to withstand short-term dry periods.
(iii) Upland Habitat. Upland areas adjacent to or surrounding
breeding and non-breeding aquatic and riparian habitat up to a distance
of 1 mi (1.6 km) in most cases (i.e., depending on surrounding
landscape and dispersal barriers) including various vegetational
series such as grassland, woodland, forest, wetland, or riparian areas
that provide shelter, forage, and predator avoidance for the California
red-legged frog. Upland habitat should include structural features such
as boulders, rocks and organic debris (e.g., downed trees, logs), small
mammal burrows, or moist leaf litter. Upland features are also
features contribute to:
(A) Filling of aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitats;
(B) Maintaining suitable periods of pool inundation for larval
frogs and their food sources; and
(C) Providing non-breeding, feeding, and sheltering habitat for
juvenile and adult frogs (e.g., shelter, shade, moisture, cooler
temperatures, a prey base, foraging opportunities, and areas for
predator avoidance).
(iv) Dispersal Habitat. Accessible upland or riparian habitat
within and between occupied locations within a minimum of 1 mi (1.6 km)
of each other and that support movement between such sites. Dispersal
habitat includes various natural habitats, and altered habitats such as
agricultural fields, that do not contain barriers (e.g., heavily
traveled roads without bridges or culverts) to dispersal. Dispersal
habitat does not include moderate- to high-density urban or industrial
developments with large expanses of asphalt or concrete, nor does it
include large lakes or reservoirs over 50 ac (20 ha) in size, or other
areas that do not contain those features identified in paragraphs
(2)(i), (2)(ii), and (2)(iii) of this entry as essential to the
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures existing
on the effective date of this rule and not containing one or more of
the primary constituent elements, such as buildings, aqueducts,
airports, and roads, and the land on which such structures are located.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created on a base of USGS 7.5' quadrangles using USDA National
Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) county-wide MrSID compressed
mosaics of 1 meter resolution and natural color aerial photography from
summer 2005. Critical habitat units were then mapped using Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) zone 10 and zone 11, North American Datum
(NAD) 1983 coordinates.
(5) Note: Index map for California red-legged frog critical habitat
units in northern California follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17MR10.000
units in southern California follows:
(7) Unit BUT-1: Butte County, California. From USGS 1:24,000 scale
quadrangles Pulga, Berry Creek and Brush Creek.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates
(E,N): 635284, 4400926; 635453, 4400907; 635539, 4400870; 635603,
4400930; 635726, 4400934; 635749, 4400994; 635820, 4401042; 635906,
4401226; 634899, 4401218; 635086, 4401053; 635180, 4401035; returning
to 635284, 4400926.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit BUT-1 for the California red-legged frog
(8) Unit YUB-1: Yuba County, California. From USGS 1:24,000 scale
quadrangle Challenge.
(E,N):
656776,4370030; 656932,4369825; 657462,4368370; 657481,4367769;
656470,4370170; returning to 656776,4370030.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit YUB-1 and NEV-1 for the California red-
legged frog follows:
(9) Unit NEV-1: Nevada County, California. From USGS 1:24,000 scale
quadrangle Nevada City and North Bloomfield.
(E,N): 676906,4356394; 676962,4356305; 677130,4356317; 677131,4356238;
(ii) Note: Unit NEV-1 for California red-legged frog is depicted on
the map in paragraph (8)(ii) of this entry.
(10) Unit PLA-1: Placer County, California. From USGS 1:24,000
scale quadrangles Forest Hill and Michigan Bluff.
695908,4324628; 695996,4324611; 696033,4324574; returning to:
696102,4324325. Excluding: 695636,4324153; 695563,4324116;
returning to 695636,4324153.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit PLA-1 for the California red-legged frog
(11) Unit ELD-1: El Dorado County, California. From USGS 1:24,000
scale quadrangles Camino, Pollock Pines and Sly Park.
711830,4293033; returning to 712042,4292979. Excluding: 708426,
4291544; 708412,4291176; 709003,4291194; 709025,4291561; returning to
708426,4291544.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit ELD-1 for the California red-legged frog
(12) Unit CAL-1: Calaveras County, California. From USGS 1:24,000
scale quadrangles Jackson, Valley Springs and Mokelumne Hill.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CAL-1 for the California red-legged frog
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(13) Unit MEN-1: Mendocino County, California. From USGS 1:24,000
scale quadrangles Cold Spring, Eureka Hill, Mallo Pass Creek, and Point
Arena.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit MEN-1 for the California red-legged frog
(14) Unit SON-1: Sonoma County, California. From USGS 1:24,000
scale quadrangles Santa Rosa and Kenwood.
534602,4252689; 535068,4252700; 535824,4252154; returning to
(ii) Note: Map of Units SON-1, SON-2 and SON-3 for the California
red-legged frog follows:
scale quadrangles Cotati and Glen Ellen.
534706,4244539; 534912,4244479; returning to 535134,4244142.
(ii) Note: Unit SON-2 for California red-legged frog is depicted on
the map in paragraph (14)(ii) of this entry.
(16) Unit SON-3: Sonoma and Marin Counties, California. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle Petaluma.
(17) Unit NAP-1: Napa County, California. From USGS 1:24,000 scale
quadrangle Capell Valley.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit NAP-1 for the California red-legged frog
(18) Unit MRN-1: Marin County, California. From USGS 1:24,000 scale
quadrangles Valley Ford and Tomales.
(ii) Note: Map of Units MRN-1, MRN-2 and MRN-3 for the California
quadrangles Point Reyes NE, Inverness, and Petaluma.
(ii) Note: Unit MRN-2 for California red-legged frog is depicted on
quadrangles Drakes Bay and Inverness.
513373,4207120; 513147,4207269; 513080,4207355;
512595,4207687;511835,4208055; 510313,4208639; 509246,4208876;
(21) Unit SOL-1: Solano and Napa Counties, California. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangles Cordelia, Benecia, Fairfield South and Vine
Hill.
(ii) Note: Map of Units SOL-1, SOL-2 and SOL-3 for the California
1:24,000 scale quadrangle Cordelia.
(ii) Note: Unit SOL-2 for California red-legged frog is depicted on
(24) Unit CCS-1: Contra Costa County, California. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangles Richmond, Benecia, Briones Valley and Walnut
Creek.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit CCS-1 for the California red-legged frog
(25) Unit CCS-2: Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, California.
(i) Subunit CCS-2A. From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Walnut
Creek, Clayton, and Diablo. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10,
NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 590966,4195381; 591584,4195077;
(ii) Subunit CCS-2B. From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Diablo,
Tassajara, Byron Hot Springs, Dublin, Livermore, Altamont, Midway, and
Clifton Court Forebay. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83
coordinates (E,N): 599361,4176006; 599341,4176048; 599341,4176174;
599402,4176098; returning to 599361,4176006. Excluding: 622742,4184043;
(iii) Note: Map of Unit CCS-2, subunits CCS-2A and CCS-2B, for the
California red-legged frog follows:
(26) Unit ALA-1: Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California.
(i) Subunit ALA-1A. From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Hayward
and Dublin. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83
(ii) Subunit ALA-1B. From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Hayward,
Newark, Dublin and Niles. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10,
(iii) Note: Map of Unit ALA-1, subunits ALA-1A and ALA-1B, for the
(27) Unit ALA-2: Alameda, Santa Clara and San Joaquin Counties,
California. From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Niles, La Costa
Valley, Calaveras Reservoir, Altamont, Mendenhall Springs, Mt. Day,
Midway, Cedar Mtn., Tracy, Lone Tree Creek and Eylar Mountain.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit ALA-2 for the California red-legged frog
(28) Unit SNM-1: San Mateo County, California. From USGS 1:24,000
scale quadrangles Montara Mountain, Half Moon Bay, San Mateo and
Woodside.
Excluding: 549220,4157011; 549541,4156838; 549722,4156775;
556382,4153312; 556394,4153456;556363,4153502; 556380,4153596;
557444,4151759; 557409,4151647; returning to 557286,4151491. Excluding:
(ii) Note: Map of Units SNM-1 and SNM-2 for the California red-
(29) Unit SNM-2: San Mateo and Santa Cruz Counties, California.
From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Half Moon Bay, San Gregorio,
Pigeon Point, Woodside, La Honda, Franklin Point, Mindego Hill and Big
Basin.
568991,4119382; returning to 569250,4119121; Excluding: 555483,4121713;
(ii) Note: Unit SNM-2 for California red-legged frog is depicted on
(30) Unit STC-1: Santa Clara County, California. From USGS 1:24,000
scale quadrangles Calaveras Reservoir, San Jose East, Mt. Day, Lick
Observatory, Morgan Hill, Isabel Valley and Mt. Sizer.
(ii) Note: Map of Units STC-1 and STC-2 for the California red-
(31) Unit STC-2: Santa Clara, Merced, Stanislaus and San Benito
Counties, California. From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Mt. Sizer,
Gilroy, Mt. Stakes, Mississippi Creek, Gilroy Hot Springs, San Felipe,
Mustang Peak, Pacheco Peak, Three Sisters, Crevision Peak, Pacheco Pass
and Mariposa Peak.
(ii) Note: Unit STC-2 for California red-legged frog is depicted on
(32) Unit SCZ-1: Santa Cruz and San Mateo Counties, California.
From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Franklin Point, Ano Nuevo, Big
Basin, Davenport, Felton and Santa Cruz.
returning to 563662,4115064. Excluding: 573194,4098886; 573212,4098861;
(ii) Note: Map of Units SCZ-1 and SCZ-2 for the California red-
(33) Unit SCZ-2: Santa Cruz County, California. From USGS 1:24,000
scale quadrangle Watsonville West.
(ii) Note: Unit SCZ-2 for California red-legged frog is depicted on
the map in paragraph (32)(iii) of this entry.
(34) Unit MNT-1: Monterey County, California. From USGS 1:24,000
scale quadrangle Prunedale.
(ii) Note: Map of Units MNT-1, MNT-2, and MNT-3 for the California
scale quadrangles Monterey, Soberanes Point, Seaside, Mt. Carmel, Big
Sur, Spreckles, Carmel Valley, Ventana Cones, Rana Creek, Chews Ridge,
Palo Escrito Peak and Sycamore Flat.
623947,4018959; 623879,4019028;
(ii) Note: Unit MNT-2 for California red-legged frog is depicted on
scale quadrangles Point Sur, Big Sur, Pfeiffer Point, Ventana Cones and
Partington Ridge.
(37) Unit SNB-1: San Benito County, California. From USGS 1:24,000
scale quadrangles San Juan Bautista, Hollister, Mt. Harlan, Tres Pinos
and Pacines.
(ii) Note: Map of Units SNB-1, SNB-2, and SNB-3 for the California
scale quadrangles Cherry Peak, Panoche Pass, San Benito and Cerro
Colorado.
(ii) Note: Unit SNB-2 for California red-legged frog is depicted on
(39) Unit SNB-3: San Benito and Monterey Counties, California. From
USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Mount Johnson, Bickmore Canyon, North
Chalone Peak, San Benito and Topo Valley.
671947,4038274;
655012,4045625; 654950,4045852; 655027,4046199;655145,4046256;
(40) Unit SLO-1: San Luis Obispo, Kings and Kern Counties,
California. From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Cholame Valley, Tent
Hills, Cholame and Orchard Peak.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit SLO-1 for the California red-legged frog
(41) Unit SLO-2: San Luis Obispo County, California. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangles San Simeon, Pico Creek, Pebblestone Shut-In,
Cambria, Cypress Mountain and Cayucos.
(ii) Note: Map of Units SLO-2, SLO-3, and SLO-4 for the California
1:24,000 scale quadrangles Cayucos, York Mountain, Morro Bay North,
Morro Bay South, Atascadero, San Luis Obispo, Santa Margarita, Lopez
Mtn., Arroyo Grande NE, Santa Margarita Lake and Tar Spring Ridge.
(ii) Note: Unit SLO-3 for California red-legged frog is depicted on
1:24,000 scale quadrangles Santa Margarita Lake, Pozo Summit, Caldwell
Mesa, La Panza and Los Machos Hills.
(44) Unit STB-1: Santa Barbara County, California. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangles Tepusquet Canyon, Foxen Canyon, Manzanita
Mountain and Zaca Lake.
(ii) Note: Map of Units STB-1, STB-3, STB-6, and STB-7 for the
1:24,000 scale quadrangles Guadalupe, Casmalia, Santa Maria and Orcutt.
(ii) Note: Map of Units STB-2, STB-4, and STB-5 for the California
1:24,000 scale quadrangle Zaca Lake.
(ii) Note: Unit STB-3 for California red-legged frog is depicted on
1:24,000 scale quadrangles Tranquillon Mountain. and Lompoc Hills.
1:24,000 scale quadrangles Santa Rosa Hills, Solvang and Gaviota.
1:24,000 scale quadrangles Solvang, Gaviota, Santa Ynez and Tajiguas.
(50) Unit STB-7: Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties, California.
USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Lake Cachuma, San Marcos Pass, Big Pine
Mtn., Little Pine Mtn., Santa Barbara, Madulce Peak, Hildreth Peak,
Carpinteria, Old Man Mountain, White Ledge Peak, Wheeler Springs and
Matilija.
254336,3837592; 254390,3837486; 254516,3837387; and return
(51) Unit VEN-1: Ventura County, California. From USGS 1:24,000
scale quadrangles Matilija, Ventura and Ojai.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit VEN-1 for the California red-legged frog
(52) Unit VEN-2: Ventura and Los Angeles Counties, California. From
USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Cobblestone Mountain and Whitaker Peak.
(ii) Note: Map of Units VEN-2 and VEN-3 for the California red-
scale quadrangle Calabasas.
(ii) Note: Unit VEN-3 for California red-legged frog is depicted on
(54) Unit LOS-1: Los Angeles County, California. From USGS 1:24,000
scale quadrangles Warm Springs Mountain and Green Valley.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit LOS-1 for the California red-legged frog
Dated: February 26, 2010
Signed: Thomas L. Strickland,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks
[FR Doc. 2010-4656 Filed 3-16-10; 8:45 am]