![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog, and Special Rule Exemption Associated With Final Listing for Existing Routine Ranching Activities
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: April 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 71)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19243-19346]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13ap06-18]
[[Page 19244]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018--AJ16
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog, and Special Rule Exemption
Associated With Final Listing for Existing Routine Ranching Activities
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are
designating critical habitat for the California red-legged frog (Rana
aurora draytonii) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). We are further finalizing a special rule associated with
final listing of the California red-legged frog as threatened for
existing routine ranching activities pursuant to section 4(d) of the
Act. In total, approximately 450,288 acres (ac) (182,225 hectares (ha))
fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The
critical habitat is located in Alameda, Butte, Contra Costa, El Dorado,
Kern, Los Angeles, Marin, Merced, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, San Benito,
San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz,
Solano, Ventura and Yuba counties, California.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on May 15, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in the preparation of this final rule, are available
for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, at
the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-
2605, Sacramento, California, 95825 (telephone 916/414-6600). The final
rule and economic analysis are available via the Internet at
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/sacramento.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arnold Roessler, Listing Branch Chief,
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address (telephone
916/414-6600; facsimile 916/414-6712).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Role of Critical Habitat in Actual Practice of Administering and
Implementing the Act
Attention to and protection of habitat is paramount to successful
conservation actions. The role that designation of critical habitat
plays in protecting habitat of listed species, however, is often
misunderstood. As discussed in more detail below in the discussion of
exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, there are significant
limitations on the regulatory effect of designation under section
7(a)(2) of the Act. In brief, (1) designation provides additional
protection to habitat only where there is a Federal nexus; (2) the
protection is relevant only when, in the absence of designation,
destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat would in
fact take place (in other words, other statutory or regulatory
protections, policies, or other factors relevant to agency decision-
making would not prevent the destruction or adverse modification); and
(3) designation of critical habitat triggers the prohibition of
destruction or adverse modification of that habitat. However,
designation of critical habitat does not require specific actions to
restore or improve habitat.
Currently, only 473 species, or 37 percent of the 1,272 listed
species in the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the Service, have
designated critical habitat. We address the habitat needs of all 1,272
listed species through conservation mechanisms such as listing, section
7 consultations, the section 4 recovery planning process, the section 9
protective prohibitions of unauthorized take, section 6 funding to the
States, the section 10 incidental take permit process, and cooperative,
nonregulatory efforts with private landowners. The Service believes
that it is these measures that may make the difference between
extinction and survival for many species.
In considering exclusions of areas originally proposed for
designation, we evaluated the benefits of designation in light of
Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
In that case, the Ninth Circuit invalidated the Service's regulation
defining ``destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.''
In response, on December 9, 2004, the Director issued guidance to be
considered in making section 7 adverse modification determinations.
This critical habitat designation does not use the invalidated
regulation in our consideration of the benefits of including areas in
this final designation. The Service will carefully manage future
consultations that analyze impacts to designated critical habitat,
particularly those that appear to be resulting in an adverse
modification determination. Such consultations will be reviewed by the
Regional Office prior to completion to ensure that an adequate analysis
has been conducted that is informed by the Director's guidance.
On the other hand, to the extent that designation of critical
habitat provides protection, that protection can come at significant
social and economic cost. In addition, the mere administrative process
of designation of critical habitat is expensive, time-consuming, and
controversial. The current statutory framework of critical habitat,
combined with past judicial interpretations of the statute, make
critical habitat the subject of excessive litigation. As a result,
critical habitat designations are driven by litigation and courts
rather than biology, and made at a time and under a time frame that
limits our ability to obtain and evaluate the scientific and other
information required to make the designation most meaningful.
In light of these circumstances, the Service believes that
additional agency discretion would allow our focus to return to those
actions that provide the greatest benefit to the species most in need
of protection.
Procedural and Resource Difficulties in Designating Critical Habitat
We have been inundated with lawsuits for our failure to designate
critical habitat, and we face a growing number of lawsuits challenging
critical habitat determinations once they are made. These lawsuits have
subjected the Service to an ever-increasing series of court orders and
court-approved settlement agreements, compliance with which now
consumes nearly the entire listing program budget. This leaves the
Service with little ability to prioritize its activities to direct
scarce listing resources to the listing program actions with the most
biologically urgent species conservation needs.
The consequence of the critical habitat litigation activity is that
limited listing funds are used to defend active lawsuits, to respond to
Notices of Intent (NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, and to
comply with the growing number of adverse court orders. As a result,
listing petition responses, the Service's own proposals to list
critically imperiled species, and final listing determinations on
existing proposals are all significantly delayed.
The accelerated schedules of court-ordered designations have left
the Service with limited ability to provide for public participation or
to ensure a defect-free rulemaking process before making decisions on
listing and critical habitat proposals, due to the risks associated
with noncompliance with judicially imposed deadlines. This in turn
fosters a second round of litigation in which those who fear adverse
[[Page 19245]]
impacts from critical habitat designations challenge those
designations. The cycle of litigation appears endless, and is very
expensive, thus diverting resources from conservation actions that may
provide relatively more benefit to imperiled species.
The costs resulting from the designation include legal costs, the
cost of preparation and publication of the designation, the analysis of
the economic effects and the cost of requesting and responding to
public comment, and in some cases the costs of compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
These costs, which are not required for many other conservation
actions, directly reduce the funds available for direct and tangible
conservation actions.
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the designation of critical habitat in this rule. For more information
on the California red-legged frog, refer to the revised proposed
critical habitat designation published in the Federal Register on
November 3, 2005 (70 FR 66906).
Previous Federal Actions
Previous Federal actions for the California red-legged frog can be
found in our revised proposal of critical habitat for the California
red-legged frog published in the Federal Register on November 3, 2005
(70 FR 66906). That information is incorporated by reference into this
final rule. On November 23, 2005, the federal district court in the
Eastern District of California granted a motion to extend the deadline
for publication of the final critical habitat until March 31, 2006.
This final designation is being completed and published in the Federal
Register in compliance with that court order.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We requested written comments from the public on the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog
published on April 13, 2004 (69 FR 19620). We also requested written
comments from the public on the revised proposed designation of
critical habitat for the California red-legged frog published on
November 3, 2005 (70 FR 66906). We also contacted appropriate Federal,
State, and local agencies; scientific organizations; and other
interested parties and invited them to comment on both the proposed and
the revised proposed rule. The comment period for the initial proposed
rule opened on April 13, 2004, and closed on June 14, 2004. We extended
the period from June 14, 2004 to July 14, 2004 (69 FR 32966). Comments
and new information received in response to the first proposed rule
which were relevant to the revised proposal and final designation were
incorporated in the final rule as appropriate and are summarized with
the comments received in response to the revised proposed rule below.
During the comment period for the initial proposed rule, we
received a total of 88 comment letters from Federal, State, and local
governments, and private individuals. Of those comment letters, 30
commenters generally supported the initial proposed designation of 4.1
million acres (1.6 million hectares) or provided specific information
pertaining to the subspecies or habitat, and 58 commenters generally
did not support the initial proposed designation as written or did not
support the inclusion of certain lands. Of the 88 total comment
letters, 39 comment letters focused on land areas that we later
determined to be nonessential to the conservation of the subspecies and
that we are no longer including in this final designation. In summary,
in our revised proposed rule and in this final designation, we used the
best scientific information available in determining the areas
essential for the California red-legged frog and removed all areas that
we determined are not essential for the conservation of this subspecies
and therefore do not meet the definition of critical habitat. We re-
examined all initially proposed areas and removed any areas that do not
contain one or more of the PCEs or that were determined to be
nonessential for the conservation of the subspecies because: (1) The
area is highly degraded and may not be restorable; (2) the area is
small, highly fragmented, or isolated and may provide little or no
long-term conservation value; and/or (3) other areas within the
geographic region were determined to be sufficient to meet the
subspecies needs for conservation.
We also considered several criteria in the selection of areas that
contain the features essential for the conservation of California red-
legged frog and focused on designating units: (1) Throughout the
current geographic, elevational, and ecological distribution of the
subspecies; (2) that would maintain the current population structure
across the subspecies' range; (3) that retain or provide for
connectivity between breeding sites allowing for the continued
existence of viable and essential metapopulations, despite fluctuations
in the status of subpopulations; (4) that possess large continuous
blocks of occupied habitat, representing source populations and/or
unique ecological characteristics; and (5) that 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 proposed critical habitat units in areas that have the
highest likelihood to contain self-sustaining populations of California
red-legged frogs based on the presence of the PCEs, the density of
California red-legged frog occurrences, and the kind, amount, and
quality of habitat associated with those occurrences. We believe this
strategy allowed us to narrow our initial focus down to the habitats
that meet the definition of critical habitat and are essential to the
conservation of the subspecies.
During the comment period associated with the revised proposed rule
that opened on November 3, 2005, and closed on February 1, 2006, we
received 76 comments directly addressing the revised proposed critical
habitat designation and the draft economic analysis. Of these comments,
three were from peer reviewers, one from a Federal agency, and 32 from
organizations. Five commenters supported the designation of critical
habitat for the California red-legged frog, and 55 opposed the
designation. Sixteen letters included comments or information, but did
not express support or opposition to the revised proposed critical
habitat designation. Comments received were grouped into 15 general
issues specifically relating to the revised proposed critical habitat
designation for the California red-legged frog, and are addressed in
the following summary and/or incorporated into the final rule as
appropriate. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing;
however, we did receive one request for a public workshop from the
Calaveras County Farm Bureau. On January 10, 2006, we held a public
workshop in San Andreas, California, and on January 17, 2006, we held
an additional public workshop for the Calaveras County Board of
Supervisors and the general public.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited expert opinions from five knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with
the subspecies, the geographic region in which the subspecies occurs,
and conservation biology principles. We received responses from two of
the peer
[[Page 19246]]
reviewers. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and
conclusions and provided additional information, clarifications, and
suggestions to improve the final critical habitat rule. One peer
reviewer generally accepted our methodology and criteria used in the
designation of critical habitat, while another peer reviewer generally
agreed with our proposed special rule to exempt routine ranching
practices. The other peer review comments are addressed in the
following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
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, and addressed them in the
following summary.
Peer Reviewer Comments
(1) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned how the future increase
in the size of Los Vaqueros reservoir would affect critical habitat in
Unit ALA-1A.
Our Response: The area surrounding Los Vaqueros reservoir was
excluded from critical habitat because of disproportionately high
economic costs. See Relationship of Critical Habitat to Economic
Impacts--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act below.
Additionally, areas that support California red-legged frog
populations, but are outside the critical habitat designation, will
continue to be subject to conservation actions implemented under
section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the regulatory protections afforded
by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as determined on the basis of
the best available information at the time of the action. Federally
funded or permitted projects affecting listed species, or subspecies,
outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in
jeopardy findings in some cases.
(2) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned our rationale for not
including the documented population of California red-legged frogs at
Corral Hollow in San Joaquin County. Additionally, the same peer
reviewer expressed concern that California red-legged frog recovery
cannot take place only in occupied areas.
Our Response: In our revised proposed designation of critical
habitat for the California red-legged frog, we selected areas based on
the best scientific data available that possess those physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of the subspecies,
and that may require special management considerations or protection.
We included areas that were occupied at the time of listing as well as
some areas subsequently identified as occupied. We proposed critical
habitat units in areas whose populations of California red-legged frogs
have the highest likelihood to be self-sustaining based on the presence
of the PCEs; the density of California red-legged frog occurrences; and
the kind, amount, and quality of habitat associated with those
occurrences. The proposed units contain sufficient PCEs to support the
behaviors that we have determined are essential to the conservation of
the subspecies. In this rule, we did not believe that all occupied
habitat should be designated as critical habitat, nor did we believe it
necessary to designate unoccupied habitat. In the development of the
revised proposed rule, we determined the designation of unit ALA-1,
which is located to the west of the Corral Hollow area, was sufficient
for the conservation of the California red-legged frog in that area.
For more information, please see the Criteria Used to Define Critical
Habitat section.
(3) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that based on the paper
published by Shaffer et al. (2004), the California red-legged frog is a
full species and should be recognized as such by the Service.
Our Response: Based on mtDNA evidence, Shaffer et al. (2004)
concluded that Rana aurora aurora (red-legged frog) and Rana aurora
draytonii do not constitute a monophyletic group and suggests
recognition of each as a separate species. Additionally, Shaffer et al.
(2004) suggests Rana cascadae (Cascades frog) and Rana aurora draytonii
are more closely related and should be considered sister taxon. We
recognize the paper by Shaffer et al. (2004) presents evidence that can
be used to support the argument that the California red-legged frog
should be considered a full species. In a cursory review of
herpetological and special status species web sites, we found one (The
Center for North American Herpetology) that noted Shaffer et al.'s
(2004) conclusion that the California red-legged frog was a distinct
species, but that web site still uses Rana aurora draytonii. Another
web site (Amphibia Web) uses Rana draytonii. Two other web sites (IUCN
Red List and Nature Serve) still list the California red-legged frog as
Rana aurora draytonii. At this time, we do not find that a formal
change in taxonomy for the California red-legged frog is necessary.
(4) Comment: One peer reviewer asserted that the lack of a
metapopulation focus in the development of the critical habitat
designation practically guarantees extinction of California red-legged
frogs from 15 or more critical habitat units.
Our Response: We disagree that the designation of critical habitat
presented in this rule will lead to the extinction (extirpation) of the
California red-legged frog in any of the critical habitat units. We
used the best scientific information available in determining those
areas essential for the California red-legged frog for our revised
proposed critical habitat designation. We considered several criteria
in the selection of areas that contain the features essential for the
conservation of California red-legged frog and focused on designating
units: (1) Throughout the current geographic, elevational, and
ecological distribution of the subspecies; (2) that would maintain the
current population structure across the subspecies' range; (3) that
retain or provide for connectivity between breeding sites, allowing for
the continued existence of viable and essential metapopulations,
despite fluctuations in the status of subpopulations; (4) that possess
large continuous blocks of occupied habitat, representing source
populations and/or unique ecological characteristics; and (5) that
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 excluded any areas that do not
contain one or more of the PCEs or that were determined not to be
essential for the conservation of the subspecies because: (1) The area
is highly degraded and may not be restorable; (2) the area is small,
highly fragmented, or isolated and may provide little or no long-term
conservation value; and/or (3) other areas within the geographic region
were determined to be sufficient to meet the subspecies' needs for
conservation. We disagree that critical habitat units need to be
connected within very large contiguous blocks. Connecting large areas
of unknown occupancy, which may or may not support California red-
legged frogs or the PCEs, would not materially contribute to the
conservation of the subspecies. For more information, please see the
Criteria Used to Define Critical Habitat section.
(5) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned our exclusion of large
blocks of private and Federal lands from critical habitat, stating that
this essentially shifts the responsibility of threatened and endangered
species' protection to entities that have different priorities.
Our Response: There are multiple ways to provide management for
species habitat. Statutory and regulatory frameworks that exist at a
local level can
[[Page 19247]]
provide such protection and management, as can lack of pressure for
change (e.g., areas too remote for anthropogenic disturbance). Finally,
State, local, or private management plans, as well as management by a
Federal agency, can provide protection and management to avoid the need
for designation of critical habitat. When we consider a plan to
determine its adequacy in protecting habitat, we consider whether the
plan, as a whole, will provide the same level of protection that
designation of critical habitat would provide. The plan need not lead
to exactly the same result as a designation in every individual
application, as long as the protection it provides is equivalent
overall. In making this determination, we examine whether the plan
provides management, protection, or enhancement of the PCEs that is at
least equivalent to that provided by a critical habitat designation,
and whether there is a reasonable expectation that the management,
protection, or enhancement actions will continue into the foreseeable
future. Each review is particular to the species and the plan, and some
plans may be adequate for some species and inadequate for others.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that critical habitat shall be
designated, and revised, on the basis of the best available scientific
data after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on
national security, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area
from critical habitat if [s]he determines that the benefits of such
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the
critical habitat, unless [s]he determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that
determination, the Secretary is afforded broad discretion, and the
Congressional record is clear that, in making a determination under the
section, the Secretary has discretion concerning which factors to
consider and how much weight will be given to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2), in considering whether to exclude a
particular area from the designation, we must identify the benefits of
including the area in the designation, identify the benefits of
excluding the area from the designation, and determine whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. If an
exclusion is contemplated, then we must determine whether excluding the
area would result in the extinction of the subspecies. For more
information see Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below.
General Comments
Comments Related to Habitat and Subspecies-Specific Information
(6) Comment: One commenter stated our discussion of the reduction
in the range of the California red-legged frog in the revised proposed
rule was misleading.
Our Response: We believe our description of the reduction in the
range of the California red-legged frog is accurate. We referred to
multiple sources when researching the reduction in the range of the
California red-legged frog. We consulted the recovery plan; Jennings
and Hayes (1994); Fisher and Shaffer (1996); the California Natural
Diversity Database (2004 and 2005); Berkeley Museum of Vertebrate
Zoology (2004); and the California Academy of Sciences (2004). The map
prepared by Jennings and Hayes (1994) depicts historic and extant (as
of 1994) occurrences of the California red-legged frog. Approximately
45 counties comprised the historic range of the California red-legged
frog, and approximately 17 counties were found to have extant
occurrences in 1994. In 1996, when the subspecies was listed, 243
streams or drainages in 22 California counties were documented to
contain populations of California red-legged frogs (California Natural
Diversity Database (CNDDB) 2004). At the time of listing, California
red-legged frogs were believed to have been extirpated from most of the
southern Coastal Mountains from Santa Barbara south to Baja California
and east along the Transverse (San Gabriel, San Bernadino, Santa Ynez,
and Santa Monica Mountains) and Peninsular (San Jacinto, Santa Rosa,
Agua Tibia, Laguna, Santa Ana Mountains) Ranges. Since listing, two
additional occurrences south of the Tehachapi Mountains at City Creek
in San Bernardino county and Andreas Canyon in Riverside county have
been discovered (CNDDB 2005) but may no longer be extant. Four
additional occurrences have been recorded in the Sierra Nevada
foothills since listing, bringing the total to five extant populations,
compared to approximately 26 historical records (Berkeley Museum of
Vertebrate Zoology 2004; CNDDB 2004; California Academy of Sciences
2004; Barry in litt. 2005). Currently California red-legged frogs are
only known from 3 disjunct regions in 26 California counties, and one
disjunct region that is still present in Baja California, Mexico
(Grismer 2002; Fidenci 2004; R. Smith and D. Krofta, in litt. 2005).
Additionally, through comparison of historical museum records (1890-
1980) and field surveys (1990-1992), Fisher and Shaffer (1996) present
evidence of the extirpation (local extermination) of California red-
legged frogs from 24 of 28 counties in a limited portion of the
subspecies' historical range.
(7) Comment: One commenter suggested we should have included a
reference to a paper published by Shaffer et al. (2004) in the
subspecies description section of the revised proposed rule.
Our Response: The Service did consult the paper by Shaffer et al.
(2004) in development of the revised proposed rule. As noted by the
commenter, we referenced the Shaffer et al. (2004) paper in the
Geographic Range section of the revised proposed rule. We also cite
Shaffer et al. (2004) in the unit description for RIV-1 in the revised
proposed rule in regards to California red-legged frog's genetic
lineage in southern California. Based on mtDNA evidence, Shaffer et al.
(2004) concluded that Rana aurora aurora (red-legged frog) and Rana
aurora draytonii do not constitute a monophyletic group and suggests
recognition of each as a separate species. Additionally, Shaffer et al.
(2004) suggests Rana cascadae (Cascades frog) and Rana aurora draytonii
are more closely related and should be considered sister taxa. We
recognize the paper by Shaffer et al. (2004) presents evidence that can
be used to argue that the California red-legged frog should be
considered a full species. However, as discussed earlier in our
response to comment 3, we conducted a cursory review of scientific web
sites, and based on that review, at this time, we do not find that a
formal change in taxonomy for the California red-legged frog is necessary.
Comments Related to Threats to the Subspecies
(8) Comment: Several commenters did not believe we adequately
assessed the current threats to the California red-legged frog, including
introduced predators, grazing, urban run-off, pesticides, and fertilizers.
Our Response: As discussed throughout the proposed rule, in our
previous final designation of critical habitat for the California red-
legged frog (66 FR 14626; March 13, 2001), and in our final recovery
plan for the subspecies (Service 2002), threats to those features that
are essential to the conservation of the California red-legged frog
(i.e., primary constituent elements) may include but are not limited to:
[[Page 19248]]
Trematode and chytrid fungus disease; direct and indirect impacts from
some human recreational activities; flood control maintenance
activities; water diversions; unmanaged overgrazing activities
(summarized by Kauffman and Krueger (1984) and Belsky et al. (1999));
competition and predation by nonnative species, such as warm water fish
and bullfrogs (Alvarez et al. 2003); habitat removal and alteration by
urbanization; and some agricultural pesticides and fertilizers (Hayes
et al. 2006). We also included lists of threats that may require
special management for each unit description in the revised proposed
rule (70 FR 66906) and in this final rule (see Special Management
Considerations or Protections below).
(9) Comment: One commenter disagreed with our statement that
California red-legged frogs can persist in the presence of bullfrogs
and nonnative predatory fish.
Our Response: We concluded that there are specific conditions under
which California red-legged frogs can persist in the presence of
bullfrogs and nonnative predatory fish. In aquatic systems subject to
seasonal drying, it may be difficult for bullfrogs to become
established. Doubledee et al. (2003) 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. Fellers and Guscio (2004)
suggest since bullfrogs require approximately 16 months to
metamorphose, periodic drying would be an effective means of preventing
a population from becoming established. Additionally, periodic drying
may prevent nonnative warm water fish from becoming established as
well. Alvarez et al. (2003) present evidence that nonnative predatory
fish can have a significant effect on juvenile California red-legged
frog survival. Of 90 ponds surveyed in the Los Vaqueros watershed, 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. In comparison to surveys conducted before fish removal and
surveys conducted after fish removal and pond recharge, juvenile and
adult California red-legged frog abundance increased dramatically after
nonnative fish were removed, suggesting a strong link to decreased
California red-legged frog survival and nonnative fish presence.
Comments Related to Criteria and Methodology
(10) Comment: One commenter asserted our description of the Primary
Constituent Elements (PCEs) for the California red-legged frog was
insufficient and did not conform to Home Builders Association of
Northern California et al. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 268
F.Supp.2d 1197 (E.D.C. 2003) in the use of exclusion criteria to define
where essential features are found.
Our Response: We used the best scientific information available in
determining the identifiable physical and biological features essential
for the conservation of the California red-legged frog (PCEs). PCE 4
(dispersal habitat) includes a description of features that may
constitute barriers to dispersal for the California red-legged frog and
as such could be interpreted as exclusion criteria. However, features
that may constitute barriers to dispersal are merely illustrative and
are not to be used as exclusion criteria.
We further used the best scientific information available in
determining our descriptions of the areas essential for the California
red-legged frog as presented in our revised proposed critical habitat
designation. We considered several criteria in the selection of areas
that contain the features essential for the conservation of California
red-legged frog and focused on designating units: (1) Throughout the
current geographic, elevational, and ecological distribution of the
subspecies; (2) that would maintain the current population structure
across the subspecies' range; (3) that retain or provide for
connectivity between breeding sites, allowing for the continued
existence of viable and essential metapopulations, despite fluctuations
in the status of subpopulations; (4) that possess large continuous
blocks of occupied habitat, representing source populations and/or
unique ecological characteristics; and (5) that 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 excluded any areas that do not contain sufficient PCEs to
support necessary biological functions or that were determined not to
be essential for the conservation of the subspecies because: (1) The
area is highly degraded and may not be restorable; (2) the area is
small, highly fragmented, or isolated and may provide little or no
long-term conservation value; and/or (3) other areas within the
geographic region were determined to be sufficient to meet the
subspecies' needs for conservation.
Thus, we believe that the development of the PCEs for this
designation of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog and
the implementation of the criteria and methods identified herein and in
our revised proposed rule conform to the standards set forth in Home
Builders Association of Northern California et al. v. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 268 F.Supp.2d 1197 (E.D.C. 2003).
(11) Comment: Two commenters asserted the revised proposed rule
fails to identify the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the California red-legged frog. Another commenter
suggested that failure to designate unoccupied habitat runs counter to
the recovery goals of the California red-legged frog and the intent of
the Act. Additionally, the same commenter asserted that we should have
designated all occupied habitat.
Our Response: In our revised proposed designation of critical
habitat for the California red-legged frog, we selected areas based on
the best scientific data available that possess those physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of the subspecies,
and that may require special management considerations or protection.
We included in the revised proposed designation areas that were
occupied at the time of listing as well as some areas subsequently
identified as occupied. We proposed critical habitat units in areas
that have the highest likelihood to contain self-sustaining populations
of California red-legged frogs based on: (1) The presence of the PCEs;
(2) the density of California red-legged frog occurrences; and (3) the
kind, amount, and quality of habitat associated with those occurrences.
The revised proposed units contain sufficient PCEs to support the
behaviors that we have determined are essential to the conservation of
the subspecies. Pursuant to section 3(5)(C) of the Act, critical
habitat shall not include the entire geographical area that can be
occupied by the species unless otherwise determined by the Secretary.
We do not believe that all occupied habitat is essential to the
conservation of the subspecies. Thus, in this rule, we only designate
those areas determined to be essential to the conservation of the
subspecies based on the methodological criteria (refer to the response
to Comment (10) above for a list of these criteria).
(12) Comment: One commenter suggested that limiting protection of
upland and dispersal habitat to 200 feet (ft) and 0.7 mile (mi),
respectively, does
[[Page 19249]]
not provide for adequate conservation of the California red-legged frog
in part due to the need for juvenile frogs to disperse from natal
aquatic habitat.
Our Response: We are not aware of any scientific study that
provides estimates of juvenile California red-legged frog movement
distances. For reasons that are currently unclear, juveniles tend to
disperse away from aquatic habitat occupied by adults. Juvenile
dispersal is essential for recolonizing temporarily extirpated habitat
and preventing genetic isolation as juveniles disperse in more
directions, and for longer distances than do migrating adults (Wright,
in litt. 1999; Bulger et al. 2003). Juvenile frogs will disperse
through a variety of habitats, provided that habitat contains
sheltering vegetation or scattered wetlands or streams. Juvenile frogs
have been recorded in forested areas, nonnative grasslands, and even
croplands (CNDDB 2005); however, frogs are not known to disperse
through urbanized or suburban areas, suburban developments, or areas
separated from breeding habitat by impassible barriers. Impassible
barriers include wide or fast flowing rivers and streams, lakes greater
than 50 ac (20 ha), and heavily traveled roads without underpasses or
culverts (Reh and Seitz 1990; Fahrig et al. 1995). Juveniles dispersing
along riparian corridors may have higher survivorship, as sheltering
vegetation and suitable aquatic habitat are both more common in such
corridors (M. Jennings, in litt. 2000). Juveniles 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 1989;
Bobzien pers. comm. 2000; M. Jennings, in litt. 2000). We encourage further
research into California red-legged frog juvenile dispersal distances.
We recognize the importance of upland dispersal for the
conservation of the California red-legged frog. Bulger et al. (2003)
estimated that approximately 75 percent of adult California red-legged
frogs are resident in their aquatic habitats, and approximately 90
percent did not move more than 197 ft (60 meters (m)) from their
aquatic habitat in a mesic environment. Additionally, the maximum
distance moved by a non-migrating California red-legged frog was 427 ft
(130 m). Tatarian (2004) found upland use by California red-legged
frogs in a more xeric, inland environment averaged 91 ft (27.7 m). A
single female California red-legged frog inhabited an upland area, 302
ft (92 m) from its aquatic habitat, continuously for 50 days. Based on
the work of Bulger et al. (2003) and Tatarian (2004), and our previous
final critical habitat designation (66 FR 14625), we believe that the
PCE 3 (upland habitat) distance of 200 ft (60 m) from aquatic habitat
is sufficient to provide upland foraging and dispersal habitat for most
California red-legged frogs. We do not believe it practicable or
necessary to expand this width to capture all upland habitat that may
be available to the subspecies. We also believe that the available
scientific information does not support a change to our previous
determination of the 0.7 mi (1.1 km) dispersal distance. For more
information see the Primary Constituent Elements Section below.
(13) Comment: One commenter expressed concern at our apparent lack
of recognition of the tenuous situation the California red-legged frog
is in due to its apparent dependence on stock ponds as habitat.
Additionally, the commenter suggested that the California red-legged
frog cannot rely on stock ponds as a substitute for naturally occurring
ponds, streams, or other naturally occurring aquatic habitat.
Our Response: As outlined in the revised proposed rule, we
recognize stock ponds are usually aquatic habitat of poorer quality
than naturally occurring ponds, and we do not consider stock ponds as
replacement habitat for naturally occurring ponds or streams.
Hydroperiods (amount of time the stock pond contains water) may be so
short (e.g., when early drawdown of irrigation ponds occurs) that
larvae and tadpoles do not have sufficient time to complete
metamorphosis. Artificial ponds also require ongoing maintenance and
are often temporary structures. Natural soil erosion, sometimes
increased by pond breaching; livestock impacts; and off-road vehicle
(ORV) use can cause ponds to silt in after a few decades (Hamilton and
Jepson 1940), thereby reducing their quality as frog habitat. Often
ponds are not maintained because it may be more economical to construct
a new pond when the old pond fills with silt and is no longer
functional (Hamilton and Jepson 1940). Finally, stock ponds are often
geographically isolated from other seasonal wetlands, and colonization
of newly created ponds beyond the normal dispersal range may be slow or
nonexistent (Pechmann et al. 1989).
Populations of nonnative introduced predaceous fish and bullfrogs,
although less prevalent than in natural habitats, sometimes become
established in stock ponds and have been implicated in the decline of
other amphibian species (Fisher and Shaffer 1996; Hayes and Jennings
1986; Moyle 1973). We also recognize that stock ponds may facilitate
the spread of nonnative organisms by providing aquatic habitats in arid
landscapes that otherwise may have served as barriers to the spread of
such organisms. Despite these potential adverse impacts, the long-term
effect of construction of stock ponds on the subspecies is either
neutral or beneficial, because the California red-legged frog would
have likely been extirpated from many areas if stock ponds had not been
built and maintained for livestock production and ranching.
(14) Comment: One commenter stated that the units are too small, need
to be connected, and should be large contiguous blocks of critical habitat.
Our Response: We used the best scientific information available in
determining those areas essential for the California red-legged frog
and thus 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 California red-
legged frog. We disagree that all critical habitat units need to be
connected within very large contiguous blocks of habitat. Connecting
large areas of unknown occupancy, which may or may not support
California red-legged frogs or the PCEs, would not materially
contribute to the conservation of the subspecies. For more information,
please see the Criteria Used to Define Critical Habitat section.
(15) Comment: One commenter disagreed with our time estimate that a
water feature must hold water for a minimum of 15 weeks to be
considered essential breeding habitat and stated that California red-
legged frogs would be more common in vernal pool habitats if 15 weeks
was sufficient time to complete breeding and metamorphosis.
Our Response: We agree that setting the minimum time to 15 weeks
for essential breeding habitat does not provide sufficient time to
complete breeding and metamorphosis. Depending on water temperatures,
eggs may hatch in 7 to 14 days (Jennings 1988). Eggs may require
approximately 3 weeks to develop into tadpoles, and an additional 11-20
weeks to develop into terrestrial frogs (Storer 1925; Wright and Wright
1949; Bobzien et al. 2000). To be considered essential breeding habitat
(PCE 1), we have changed the amount of time a water feature must hold
water from 15 weeks to 20 weeks, which is an average of the above
estimates required for egg and tadpole development into terrestrial
frogs. For more information, see the Primary Constituent Elements
section below.
[[Page 19250]]
(16) Comment: Two commenters questioned why we did not designate
critical habitat solely within the California red-legged frog recovery
plan core area units.
Our Response: Several critical habitat units fall entirely within,
or within portions of, recovery plan core areas. The Recovery Plan for
the California red-legged frog was completed in 2002 (Service 2002). In
developing this critical habitat designation, we used the latest
scientific information available, which includes the 2002 Recovery
Plan. We also incorporated more recent survey data (CNDDB 2005) and
literature (e.g., Bulger et al. 2003; Alvarez 2004; Fellers and Guscio
2004; Fidenci 2004; Shaffer et al. 2004; Tatarian 2004; Fellers and
Kleeman 2005). We used all available data to determine the PCEs and
develop a strategy for determining areas (i.e., critical habitat units)
essential to the conservation of the subspecies. All the units are
described in the Critical Habitat section below. We recognize areas
other than those designated as critical habitat, such as those defined
in the recovery plan, may be important for the eventual recovery of the
California red-legged frog. However, these areas did not meet our
criteria for being essential. See also response to Comment 10 above.
Comments Related to Site-Specific Areas
(17) Comment: One commenter stated that the Unit MNT-2 in Carmel
Valley should not be included in the designation because the area
already is subject to county and State controls. The commenter also
states that the area is not essential for the subspecies.
Our Response: Based upon the information we received, we cannot
confirm that Monterey County and the State of California have
instituted regulatory controls that would render the critical habitat
designation redundant in Unit MNT-2. We believe that Unit MNT-2 meets
the criteria we have adopted for determining whether an area should be
considered essential.
(18) Comment: Numerous commenters were opposed to the revised
proposed designation of critical habitat unit CAL-1. They suggest an
alternate designation of lands in the Mokelumne River watershed
surrounding Pardee Dam Reservoir (managed by East Bay Municipal Utility
District (EBMUD)) and/or lands surrounding New Hogan Dam (managed by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), suggesting these areas are more
suitable for the conservation of the frog as they are managed as
protected open spaces. Several commenters questioned our designation of
critical habitat in the proposed unit CAL-1, stating Young's Creek is
designated as a seasonal stream and is dry during 3-4 months of an
average rainfall year. Additionally, other commenters indicated other
ponds in the area are also of a seasonal nature, and may be dry by
early June in a typical year.
Our Response: Unit CAL-1 contains all the features identified in
the PCEs and meets the definition of being essential for the
conservation of the California red-legged frog. However, in order to
preserve and encourage ongoing partnership activities, we have excluded
all of unit CAL-1 from the final designation of critical habitat for
the California red-legged frog. See Application of Section 4(a)(3) and
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act below for more information.
(19) Comment: One commenter provided information from EBMUD's
website that suggests that California red-legged frogs have been found
in surveys conducted in the Mokelumne River watershed, and therefore
this area would be more appropriate for the designation of critical
habitat than CAL-1.
Our Response: EBMUD's website provides information on California
red-legged frogs found in surveys of EBMUD lands in their land holdings
east of San Francisco Bay (the East Bay area). However there was no
mention of California red-legged frogs found in surveys conducted in
the Mokelumne River watershed (EBMUD Mokelumne Watershed Wildlife web
page viewed January 25, 2005). For further confirmation, we contacted
an EBMUD biologist who has extensive field experience in the lower
Mokelumne River watershed, and the biologist confirmed that no
California red-legged frogs had been found in EBMUD's Mokelumne River
holdings (Reeves pers com. 2006). Additionally, we have excluded all of
unit CAL-1 from the final designation of critical habitat for the
California red-legged frog. See Application of Section 4(a)(3) and
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act below for more information.
(20) Comment: One commenter stated there is no evidence that the
Burnt Bridge Creek watershed supports a population of California red-
legged frogs, and a herpetological survey stated that breeding and
summer habitat was seemingly absent from Burnt Bridge Creek. Therefore,
based on the lack of documentation of the presence of the subspecies,
YUB-1 should not be included in the designation of critical habitat.
Our Response: Unit YUB-1 contains all the features identified in
the PCEs and meets the definition of being essential for the
conservation of the California red-legged frog. In the herpetological
report cited by the commenter, Barry (2002) suggests California red-
legged frog ``breeding habitat and summer habitat is seemingly absent
from accessible sections of Burnt Bridge Creek.'' However, Barry (2002)
also states that portions of a terrace and ravine north of Burnt Bridge
Creek and east of Oregon Hill Road have dense overgrown blackberry
scrub vegetation and that there was some evidence of small ponds or
boggy meadows under the vegetation. Prior to a fire in 1999 and
discovery in 2000 of California red-legged frogs in Little Oregon
Creek, that site was covered by similar blackberry scrub vegetation.
Barry (2002), whose surveys were limited to U.S. Forest Service lands,
also suggests other locations in the Dobbins and Cottage/Deadwood Creek
watersheds that hold promise as California red-legged frog sites;
however, due to the prevalence of private land in the area, those and
other locations were not surveyed. California red-legged frogs are able
to migrate considerable distances overland and have been shown to use
small seeps and other wet areas during dispersal events. Additionally,
portions of Burnt Bridge Creek are within the known dispersal
capabilities of the California red-legged frog (e.g., Bulger et al.
2003) and are considered dispersal habitat as identified in PCE 4.
(21) Comment: One commenter requested that the North and South Fork
of Webber Creek be excluded from critical habitat since both are fast
flowing and would not be conducive to juvenile life stages of the
California red-legged frog. However, the commenter suggests both creeks
may support adult life stages after reduction of high winter and spring
in-stream flows.
Our Response: In areas where streams are subject to high peak
winter and spring flows, California red-legged frogs tend to adjust
breeding timing and habitat use to coincide with reduction of peak,
scouring flows (Fellers pers com. 2004; Bobzien pers com. 2005).
Additionally, in determining which areas to designate as critical
habitat, we consider those physical and biological features (PCEs) that
are essential to the conservation of the subspecies, that are within
areas occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing, and that may
require special management considerations and protection. This
designation is designed for the conservation of PCEs necessary to
support the life history functions of the
[[Page 19251]]
subspecies. Because not all life history functions require all the
PCEs, not all critical habitat will contain all the PCEs.
(22) Comment: El Dorado County requested to be excluded from the
designation of critical habitat based on the County's general plan.
Our Response: We have reviewed El Dorado County's general plan and
found no measures specific to the conservation of the California red-
legged frog. 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
excluded El Dorado County in its entirety from designated critical
habitat. We have, however, excluded those areas being 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(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act below).
(23) Comment: One commenter opposed the designation of the Hearst
Corporation's Jack Ranch property in SLO-1. The commenter stated that
many areas on the portion of the Jack Ranch within SLO-1 are extremely
arid and 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, the Jack Ranch property
should be excluded 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.
Our Response: Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat
as the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by the
species on which are found those physical and biological features (I)
essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require
special management considerations or protection. Our criteria for
determining features essential to the conservation of the subspecies
target areas known to be occupied by California red-legged frog at the
time of listing; determined 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, and dispersal
capabilities of the California red-legged frog. We included large
blocks of contiguous habitat that: Provide geographic distribution
across the range of the subspecies; contain high-quality habitat; allow
for the long-term viability of the subspecies; represent the full range
of habitat and environmental variability the subspecies occupies; avoid
conflict with existing commercial and residential development; focus on
public lands where available; and, where possible, overlap with other
critical habitat designations.
As noted in the unit description for SLO-1, this area was known to
be occupied by California red-legged frogs at the time of listing and
subsequently and contains the following features that are essential for
the conservation for the subspecies: 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). (See unit
description for SLO-1, Cholame, below). 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
of 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.
We recognize that routine ranching activities may be beneficial to
the California red-legged frog. Therefore, in conjunction with the
designation of critical habitat, we are promulgating 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. The prohibitions outlined in the special
rule do not include the take of California red-legged frog during
existing routine ranching practices. We believe that this special rule
will encourage landowners and ranchers operating on non-Federal land to
continue their livestock-related practices that are not only important
for livestock operations, but that also provide habitat for the
California red-legged frog. See also response to Comment 38 and Special
Rule section below.
(24) Comment: One commenter stated that 6,400 acres (2,590 ha) of
unit SLO-1 should be excluded from the designation because it does not
occur within the Cholame Creek watershed. It is the understanding of
the commenter that the Cholame Creek watershed is where California red-
legged frogs have been documented to occur.
Our Response: Although the unit description for SLO-1 states it
``includes locations in the Cholame Creek watershed,'' California red-
legged frogs have also been documented in 2001 (CNDDB 2005) within the
watershed for Jack Canyon, which drains toward the San Joaquin Valley.
Therefore, we included the area in question in the critical habitat
designation as it is occupied, contains the PCEs, and meets our criteria
for determining areas essential for the conservation of the subspecies.
(25) Comment: One commenter was opposed to the inclusion of land
covered under the Hearst Ranch Conservation Agreement in coastal San
Luis Obispo County, a portion of which occurs within units SLO-2 and
SLO-3. The commenter argued that, because of the level of protection
provided by the Hearst Ranch Conservation Agreement, these areas 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. The commenter asserted that California red-legged frogs will be
protected through specific measures addressed in Hearst Ranch's draft
management plan. In addition, the commenter argued that inclusion of
land covered under the Hearst Ranch Conservation Agreement would
discourage voluntary conservation initiatives on private lands.
Our Response: We recognize the importance of voluntary conservation
measures, such as the Hearst Ranch Conservation Agreement and future
management plans, that benefit federally listed, proposed, candidate,
or other at-risk species. Both unit SLO-2 and SLO-3 have been excluded
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act for economic reasons. See the section
Relationship of Critical Habitat to Economic Impacts--
[[Page 19252]]
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act below for additional
information.
(26) Comment: One commenter was opposed to the designation of those
portions of the Flood Family Ranch Company's property located in units
STB-1 and STB-3. The commenter stated that the continuation of cattle
grazing on the ranch would be threatened by the critical habitat
designation. The commenter expressed concerns that the designation of
critical habitat included areas where new vineyards are planned and
that the designation would prevent the development of these vineyards.
The commenter also argued that the designation would interfere with
existing mining activities that occur along the main stem of the
Sisquoc River, which runs through the ranch property. The commenter
provided information and maps showing the locations of the planned
vineyards and mining areas. Finally, the commenter contended that the
designation of the ranch lands as critical habitat for the California
red-legged frog is improper and unwarranted. The commenter asserted
that the Service did not use the best available science for the
designation because the Service did not survey the area for the
presence of the subspecies and/or the presence of PCEs. To support
this, the commenter contended that California red-legged frogs have
never been observed in STB-1, yet we proposed designating this area as
critical habitat for the California red-legged frog. The commenter
further asserted that the Service did not identify any specific special
management considerations and protections required within the revised
proposed critical habitat areas.
Our Response: Maps and other information provided by the commenter,
which show the location of planned vineyards and mining areas, confirm
that these areas were not part of the revised critical habitat proposal
(70 FR 66906; November 3, 2005) and are not included in this final
designation of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog.
Although we did not conduct surveys for California red-legged frog
during the course of designating critical habitat, we did use the best
scientific data available, in accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the
Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12. As noted in the unit descriptions
(see STB-1, La Brea Creek unit description, and STB-3, Sisquoc River
unit description, below) occurrence records from the time of listing
exist for both STB-1 and STB-3. The unit descriptions for both STB-1
and STB-3 also included special management considerations for each unit.
We recognize that routine ranching activities may be beneficial to
the California red-legged frog. Therefore, as part of this final rule,
we are promulgating 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. The
prohibitions outlined in the special rule do not include the take of
California red-legged frog during existing routine ranching practices.
We believe that this special rule will encourage landowners and
ranchers operating on non-Federal land to continue their livestock-
related practices that are not only important for livestock operations,
but also provide habitat for the California red-legged frog.
(27) Comment: One commenter stated that the portion of Piru Creek
between Pyramid Lake and Lake Piru in Ventura County (unit VEN-3) is a
unique fishing area for residents of southern California and would be
closed to public access if critical habitat were designated.
Our Response: The designation of critical habitat does not
establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other
conservation area, and we do not anticipate that this fishing area
would be closed as a result of it being designated as critical habitat
for the California red-legged frog. In addition, this area was
designated as critical habitat in the March 13, 2001, final critical
habitat designation (66 FR 14626), and there was no closure as a result
of that designation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service consults
regularly with the U.S. Forest Service on various projects within Los
Padres National Forest, and can work with the U.S. Forest Service to
develop protective measures and conservation measures that are
compatible with continued public access.
Comments Related to Mapping
(28) Comment: Several commenters on the April 13, 2004, proposed
rule stated that the 4.1 million acres proposed was excessive. Some
questioned whether a species that can be found on 4.1 million acres
should be listed under the Act.
Our Response: The original proposed rule was very expansive,
included areas that did not contain one or more of the PCEs, and were
not occupied. We do not now consider those areas to be essential to the
conservation of the California red-legged frog. As a result of public
comment, refined methodologies, and more detailed analyses of the maps,
this final designation has been revised to include only those areas
with features we consider to be essential to the conservation of the
subspecies. As a result, this final designation is much smaller than
the original proposed rule.
(29) Comment: A number of commenters identified specific areas that
they thought should not be designated as critical habitat.
Our Response: We made an effort to avoid developed areas, such as
housing and commercial developments, that are unlikely to contribute to
the conservation of the California red-legged frog. We also avoided
fragmented areas such as those surrounded by development. Areas within
the boundaries of the mapped units, such as buildings, roads, parking
lots, railroads, canals, levees, airport runways, other paved areas,
lawns, and other urban landscaped areas do not contain the PCEs and,
therefore, are not critical habitat and are not included in this
designation. Federal actions limited to these areas would not trigger a
section 7 consultation, unless they affect the subspecies and/or the
PCEs in adjacent critical habitat. We avoided known areas of intensive
agriculture. Agricultural lands may have been included if they were
within areas identified as necessary for dispersal or connectivity
between known occurrences. Where site-specific documentation was
submitted to us providing a rationale as to why an area should not be
designated critical habitat, we evaluated that information in
accordance with the definition of critical habitat pursuant to section
3(5)(A) of the Act and the provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We
evaluated the parcels to determine whether modifications to the
proposal were warranted. We further examined the proposed critical
habitat areas and refined the boundaries to exclude those areas that
did not, or were not likely to, contain PCEs for the subspecies,
wherever technically feasible. Please refer to the Summary of Changes
from the Revised Proposed Rule section for a more detailed discussion.
(30) Comment: One commenter requested we remove Snows Quarry from
the critical habitat designation which is located within unit ELD-1
because it does not contain the PCEs necessary for the conservation of
the California red-legged frog.
Our Response: We have re-evaluated the inclusion of Snows Quarry
and concur with the commenter that Snows Quarry does not contain the
PCEs necessary for the conservation of the California red-legged frog
and therefore should not be included in the critical habitat
designation. Due to technical
[[Page 19253]]
mapping constraints we did not remove Snows Quarry from unit ELD-1. See
the unit description for ELD-1 for more information.
(31) Comment: Several commenters requested that we consider
designation of alternate areas adjacent to proposed critical habitat or
additional areas as critical habitat.
Our Response: We believe we have appropriately designated critical
habitat after careful consideration of all the potential areas. See
Critical Habitat section for complete discussion of our methods and our
response to Comment 10 above.
Comments Related to Regulatory Burden
(32) Comment: One individual who provided comments on our April 13,
2004 proposed rule stated that the Service failed to properly document
adverse human health or environmental effects of the designation on
minority populations and low-income populations, and failed to make those
documents public. The commenter did not provide any specific information
on whether they believed that disproportionately high human health or
environmental impacts would occur to a particular population segment.
Our Response: Executive Order 12898 states that Federal agencies
should, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law,
identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs,
policies, and activities on minority population and low-income
populations. The proposed rules provided information to the public on
the designation, areas affected, and types of management actions that
may result from the final designation. The designation of critical
habitat will not result in any adverse human health or environmental
effects on the public, including minority and low-income populations.
(33) Comment: Numerous commenters asserted that the designation of
critical habitat results in an increased regulatory burden, increased
landowner costs, and restricted land uses and property rights.
Our Response: The economic analysis identifies the potential
economic costs that may accrue as a result of this designation. These
costs will be incurred when a Federal approval or permit is required,
or Federal funds are involved with a project proposed on private
property. Routine ranching activities are also exempt from take under
the new 4(d) rule at 50 CFR 17.43(d).
While the designation of critical habitat does not itself result in
the regulation of non-Federal actions on private lands, the listing of
the California red-legged frog under the Act may affect private
landowner's actions. Actions that could result in take of California
red-legged frog (e.g., draining ponds or diverting water from creeks
during the breeding season) require authorization for take following
consultation under section 7 or an incidental take permit under section
10 of the Act. Because the California red-legged frog has been listed
since 1996, proposed actions on private lands that require Federal
authorization or funding that may affect the listed entity already
undergo consultation under section 7 to ensure that their actions are
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the subspecies.
Future consultations involving private lands will also analyze the
effect of the proposed action on designated critical habitat when a
Federal nexus exists.
Comments Related to Property Rights
(34) Comment: One commenter asserted the designation of critical
habitat constitutes an uncompensated taking and is therefore illegal.
Our Response: The designation of critical habitat does not mean
that private lands would be taken by the Federal government or
reasonable uses would not be allowed. We evaluate this rule in
accordance with Executive Order 12630, and we believe that this
designation of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog will
not have significant takings implications. We determined that: (1) The
designation would result in little additional regulatory burden above
that currently in place, as the subspecies is already federally listed
and the majority of the area designated is occupied by the subspecies;
and (2) the designation of critical habitat will not affect private
lands on which there is not a Federal nexus. We do not anticipate that
property values, rights, or ownership will be significantly affected by
the critical habitat designation.
Comments Related to Public Notification
(35) Comment: Several commenters stated that we failed to properly
notify landowners concerning the proposed critical habitat designation.
Furthermore, several commenters have suggested we should extend the
public comment period to provide adequate time to address the proposed
critical habitat designation.
Our Response: The proposed critical habitat designation was
published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2004 (69 FR 19364), and
we accepted comments from all interested parties for 60 days, ending
June 14, 2004. We then extended the public comment period for an
additional 30 days (69 FR 32966; June 14, 2004). The revised proposed
critical habitat designation was published in the Federal Register on
November 3, 2005 (70 FR 66906), and we accepted comments from all
interested parties for 90 days, ending February 1, 2006. For each rule,
the Service also wrote press releases that resulted in newspaper
articles throughout California. We held two public workshops 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
original and revised proposed rules. We also specifically solicited and
received comments from peer reviewers on the revised proposed (70 FR
66906) and previously proposed (69 FR 19620) designation for the
California red-legged frog. We have a court-ordered date of March 31,
2006, to finalize a designation for the subspecies. Any additional
extensions of the comment period would not have allowed us to complete
the designation by that court-ordered date.
Comments Related to Department of Defense Lands
(36) Comment: In response to our April 13, 2004, proposed
designation (69 FR 19620), the Department of the Army requested that
Camp Parks not be designated as critical habitat pursuant to
regulations under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. The Army stated that Camp
Parks has finalized and implemented an approved INRMP that identifies
specific conservation measures for the California red-legged frog.
Our Response: We concur with the Army that it has completed a
Service approved INRMP for Camp Parks and that the plan specifically
identifies conservation measures for the California red-legged frog.
However, as a result of revising our criteria and methodology, we did
not identify critical habitat within the Camp Parks area, and, as a
result, no section 4(a)(3) determination was necessary. The Camp Parks
area is not designated as critical habitat.
(37) Comment: The Departments of the Army and Air Force commented
that Camp San Luis Obispo (CSLO) has a finalized Integrated Natural
Resource Plan (INRMP) that contains management actions that benefit the
California red-
[[Page 19254]]
legged frog and its habitat. They have requested that CSLO be excluded
from designation of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog.
Our Response: We agree with the commenter and, pursuant to the
statutory exemption in section 4(a)(3) of the Act for Department of
Defense lands that have a completed INRMP that provides a benefit for
the subspecies, have not included any lands at CSLO in this final
designation based on their INRMP (see the Application of Section
4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below
for a detailed discussion).
Comments Related to the Proposed Special (4(d)) Rule
(38) Comment: One commenter stated the Service must carry out a
NEPA analysis on the special rule because it would reduce protection of
the California red-legged frog otherwise afforded to it by its listing
in 1996.
Our Response: On recommendation from the Council of Environmental
Quality, we have determined that Section 4 listing actions are exempt
from NEPA (48 FR 49244). NEPA requires Federal agencies to prepare an
environmental impact statement for major Federal actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)).
In a judicial order and in Center for Biological Diversity et al. v
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al. (Case No. 3:04CV04324-WHA (E.D.
Cal) (Filed August 19, 2005) the court confirmed our position and found
that NEPA was not required for section 4 listing actions. In the
ruling, the court deferred to the Council of Environmental Quality's
view that NEPA does not apply to Section 4 actions. The court went on
to state that NEPA would, if applicable, confuse matters and the
opportunity for public comment, which is part of the section 4 listing
and critical habitat designation process under the Act. The process
ensures that information regarding how a listing action impacts the
public and the environment is part of the decision-making process, and,
therefore, it would make no sense to overlay the NEPA scheme on top of
Section 4.
(39) Comment: Many commenters were generally supportive of the
proposed 4(d) rule for the California red-legged frog, but were
concerned that we are limiting its definition of ``routine ranching
activities'' to only those mentioned in the revised proposed rule.
Additionally, one of the commenters questioned whether new ranching
management practices or changes to existing, routine ranching
management practices would also be exempted.
Our Response: 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 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 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 this document (see also
Special Rule section) are merely examples of practices that we consider
to be routine to managing an active ranching operation. Our intention
is not to limit activities that may be necessary to the operation of a
ranch. For further discussion, clarification, and a non-inclusive list
of additional activities considered routine ranching practices, see the
Special Rule section below.
(40) Comment: One commenter requested that we clarify the statement
which was included in the special rule section of the re-proposed rule
related to stock pond water levels; ``(4) routine management and
maintenance of stock ponds and berms to maintain livestock water supplies
at levels present at the time of the finalization of this special rule''.
Our Response: We recognize livestock ranching as a dynamic process,
which requires the ability to adapt to changing environmental and
economic conditions. As such we have exempted the routine hydroperiod
management of ranching operation stock ponds. The term levels as used
above was not intended to set a particular level of water in a stock
pond at the time the special rule is finalized. Stock ponds and water
levels can be continued to be maintained as necessary to continue the
viability of livestock ranching operations. For more information about
stock pond hydroperiod management see the Special Rule section below.
(41) Comment: One commenter questioned whether non-ranching lands
converted to ranching would be covered by the special rule, and whether
the special rule applies to ranches when they change ownership.
Our Response: The special rule exempts routine ranching practices
and does not constitute an exemption from critical habitat itself. The
special rule does not apply to specific owners of ranching property,
but to the practices that are used to manage the land. As long as
routine ranching management practices are maintained when ownership
changes, or instituted when land is converted from another use and
subsequently managed as ranchland, incidental take of California red-
legged frogs resulting from the practice of routine ranching activities
will not be a violation of the prohibition identified in section 9 of
the Act. For further discussion, clarification, and a non-inclusive
list of additional activities considered routine ranching practices,
see the Special Rule section below.
(42) Comment: Several commenters requested the 4(d) rule be
expanded to include agricultural lands and practices related to
managing agricultural lands.
Our Response: In the revised proposed rule, we state that
agricultural lands such as row crops, orchards, vineyards, and pastures
do not constitute barriers to dispersal for the California red-legged
frog. We also state agricultural features such as drains, watering
troughs, stacks of hay, or other vegetation can serve as temporary
shelter for the California red-legged frog during dispersal events.
Additionally, ponds used for irrigation of crops in the summer months
can provide suitable breeding habitat with proper water management
focused on the California red-legged frog life cycle. We also recognize
some agricultural practices pose a threat to the California red-legged
frog due to loss and modification of habitat. Intensive agriculture
often replaces natural varied habitat with monotypic vegetation. Fisher
and Shaffer (1996) studied historic records and conducted field surveys
for amphibians in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys and the Coast
Range. The authors note that amphibian declines may be due in part to
introduced exotic species and intensively modified habitat. In the San
Joaquin Valley, the authors suggest declines noted there may be due to
intense farming, resulting in uninhabitable pools and ponds for
[[Page 19255]]
native amphibians and even for introduced exotic species.
While we recognize some agricultural practices, such as routine
ranching practices, may provide some beneficial features for the
California red-legged frog, we conclude, however, that an exemption for
all routine agricultural practices (e.g., dairy, orchard, vineyard, and
row crop activities) is not appropriate for the conservation of the
California red-legged frog.
(43) Comment: Several commenters were opposed to the proposed 4(d)
rule because some nonessential routine ranching activities could
degrade habitat.
Our Response: The purpose of the 4(d) rule is to recognize the
larger conservation value of maintaining existing rangeland habitats
that support the California red-legged frog, even though some specific
activities may adversely affect the subspecies. Activities likely to
occur in those landscapes, should ongoing ranching be removed, such as
irrigated agriculture or urban development, remove and fragment upland
and aquatic habitats used for breeding, foraging, and migration, which
are essential for the subspecies to complete its life cycle. We believe
that exemption of the ranching activities described in the special rule
results in a net benefit to the conservation of the California red-
legged frog (see Special Rule section below).
To the extent ranching activities are compatible with the
California red-legged frog, we wish to encourage such activities to
continue. We believe that relaxing the general take prohibitions on
specific types of non-Federal lands through the special rule is likely
to encourage continued responsible ranching, a land use that can
provide an overall benefit to the California red-legged frog. We also
believe that such a special rule will promote the conservation efforts
and partnerships critical for the recovery of the subspecies. We have
further described these benefits in our final version of the special
rule below. We have committed to monitor the status of the California
red-legged frog in areas where exempted activities occur (see section
on Special Rule). We hope to enlist the partnership of the ranching
community in education and outreach efforts, and through our
Conservation Partnerships program.
(44) Comment: One commenter stated the 4(d) rule is not necessary
or advisable for the conservation of the California red-legged frog.
Our Response: Section 4(d) of the Act imparts the authority to
issue regulations necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of threatened species. Under section 4(d), the Secretary
may publish a special rule that modifies the standard prohibitions for
threatened species under the implementing regulations for section 9 of
the Act at 50 CFR 17.31 with special measures tailored to the
conservation of the subspecies. We believe that, in certain instances,
easing the general take prohibitions on non-Federal lands may encourage
continued responsible land uses that provide an overall benefit to the
subspecies. We also believe that such a special rule will promote the
conservation efforts and private lands partnerships critical for
subspecies recovery (Wilcove et al. 1996; Knight 1999; Main et al.
1999; Norton 2000; Bean 2002; Conner and Matthews 2002; Crouse et al.
2002; James 2002; Koch 2002).
(45) Comment: One commenter stated the Service's conclusion that
grazing and ranching are neutral or beneficial to the California red-
legged frog is not supported, and the record demonstrates the adverse
impacts of grazing on the California red-legged frog.
Our Response: In the 1996 final listing rule for the California
red-legged frog (61 FR 25813), we cite livestock grazing as a
contributing factor in the decline of the subspecies. We also cited
many studies in that rule and in the revised proposed critical habitat
designation that overgrazing of riparian areas causes detrimental
effects to aquatic systems. Numerous studies, summarized by Kauffman
and Krueger (1984) and Belsky et al. (1999), have shown that unmanaged
livestock grazing (overgrazing) can negatively affect riparian and
instream aquatic habitat. Some of the effects of unmanaged grazing
include: higher instream water temperatures resulting from reduction or
removal of vegetation; channel down-cutting; lowered water tables and
loss of plunge pools, which results in direct loss of pool habitats for
the California red-legged frog (Patla and Keinath 2005); and diminished
water quality through increased sediment loads and nutrient levels
(Belsky et al. 1999). The Service does recognize that overgrazing has
contributed to the decline of the California red-legged frog.
However, as we state in the revised proposed rule, our
understanding of the threats of livestock grazing and stock pond
development described in the previous final listing of the subspecies
has changed. Stock pond and small reservoir impoundments can provide
suitable breeding habitat for the California red-legged frog. In many
areas, the presence of California red-legged frogs is due solely to
these small ponded habitats. For example, at the Point Reyes National
Seashore in Marin County, an area where there are more than 120
breeding sites with an estimated total adult population of several
thousand California red-legged frogs, the majority of the breeding
sites are within stock ponds constructed on lands that have been grazed
by cattle for over 150 years (Fellers and Guscio 2004). In the East Bay
Regional Park District (EBRPD) lands in Contra Costa and Alameda
counties, 43 of the 179 ponds surveyed (25 percent), which were exposed
to grazing and were characterized as with and without emergent
vegetation, supported successful breeding frog populations and often
exhibited high rates of annual breeding (Bobzien et al. 2000). Ponds
can silt in after being fenced off from moderate levels of grazing.
EBRPD is currently removing fences and restoring ponds as California
red-legged frog habitat (Bobzien pers com. 2005). We now recognize that
managed livestock grazing at low to moderate levels has a neutral or
beneficial effect on California red-legged frog habitat (Bobzien pers
com. 2005) by keeping a mix of open water habitat and emergent
vegetation. Therefore, we believe grazing helps contribute to the
conservation of the California red-legged frog and its habitat. For
more information on the special rule, see the Special Rule section below.
(46) Comment: One commenter stated the Service should impose
safeguards and controls on ranching activities that could be harmful to
the California red-legged frog.
Our Response: We recognize some routine ranching activities have
the potential for take of the California red-legged frog. However, we
are adopting a special rule to exempt take of the California red-legged
frog due to routine ranching activities because we believe that easing
the general take prohibitions on non-Federal lands may encourage
continued responsible land uses that provide an overall benefit to the
subspecies. We also believe that such a special rule will promote the
conservation efforts and private lands partnerships critical for
subspecies recovery (Wilcove et al. 1996; Knight 1999; Main et al.
1999; Bean 2002; Conner and Matthews 2002; Crouse et al. 2002; James
2002; Koch 2002; Norton 2000). However, in easing the take prohibitions
under section 9 of the Act, the measures that we have developed in the
special rule also contain prohibitions necessary and appropriate to
conserve the California red-legged frog. We provide examples of routine
ranching practices that are exempt from the take prohibitions under
section 9 of
[[Page 19256]]
the Act. We also provide suggestions to minimize the take of California
red-legged frogs while conducting some routine ranching activities. Our
intent is not to create an additional regulatory burden on ranching
operations. Our basis for not attempting to regulate routine activities
is that, ultimately, we believe that a rancher acting in the best
interest of maintaining a sustainable ranching operation is also
providing incidental but significant conservation benefits for the
California red-legged frog. We recognize that most ranching operations
operate on a thin financial margin, and additional regulatory
requirements could push some operations to bankruptcy. We believe that
sensible ranching operations are compatible with California red-legged
frog conservation and recovery, while alternate land uses such as high
density urban development, which could replace failed ranching
operations, is not compatible. To the extent ranching activities are
compatible with the California red-legged frog, we wish to encourage
such activities to continue. We believe that relaxing the general take
prohibitions on specific types of non-Federal lands through the special
rule is likely to encourage continued responsible ranching, a land use
that can provide an overall benefit to the California red-legged frog,
as opposed to alternative uses. We also believe that such a special
rule will promote the conservation efforts and partnerships critical
for the recovery of the subspecies. We have further described these
benefits in our final version of the special rule. We have committed to
monitor the status of the California red-legged frog in areas where
exempted activities occur and we hope to enlist the partnership of the
ranching community in education and outreach efforts, and through our
Conservation Partnerships program. For more information on the special
rule, see the Special Rule section below.
Comments From Local Non-Governmental Entities
(47) Comment: The Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) requested
that their facilities, including transmission line right-of-ways, be
removed from the designation. PG&E stated that the designation of
critical habitat would lead to an increased regulatory burden as a
result of the section 7 consultation process. PG&E also stated that
they are working with us on developing a Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP) and that these areas and areas considered under future Habitat
Conservation Plans be excluded from the designation.
Our Response: In our determination of critical habitat, we included
only those areas that we determined to contain the features identified
in the PCEs and are thus essential to the conservation of the
subspecies. To the greatest extent possible, we avoided designating
critical habitat adjacent to developed areas and areas containing
buildings, electrical substations, and other urban infrastructure
related to the distribution and transmission of electricity. However,
we did not remove areas under electrical transmission lines or areas
within the transmission line right-of-ways from the designation.
Although these areas have experienced disturbance in the placement of
the transmission line and towers, they still provide at a minimum
upland foraging or dispersal habitat, and where the transmission lines
cross over streams or ponds, they potentially provide breeding habitat
for the California red-legged frog. Because the areas under electrical
transmission right-of-ways still contain the PCEs, we did not remove
these areas from the designation.
Generally we do not consider excluding critical habitat from an
area based on a HCP where the conservation measures have not yet been
determined or that has not yet been released to the public for review.
Prematurely excluding such areas may significantly influence the
outcome of the planning process and limit the effectiveness of the
intended conservation activities for the plan. Therefore we have not
excluded PG&E transmission right-of-ways from this final designation.
For more information on our exclusions see section Application of
Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act below.
(48) Comment: East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) requested
clarification of the phrase ``portions of'' in a statement included in
the revised proposed rule regarding exclusion of EBRPD lands from
critical habitat.
Our Response: We analyzed all EBRPD lands for exclusion from
critical habitat and have concluded that EBRPD lands within units CCS-
1B and ALA-1A are excluded from the final critical habitat designation.
See the section Relationship of Critical Habitat to Economic Impacts--
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act below for additional
information.
Comments From Other Federal Agencies
(49) Comment: In response to our April 13, 2004, proposed
designation (69 FR 19620), the U.S. Forest Service provided habitat
survey, occurrence record, and distributional information regarding the
California red-legged frog in the Sierra National Forest. They stated
that our general characterization of the subspecies being typically
found from sea level to 5,000 ft (1,500 m) does not accurately reflect
the distribution of the subspecies in the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
Our Response: As a result of the comments received, we revised our
methodology and criteria for designating critical habitat. In the
revised proposed and this final designation, we did not include U.S.
Forest Service land in the Sierra National Forest within this final
designation. We also reviewed information within our recovery plan
(Service 2002) and occurrence record information (CNDDB 2005) and
concur with the U.S. Forest Service that the vast majority of
occurrences of the subspecies within the Sierra Nevada Mountains occur
below 4,000 ft (1,200 m) and that occurrences found above this
elevation are atypical for the subspecies. We have revised the final
designation to reflect this information.
(50) Comment: In response to our April 13, 2004, proposed
designation (69 FR 19620), the U.S. Forest Service provided habitat and
survey information for the North Fork Feather River, on the Plumas
National Forest, reporting only low to moderate quality habitat and
absence of California red-legged frog occurrences. Based on this
information, the U.S. Forest Service recommended a reduction in the size
of unit 1 from the April 13, 2004, proposed critical habitat designation.
Our Response: Based on our revised methodology and criteria and
information provided by the U.S. Forest Service, we have reduced the
size of unit BUT-1 (formerly unit 1) to more accurately reflect the
occurrence of California red-legged frogs in the Sierra foothills and
identify areas containing the features essential to the conservation of
the California red-legged frog. For more information see the Criteria
Used To Identify Critical Habitat section below.
(51) Comment: In response to our April 13, 2004, proposed
designation (69 FR 19620), the U.S. Forest Service provided habitat and
survey information to support designation of an additional critical
habitat unit in the area of the Little Oregon Creek California red-
legged frog population. The U.S. Forest Service further recommended
specific watersheds and sub-watersheds that could comprise the new
critical habitat unit.
Our Response: We concur with the U.S. Forest Service that the
population of California red-legged frogs at Little Oregon Creek
warrants the designation
[[Page 19257]]
of critical habitat. Based on our revised methodology and criteria, we
have designated critical habitat unit YUB-1, and we have excluded land
from the final designation of critical habitat which is managed under
the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan by the Plumas National Forest. For a
further discussion of this exclusion see Application of Section 4(a)(3)
and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below.
(52) Comment: The U.S. Forest Service, Plumas National Forest,
requested that we clarify the management direction of units YUB-1 and BUT-1.
Our Response: Those portions of units YUB-1 and BUT-1 that are
owned and managed by the U.S. Forest Service, Plumas National Forest,
are managed both under the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA)
and the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) Act direction.
HFQLG projects planned or implemented within these units would follow
the management direction set out in the 2004 HFQLG Record of Decision
(ROD) for the SNFPA and the HFQLR ROD, Final Environmental Impact
Statement and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Non-
HFQLG projects planned or implemented within the two units mentioned
above would follow the management direction set forth in the 2004 SNFPA
ROD. We have excluded all U.S. Forest Service lands in the Sierra
Nevada from this final designation (see Application of Section 4(a)(3)
and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act below).
(53) Comment: The Plumas National Forest also requested we clarify
our description of HFQLG vegetation management that we presented in the
revised proposed rule. Additionally, they also requested we remove our
term ``avoidance zones'' and replace it with the term ``buffer'', which
is original to the HFQLG language.
Our Response: We identified only one of three vegetation management
components that can occur under the HFQLG, e.g., defensible fuel
profile zones. The other two components of vegetation management that
can be implemented under HFQLG are a silvicultural harvest method of
Group Selections (1/2-to-2 acre harvest units where all conifer trees
less than 30 inches diameter at breast height are removed) and
Individual Tree Selection where selected trees are removed to meet
desired conditions for canopy cover or basal area retention. Projects
that implement vegetation management under HFQLG apply Scientific
Analysis Team (SAT) guidelines for riparian area management.
Additionally, non-HFQLG projects implement Aquatic Management Strategy
guidelines from the SNFPA.
In our description of HFQLG defensible fuel profile zones, we used
the term ``avoidance zones'' to describe 300 ft (90 m) areas along (or
around) waterways and ephemeral wetlands and 500 ft (150 m) areas
around known occupied California red-legged sites. Our use of that term
was entirely an editorial decision and in no way suggests our attempt
to change the intent of HFQLG or SNFPA. We therefore replace the term
``avoidance zones'' with the term ``buffer'' which is original to the
HFQLG language with the revised text reading: ``Buffers would be
implemented during DFPZ maintenance activities. A 300 ft (90 m) buffer
would be implemented along all waterways and ephemeral wetlands, and a
500 ft (150 m) buffer would be implemented along known occupied
California red-legged frog sites.''
Comments Related to the Draft Economic Analysis (DEA)
(54) Comment: Several commenters stated that mitigation costs are
higher than the figure used in the DEA.
Our Response: Mitigation costs were derived from a survey of
mitigation banks, developers, and consultants familiar with the
permitting process. We believe that these data represent the best
available information on mitigation costs in affected counties.
(55) Comment: One commenter stated that the DEA fails to calculate
costs for commercial real estate development.
Our Response: The DEA includes costs resulting from California red-
legged frog conservation relating to commercial real estate
development. These costs are calculated as the price of mitigation
credits multiplied by the assumed mitigation ratio multiplied by the
expected number of acres of commercial development in critical habitat.
This approach does not calculate price changes or consumer surplus
losses associated with impacts to commercial development; however, the
``catchall'' nature of the commercial development category precludes
accurate estimation of demand-and-supply curves and related surplus
measures.
(56) Comment: Several commenters stated that the avoidance and
mitigation requirements and mitigation costs used in the DEA are
inconsistent with the recent Gifford Pinchot decision.
Our Response: Avoidance and mitigation requirements and mitigations
costs used in the DEA were based on interviews with those familiar with
the permitting process, as well as a comprehensive examination of the
Service's consultation history. The DEA also assumes that avoidance and
mitigation take place within the boundaries of proposed critical
habitat. The Ninth Circuit has recently ruled (Gifford Pinchot, 378
F.3d at 1071) that the Service's regulations defining ``adverse
modification'' of critical habitat are invalid. As a result, there is
some uncertainty involved in considering the costs due to the fact that
the consequences of designation are more difficult to predict as the
Service cannot rely on decades of factual information based on prior
experience.
(57) Comment: One commenter stated that the economic analysis fails
to quantify costs of critical habitat related to restrictions on timber
harvesting on private lands within unit YUB-1 located in Yuba County.
The commenter states that the Service has recommended special
management measures in its review of various Timber Harvest Plans,
including no-harvest buffers of 300 ft on both sides of Class I and
Class II watercourses and of 114 ft on both sides of Class III
watercourses, and a ban on winter operations.
Our Response: We have provided technical assistance on three timber
harvest plans (THPs) on private lands in Yuba County (Oregon Hill THP,
Coupe THP, and Flett THP). Technical assistance letters are only
recommendations and do not have terms and conditions as do biological
opinions. Further, the State did not follow our recommendations in all
cases. In the case of the Oregon Hill THP, we recommended five
protective measures: no winter timber falling, hauling, or site
preparation; directional lighting and other restrictions on pile
burning; habitat assessment; dust abatement practices; and application
of herbicides by a licensed pest control advisor. In the case of the
Coupe THP, we recommended 300-ft buffers on both sides of Class I and
Class II watercourses; a ban on winter operations other than
directional pile burning; and dustabatement. In the Flett THP, we
recommended a ban on winter operations; directional burning; protective
measures relating to water intake; a 300-ft buffer on one side of
Little Oregon Creek; no herbicide applications within the buffer area;
dry-season construction of water crossings; and various restrictions on
placement of slash pilings. Our recommendations overlap to a
significant degree with the California Forest Practice Rules. These
rules generally provide guidance for conducting work outside of riparian
areas, location of slash burn piles, erosion control measures, road
[[Page 19258]]
construction, threatened and endangered species specific measures, time
of operation, and water quality issues. Thus, it is not reasonable to
attribute most of the costs of these measures to the conservation of
the California red-legged frog; rather they should be treated as part
of the regulatory baseline. Furthermore, no HCPs have been completed on
private timberland involving the California red-legged frog. Given all
these factors, it is our conclusion that the economic impact of
critical habitat on private timber operations is minimal and that most
recommended conservation measures are properly considered as part of
the regulatory baseline.
(58) Comment: Several commenters stated that the DEA failed to
provide a balanced assessment of economic benefits (such as water
filtering and general habitat protection) and costs in relation to the
revised proposed critical habitat designation.
Our Response: 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, impact on national
security, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular
area as critical habitat. The Service's approach for estimating
economic impacts includes both economic efficiency and distributional
effects. The measurement of economic efficiency is based on the concept
of opportunity costs, which reflect the value of goods and services
foregone in order to comply with the effects of the designation (e.g.,
lost economic opportunity associated with restrictions on land use).
Where data are available, the economic analyses do attempt to measure
the net economic impact. However, no data was found that would allow
for the measurement of such an impact, nor was such information
submitted during the public comment period.
Most of the other benefit categories submitted by the commenter
reflect broader social values, which are not the same as economic
impacts. While the Secretary must consider economic and other relevant
impacts as part of the final decision-making process under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, the Act explicitly states that it is the
government's policy to conserve all threatened and endangered species
and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Thus, we believe that
explicit consideration of broader social values for the subspecies and
its habitat, beyond the more traditionally defined economic impacts, is
not necessary as Congress has already clarified the social importance.
We note, as a practical matter, it is difficult to develop credible
estimates of such values, as they are not readily observed through
typical market transactions and can only be inferred through advanced,
tailor-made studies that are time consuming and expensive to conduct.
We currently lack both the budget and time needed to conduct such
research before meeting our court-ordered final rule deadline. In
summary, we believe that society places significant value on conserving
any and all threatened and endangered species and the habitats upon
which they depend and thus needs only to consider whether the economic
impacts (both positive and negative) are significant enough to merit
exclusion of any particular area without causing the species to go extinct.
(59) Comment: Several comments stated that the DEA did not
adequately consider impacts on agricultural landowners and that the
designation of critical habitat decreases property values.
Our Response: The DEA 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 section 7 consultation and
that these costs should be included in the DEA. 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 removal; these costs are
discussed in the final economic analysis.
(60) Comment: One comment stated that the DEA is deficient in its
treatment of impacts on the agricultural sector and on rural areas
generally. The comment asserts that designation of critical habitat may
jeopardize or delay the receipt of federal subsidies by requiring a
section 7 consultation with the Service. The comment asserts that
critical habitat designation may impair the ability of farmers to
engage in routine agricultural activities necessary to maintain
property by requiring a section 7 consultation. The comment goes on to
assert that critical habitat designation for the California red-legged frog
can jeopardize the viability of the agricultural service infrastructure.
Our Response: In theory, there are several ways that the
agricultural sector may be impacted directly by the designation of
critical habitat for the California red-legged frog. First, owners of
agricultural land may experience a decline in wealth resulting from a
reduced ability to convert this land to alternative uses such as
housing. Second, critical habitat designation may restrict allowable
farming practices on land currently under cultivation, and may impose
additional costs on farm operators. Third, critical habitat may make it
more difficult to bring new land into farm production. In addition to
these direct impacts, there may be indirect effects flowing from these
direct impacts. We discuss each type of direct impacts and then discuss
the indirect and regional impacts of critical habitat designation.
The DEA recognizes that critical habitat may result in large
economic losses to owners of agricultural land, and describes these
impacts in great detail. Producer surplus losses measured in the report
include losses experienced by landowners. We note that these losses are
changes in wealth since designation of critical habitat will lower the
market price of land. In cases where critical habitat results in
complete avoidance of certain areas, the per-acre wealth loss will be
nearly total since the salvage value of land, especially grazing land,
is often very low. Again, these types of impacts are included in the
DEA and are described on a highly disaggregated basis.
With respect to impacts to lands currently under cultivation, we
note that farmland comprises only a small portion of California red-
legged frog critical habitat, and that critical habitat is an even
smaller proportion of California farmland. The California Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), conducted by the California
Department of Conservation, is a biennial survey of land use activities
in California. FMMP defines prime farmland as land that has been used
for agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to
the mapping date and meets edaphic criteria established by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. FMMP delineated 5.1 million acres of prime
farmland in California in its latest round of surveying. Proposed
critical habitat intersects 5,129 of those acres, or roughly 0.1
percent of all prime farmland in California; viewed another way, only
0.7 percent of the proposed habitat is classified as prime farmland.
1,075 acres are in Santa Cruz County;
[[Page 19259]]
1,037 are in San Luis Obispo; 935 are in San Mateo; 598 are in Contra
Costa; 588 are in San Benito; and the remainder is in Monterey,
Riverside, Ventura, Napa, Santa Barbara and El Dorado counties.
There are no recorded section 7 consultations concerning ongoing
and traditional farming activities such as those listed in the comment
letter. This gap is at least partly due to the fact that the Clean
Water Act exempts from the Section 404 program discharges associated
with normal farming, ranching, and forestry activities such as plowing,
cultivating, minor drainage, and harvesting for the production of food,
fiber, and forest products, or upland soil and water conservation
practices (Section 404(f)(1)(A)). To be exempt, these activities must
be part of an established, ongoing operation. Further, there is nothing
in the record to support the notion that farm subsidies or program
payments would be threatened or delayed by the designation of critical
habitat.
This leaves the possibility that designation of critical habitat
may make it more difficult to bring new land under cultivation. As a
threshold matter, we note that there is a long-term downward trend in
cultivated acreage in California. At present, the California Department
of Food and Agriculture reports that there are roughly 8.5 million
acres devoted to field crops, fruit and nut crops, and vegetables and
melons, down from a peak of 9.7 million acres in 1981. Thus, it would
appear that far more land is leaving agriculture each year than
entering it.
It is difficult to predict with any certainty the specific areas
that will be brought into agricultural production for the first time.
Further, there are often a large number of substitute sites for any new
farming activity, most of which are presumably outside of critical
habitat since critical habitat comprises less than one percent of all
prime farmland in California. As a result, critical habitat may be
expected to produce distributional effects, however data are not
readily available that would allow us to reasonably forecast these effects.
With respect to indirect and regional effects of critical habitat
designation on rural areas, the comment asserts that critical habitat
can jeopardize the viability of the infrastructure needed to service
the agricultural sector. Without a critical mass of farms, it is
argued, service providers will be unable to operate economically. While
this point may be true in theory, it is unlikely that even an extreme
outcome like the total loss of all prime farmland within critical
habitat would jeopardize the agricultural infrastructure. As noted
above, prime farmland within critical habitat accounts for less than
one-tenth of a percent of all prime farmland in California.
(61) Comment: The Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business
Administration suggests that the designation of critical habitat for
the California red-legged frog, if finalized as proposed, would likely
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, and therefore should not be certified under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
Our Response: Following the completion of the proposed critical
habitat designation for the California red-legged frog, we took into
consideration the potential economic and other relevant effects of the
designation as directed by section 4(b)(2) of the Act. On the basis of
this evaluation, we excluded many areas due to potential economic
effects resulting from the designation or due to conservation
partnerships and programs (please refer to the Application of Section
4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act portion of this
final rule). We believe that based on these exclusions, we have reduced
or eliminated the potential economic burden to a substantial number of
small business entities. Thus, we are certifying in this final rule
that we do not anticipate that this final designation of critical
habitat for the California red-legged frog will have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Please refer
our response to Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility
Act in this final rule for more discussion of this issue.
(62) Comment: The Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business
Administration requested that we exclude certain areas from the final
designation where it is believed that the designation of critical
habitat would result in a high cost economic burden.
Our Response: As discussed in the Application of Section 4(b)(2)--
Economic Exclusion to 19 Census Tracts section of this final rule, we
have excluded the 19 census tracts, totaling approximately 250,329 ac
(101,305 ha) (approximately 34 percent of the revised proposed critical
habitat), from this final rule under section 4(b)(2) of the Act on the
basis of potential disproportionately high economic cost. Please refer
to that section of the rule for further discussion of this issue. Thus,
we believe, that we have adequately responded to the comments from The
Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration and our
responsibilities for mitigating potential economic burdens to small
businesses under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
(63) Comment: The Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business
Administration indicates that we should either be certifying that our
designations of critical habitat will not have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small business entities at the time of our
proposal, or providing an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act at that time.
Our Response: As we have indicated in previous final designations
of critical habitat and discussions with The Office of Advocacy of the
U.S. Small Business Administration, we often do not have available to
use the relevant economic information and analysis at the time of
proposal to either certify that a proposed designation will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small business entities
or to be able to develop an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
The data to evaluate potential effects on small business entities, as
well as the overall effect of the designation becomes available through
the draft economic analysis which is produced shortly following the
completion of the proposed designation. On the basis of the information
in that draft analysis, we then evaluate the potential effects on the
designation with regards to small businesses and to the overall public
pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act and various Executive Orders and
statutes such as Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility
Act. We have then been providing our position on certification of
compliance with these specific Executive Orders and statutes in the
Notice of Availability for the draft economic analyses. We further
review potential effects of the rule based on public comment as we
develop the final designation and make revision thereto accordingly.
Finally, we revaluate our position on certification of compliance with
these specific Executive Orders and statutes and iterate that position
in the final designation.
We are currently working on internal processes and procedures to
allow for the draft economic analysis to be done more concurrently with
proposed designations of critical habitat. This will allow us to
evaluate potential economic effects much earlier in the critical
habitat rulemaking process, and thus provide our position on
certification of compliance with these specific Executive Orders and
statutes earlier.
[[Page 19260]]
Comments From the State
(64) Comment: In response to our April 13, 2004, proposed
designation (69 FR 19620), the California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG) requested that we exclude lands that they manage and administer
for resource conservation (e.g., State Wildlife Areas, Ecological
Reserves) and lands that are administered for fishery resources (e.g.,
hatcheries, fishing access areas). The CDFG stated that they have
specific management objectives for State lands within their
jurisdiction to protect wildlife and their habitats, including those
occupied by the California red-legged frog. The CDFG further stated the
application of critical habitat to CDFG lands would provide no added
benefit, result in project delays, and divert scarce monetary resources
away from on-the-ground preservation and conservation work.
Our Response: We concur with the CDFG that their mission is to
protect and conserve State wildlife resources including the California
red-legged frog and that the designation of critical habitat would
provide little additional protection for the subspecies. As a response
in part to comments received, as well as revising our methodology and
criteria, we published a revised proposed critical habitat for the
California red-legged frog (70 FR 66906). In the revised proposed and
this final designation, we did not include CDFG-owned or administered
lands within the critical habitat designation.
(65) Comment: The California Department of Transportation
(CalTrans) requested that we exclude all lands along highway right-of-
ways (ROWs). CalTrans has stated that these ROWs undergo continual
maintenance activities, and it is unlikely that such lands would
contain the PCEs, and thus not be essential, for the California red-
legged frog. CalTrans also stated that if a highway be used as a
boundary that the boundary be outside of the ROW and that the unit
description clearly state that information.
Our Response: In our determination of critical habitat, we included
only those areas that we determined to contain the features identified
in the PCEs and that are thus essential to the conservation of the
subspecies. To the greatest extent possible, we avoided designating
critical habitat adjacent to developed areas and areas containing major
highways; however, due to mapping constraints, we may not have removed
all such areas from the designation. In our analysis on the economic
costs of the designation, we identified four future highway projects in
Kern, Merced, Riverside, and San Luis Obispo counties along State
Routes 46, 79 and 152. We determined that the benefits of including
these lands in the designation were outweighed by the economic costs
and these ROWs were removed from the designation. For more information
on the exclusion see Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions
Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below.
Summary of Changes From Revised Proposed Rule
In preparing the final critical habitat designation for the
California red-legged frog, we reviewed and considered comments from
the public on the proposed designation of critical habitat published on
April 13, 2004 (69 FR 19620). Based on review of comments received on
this initial proposal, we published a revised proposed critical habitat
designation along with a DEA on November 3, 2005 (70 FR 66906). As a
result of comments received on the initial proposal, the reproposal,
the DEA, and a reevaluation of the revised proposed critical habitat
boundaries we made changes to our revised proposed designation, as follows:
(1) We revised the proposed critical habitat units based on peer
review, public comments, and biological information received during the
public comment period and public workshops. After excluding units based
on economics or existing management practices, isolated or small
fragments that we determined were not essential to the conservation of
the California red-legged frog were removed. Additionally, portions of
units that did not contain PCEs were removed from the final designation.
(2) Under section 4(a)(3) of the Act, we did not designate DOD
lands that have approved INRMPs in place that benefit the subspecies.
Under sections 3(5)(a) and 4(b)(2) of the Act, we excluded Vandenberg
Air Force Base and Camp San Luis Obispo because they had adequate
management plans that cover the California red-legged frog and its
habitat. For more information, refer to ``Application of 4(a)(3) and
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' below.
(3) We adjusted the boundaries of the revised proposed units as
feasible to remove areas that do not contain the primary constituent
elements or were included in the revised proposed rule as a result of a
mapping error.
(4) We revised the minimum time of water retention for PCE 1 from
15 to 20 weeks. This is the average time required for egg, larvae, and
tadpole development into terrestrial frogs based on peer review
comments and the currently accepted information on the California red-
legged frog (Storer 1925; Wright and Wright 1949; Jennings 1988;
Bobzien et al. 2000).
(5) Collectively, we excluded or removed a total of approximately
287,624 ac (116,397 ha) of land from this final critical habitat
designation. Please refer to Table 1 for the differences in the amount
of area proposed for designation in the revised proposed rule and the
areas designated in this final rule. For a detailed discussion of all
exclusions and exemptions, please refer to ``Application of Section
4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' below.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) that may require special management
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon
a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of
the species. Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act means
to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to
bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at
which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer
necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to,
all activities associated with scientific resources management such as
research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance,
propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
Conservation is a process which contributes to improving the status of
the species. Individual actions may still be considered conservation
even though in and of themselves they do not remove the species' need
for protection under the Act.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 requires consultation on
Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. The
[[Page 19261]]
designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or
establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other
conservation area. Such designation does not allow government or public
access to private lands. Section 7 is a purely protective measure and
does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, or
enhancement measures.
To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat
within the geographical area occupied by the subspecies must first have
features that are essential to the conservation of the subspecies.
Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the
best scientific data available, habitat areas that provide essential
life cycle needs of the subspecies (i.e., areas on which are found the
primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)).
Habitat occupied at the time of listing may be included in critical
habitat only if the essential features thereon may require special
management considerations or protection. Thus, we do not include areas
where existing management is sufficient to conserve the subspecies. (As
discussed below, such areas may also be excluded from critical habitat
pursuant to section 4(b)(2)). Accordingly, when the best available
scientific data do not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the
subspecies require additional areas, we will not designate critical
habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
subspecies at the time of listing. An area currently occupied by the
subspecies but was not known to be occupied at the time of listing will
likely, but not always, be essential to the conservation of the
subspecies and, therefore, typically included in the critical habitat
designation.
The Service's Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271), and section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)
and the associated Information Quality Guidelines issued by the
Service, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance
to ensure that decisions made by the Service represent the best
scientific data available. They require Service biologists to the
extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific
data available, to use primary and original sources of information as
the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat. When
determining which areas are critical habitat, a primary source of
information is generally the listing package for the species.
Additional information sources include the recovery plan for the
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and
studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished materials and
expert opinion or personal knowledge. All information is used in
accordance with the provisions of section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658) and the associated Information Quality Guidelines
issued by the Service.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Habitat is often
dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time.
Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not
include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to
be necessary for the recovery of the subspecies. For these reasons,
critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the
designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery.
Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the
regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy
standard, as determined on the basis of the best available information
at the time of the action. Federally funded or permitted projects
affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat
areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly,
critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation will not control the direction
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or
other species conservation planning efforts if new information
available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Primary Constituent Elements
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to designate as critical
habitat, we consider those physical and biological features (PCEs) that
are essential to the conservation of the subspecies, and within areas
occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing, that may require
special management considerations and protection. These include, but
are not limited to: space for individual and population growth and for
normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other
nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for
breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) of offspring; and
habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of
the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species.
The specific primary constituent elements required for the
California red-legged frog are derived from the biological needs of the
California red-legged frog as described below and in the revised
proposed critical habitat designation published in the Federal Register
on November 3, 2005 (70 FR 66906).
The areas determined to contain the features essential for the
conservation of the California red-legged frog are designed to provide
sufficient aquatic habitat for breeding and non-breeding activities and
sufficient upland habitat for shelter, foraging, predator avoidance and
dispersal.
Aquatic Breeding Habitat
California red-legged frogs typically lay eggs between December and
early April. Eggs hatch within 6 to 14 days depending on water
temperatures and require approximately 20 days to develop into
tadpoles. Tadpoles in turn require anywhere between 11 to 20 weeks to
develop into terrestrial frogs (Storer 1925; Wright and Wright 1949;
Bobzien et al. 2000). Water bodies suitable for tadpole rearing must
remain watered at least until the tadpoles metamorphose into adults,
typically between July and September. Adult California red-legged frogs
can survive in moist upland areas after breeding habitat has dried, and
can live several years to make new breeding attempts. Therefore,
aquatic breeding habitat need not be available every year, but it must
be available often enough and for appropriate hydroperiods to maintain
a California red-legged frog population during most years.
Aquatic breeding habitat is essential for providing space, food,
and cover necessary to sustain all life stages of California red-legged
frogs. 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).
The aquatic habitat PCE is essential for frog breeding and for
providing space, food, and cover necessary to
[[Page 19262]]
sustain the early life history stages of larval and juvenile California
red-legged frogs. 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 average amount of
time needed for egg, larvae, and tadpole development and metamorphosis
so that juveniles can become capable of surviving in upland habitats.
California red-legged frogs usually have completed metamorphosis
between July and September. During periods of drought or less-than-
average rainfall, these sites may not hold water long enough for
individuals to complete metamorphosis. However, these sites would still
contain essential features because they constitute breeding habitat in
years of average rainfall. 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 Habitat
The aquatic non-breeding habitat is essential for providing the
space, food, and cover necessary to sustain California red-legged
frogs. Non-breeding aquatic habitat consists of those aquatic elements
identified above, and also includes, but is not limited to, other
wetland habitats such as intermittent creeks, seeps, and springs.
California red-legged frogs can use large cracks in the bottom of dried
ponds as refugia to maintain moisture and avoid heat and solar exposure
(Alvarez 2004). Without these non-breeding aquatic features, California
red-legged frogs would not be able to survive drought periods, or be
able to disperse to other breeding habitat.
Upland Habitat
Upland and riparian habitats associated with essential aquatic
habitat are essential to maintain California red-legged frog
populations. The associated upland and riparian habitats provide food
and shelter sites for California red-legged frogs and assist 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 sp.) and other upland perennial species that provide
for shelter from predatory species and forage habitat (Service 2002).
Upland habitat that contains the features essential to the
conservation of the subspecies consists of natural areas within 200 ft
(60 m) of the edge of the riparian vegetation or dripline, or the edge
of the watershed boundary, whichever is closer. This is based on the
dispersal capabilities of the subspecies (see Dispersal Habitat below),
and research identifying the use of upland areas by the subspecies
(Rathbun et al. 1993; Bulger et al. 2003; Tartarian 2004). Tatarian
(2004) found California red-legged frogs inhabiting upland areas for 50
days at a distance of 302 ft (92 m) from aquatic habitat; Bulger et al.
(2003) found that the subspecies 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) 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.
Suitable upland habitat includes 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 it could be manmade, such as industrial debris and
agricultural features (drains, watering troughs, abandoned sheds, or
stacks of hay or other vegetation). California red-legged frogs will
also use small mammal burrows and moist leaf litter as refugia
(Jennings and Hayes 1994; Fellers and Kleeman 2005).
Dispersal Habitat
Dispersal habitat provides connectivity among California red-legged
frog breeding (and associated upland) habitat patches. While California
red-legged frogs can pass many obstacles, and do 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, that connects two or more patches of aquatic
breeding habitat within 0.7 mi (1.2 km) of one another. Dispersal
barriers include heavily traveled roads (Vos and Chardon 1998) 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
subspecies, and large reservoirs over 50 ac (20 ha) in size that
contain predatory species. Agricultural lands such as row crops,
orchards, vineyards, and pastures do not constitute barriers to
California red-legged frog dispersal.
California red-legged frogs have been documented to travel as far
as 2.2 mi (3.6 km) from non-breeding to breeding habitats (Bulger et
al. 2003). These long distance movements are migrations rather than use
of corridors for moving between habitats (N. Scott and G. Rathbun, in
litt. 1998). These movements have also been found to be with apparent
disregard to topography, vegetation type, or riparian corridors (Bulger
et al. 2003; Fellers and Kleeman 2005). We conclude the 2.2 mi (3.6 km)
is likely the upward limit of dispersal capability for the California
red-legged frog and that the 0.7 mi (1.2 km) dispersal distance will
ensure that connectivity between breeding habitats will be maintained
within areas designated as critical habitat. This 0.7 mi (1.2 km)
dispersal element also includes areas of non-aquatic (i.e., upland
habitat) habitat for shelter.
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
subspecies and provides for: (1) Opportunities for movement and
establishment of home ranges by juvenile recruits; (2) maintaining gene
flow by the movement of both juveniles and adults between
subpopulations; and (3) recolonization of or recruitment into breeding
habitat after local extirpations.
Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) for the California Red-Legged Frog
Pursuant to our regulations, we are required to identify the known
physical and biological features (PCEs) essential to the conservation
of the California red-legged frog. All areas designated as critical
habitat for California red-legged frogs are occupied, are within the
subspecies' historic geographic range, and contain sufficient PCEs to
support at least one life history function.
Based on our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and
ecology of the subspecies and the requirements of the habitat to
sustain the essential life history functions of the subspecies, we have
determined that the California red-legged frog's PCEs are:
(1) Aquatic Breeding Habitat. Standing bodies of fresh water (with
salinities less than 7.0 parts per thousand (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
[[Page 19263]]
inundated during winter rains and hold water for a minimum of 20 weeks
in all but the driest of years.
(2) Non-Breeding Aquatic Habitat. Fresh water habitats, as
described above, that may or may not hold water long enough for the
subspecies to hatch and complete its aquatic life cycle but that do
provide for shelter, foraging, predator avoidance, and aquatic
dispersal for juvenile and adult California red-legged frogs. Other
wetland habitats that would be considered to meet these elements
include, but are not limited to: plunge pools within intermittent
creeks; seeps; quiet water refugia during high water flows; and springs
of sufficient flow to withstand the summer dry period.
(3) Upland Habitat. Upland areas within 200 ft (60 m) of the edge
of the riparian vegetation or dripline surrounding aquatic and riparian
habitat and comprised of various vegetational series such as
grasslands, woodlands, and/or wetland/riparian plant species that
provides the frog shelter, forage, and predator avoidance. 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 wetland or riparian habitat. These upland
features contribute to the filling and drying of the wetland or
riparian habitat and are responsible for maintaining suitable periods
of pool inundation for larval frogs and their food sources, and provide
breeding, 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 can include structural features such as boulders, rocks
and organic debris (e.g. downed trees, logs), as well as small mammal
burrows and moist leaf litter.
(4) Dispersal Habitat. Accessible upland or riparian dispersal
habitat within designated units and between occupied locations within
0.7 mi (1.2 km) of each other that allows for movement between such
sites. Dispersal habitat includes various natural habitats and altered
habitats such as agricultural fields, which do not contain barriers to
dispersal. (An example of a barrier to dispersal is a heavily traveled
road (Vos and Chardon 1998) constructed without bridges or culverts.)
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 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 subspecies.
This designation is designed for the conservation of PCEs necessary
to support the life history functions and essential to the conservation
of the subspecies. Because not all life history functions require all
the PCEs, not all areas designated as critical habitat will contain all
the PCEs.
Each of the areas designated in this rule have been determined to
contain sufficient PCEs to provide for one or more of the life history
functions of the California red-legged frog. In some cases, the PCEs
exist as a result of ongoing Federal actions. As a result, ongoing
Federal actions at the time of designation will be included in the
baseline in any consultation conducted subsequent to this designation.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available in determining areas that contain the
features that are essential to the conservation of the California red-
legged frog. The material included data in 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 System (GIS) coverages. We designated no areas
outside the geographical area presently occupied by the subspecies.
In designating critical habitat for the California red-legged frog,
we selected areas based on the best scientific data available that
possess those physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the subspecies, and that may require special management
considerations or protection. We included some areas which were
occupied at the time of listing as well as some areas subsequently
identified as occupied. 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 California red-legged frogs based
on: (1) The presence of the defined PCEs; (2) the density of California
red-legged frog occurrences; and (3) the kind, amount, and quality of
habitat associated with those occurrences. The units contain sufficient
PCEs to support the behaviors and/or life cycle stages we have
determined are essential to the conservation of the subspecies.
Throughout the development process, we avoided identifying areas
with single occurrences for designation unless such areas were
considered ecologically or biologically unique or had other biological
significance. Further, we made an effort to avoid developed areas, such
as housing and commercial developments, that are unlikely to contribute
to the conservation of the California red-legged frog. We also avoided
fragmented areas such as those surrounded by development. Areas within
the boundaries of the mapped units such as buildings, roads, parking
lots, railroads, canals, levees, airport runways, other paved areas,
lawns, and other urban landscaped areas are not critical habitat and
are not included in this designation. Federal actions limited to these
areas would not trigger a section 7 consultation, unless they affect
the subspecies and/or the PCEs in adjacent critical habitat. We avoided
known areas of intensive agriculture. Agricultural lands may have been
included if they were within areas identified as necessary for
dispersal or connectivity between known occurrences.
We considered several criteria in the selection of areas that
contain the essential features for the California red-legged frog and
focused on designating units: (1) Throughout the current geographic,
elevational, and ecological distribution of the subspecies; (2) that
would maintain the current population structure across the subspecies'
range; (3) that retain or provide for connectivity between breeding
sites that allows for the continued existence of viable and essential
metapopulations, despite fluctuations in the status of subpopulations;
(4) that possess large continuous blocks of occupied habitat,
representing source populations and/or unique ecological
characteristics; and (5) that 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 first determined the occupancy status of areas on the basis of
report data compiled by the CDFG (CNDDB 2005). Occurrence records were
reviewed and historical or extirpated records were not considered in
the designation. We used the final listing rule to establish those
areas occupied at the time of listing. All other areas designations
were based on occupancy data collected since listing. Our designation
does not include all occupied areas. When determining which occupied
areas are essential to the conservation of the subspecies and meet the
definition of critical habitat, we considered theories of
[[Page 19264]]
metapopulation persistence, on-the-ground survey data, and California
red-legged frog longevity. Bulger et al. (2003) 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 the revised proposed critical habitat rule show an average
persistence of 19 years for California red-legged frog populations.
Additionally, maximum longevity of male and female California red-
legged frogs is 8 and 10 years respectively (Jennings et al. in litt.
1992), which also contributes to generational and metapopulation stability.
The extant occurrences within the critical habitat units comprise
approximately 63 percent of known extant occurrences within the range
of the subspecies. We critically evaluated records in which the exact
site location was not precisely identified or could not be confirmed,
and removed those locations from our analysis. We then selected areas
that are inhabited by populations (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
also selected several areas which have other unique ecological
significance, with the goal of maintaining the full range of the
habitat variability and evolutionary adaptation in this subspecies.
These include areas on the periphery of the current range and elsewhere
that represent the distribution of the subspecies, and areas that provide
connectivity among source populations or between source populations.
The 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 computer GIS
program. The polygons were created by overlaying occurrence locations
extant-at-time-of-listing and subsequent-to-listing California red-
legged frog with a 0.7 mi (1.2 km) radius. This distance was used as a
guide for mapping the essential features around locations where
California red-legged frog populations are present (see Dispersal
Habitat above). As stated above, California red-legged frogs have been
documented to disperse from ponds and streams a distance over 2.0 mi
(3.2 km) (Bulger et al. 2003). However, based on a review of the most
current literature and information gathered in development of the
Recovery Plan for the subspecies, we have determined that the 2.0 mi
(3.2 km) distance is toward the maximum dispersal distance for the
subspecies during a single season, and that the 0.7 mi (1.2 km)
distance is more reflective of the average dispersal distance for the
California red-legged frog (Rathbun et al. 1993; Scott and Rathbun, in
litt 1998; Wright, in litt. 1999; Bulger et al. 2003; Tatarian 2004;
Fellers and Kleeman 2005). Although the studies discussed above provide
an approximation of the distances that California red-legged frogs can
move from their aquatic habitats, breeding ponds, and other wetland
habitats in search of suitable upland refugia or other breeding
locations, 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 to include additional
areas up to the watershed boundaries or to include habitat containing
the PCEs beyond the 0.7 mi (1.2 km) distance where appropriate to
aggregate clumps of occurrences. In some other instances, we reduced
the areas to remove areas not exhibiting the PCEs from the revised
proposed designation including agricultural, developed, disturbed, or
fragmented lands.
We evaluated the resulting units (delineating geographic range and
potential suitable habitat), refined elevation and hydrologic ranges,
and identified areas not containing the essential features (i.e., not
containing PCEs) (see Primary Constituent Elements section). We
excluded areas because (1) they do not contain sufficient PCEs to
support one or more of the subspecies' life processes or 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; and/or (2) other
areas within the geographic region were determined to be sufficient to
meet the conservation needs of the subspecies.
When determining critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort
to avoid including developed areas such as: buildings, paved areas, and
other structures that lack PCEs for the California red-legged frog. The
scale of the maps prepared under the parameters for publication within
the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such
developed areas. Any such structures and the land under them remaining
within critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this final rule
are excluded by text and are not designated as critical habitat.
Therefore, Federal actions limited to these areas would not trigger
section 7 consultation, unless they affect the subspecies and/or
primary constituent elements in adjacent critical habitat.
Further refinement of the preliminary areas as described above was
based on the extent of aquatic habitat, stream reach, upland dispersal
distance and watershed boundaries. We focused on areas of high
California red-legged frog abundance, areas to maintain connectivity,
and/or areas of unique ecological significance. Refined unit boundaries
were delineated 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 in
highly developed areas. Rather than designating critical habitat in the
development fringe, we designated in areas where fewer surveys have
been conducted but where California red-legged frogs are likely to
occur based on similarity of habitat and presence of PCEs. In areas
where planning watersheds were large and/or had been significantly
altered hydrologically, we used alternative structural, political, or
topographic boundaries (e.g., roads, county boundaries, ridgeline
features, elevation contour lines) as critical habitat boundaries
because in these areas the benefits of using planning watersheds were
limited in that they included areas outside the subspecies' dispersal
distance or were of little conservation value for the California red-
legged frog.
Units were designated based on sufficient PCEs being present to
support California red-legged frog life processes. Some units contained
all PCEs and supported multiple life processes. Some units contained
only a portion of the PCEs necessary to support the California red-
legged frog's particular use of that habitat. Where a subset of the
PCEs were present (e.g., water temperature during migration flows), it
has been noted that only PCEs present at designation will be protected.
Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes us to issue permits for
the take of listed species incidental to otherwise lawful activities.
An incidental take permit application must be supported by a HCP that
identifies conservation measures that the permittee agrees to implement
for the species to minimize and mitigate the impacts of the requested
incidental take. We often exclude non-Federal public lands and private
lands that are covered
[[Page 19265]]
by an existing operative HCP and executed implementation agreement (IA)
under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act from designated critical habitat
because the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion as
discussed in section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We have excluded lands covered
by the Bonny Doon HCP, the draft East Contra Costa HCP, and the Western
Riverside Multiple Species HCP (see Relationship of Critical Habitat to
Habitat Conservation Plan Lands--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act section below).
A brief discussion of each area designated as critical habitat is
provided in the unit descriptions below. Additional detailed
documentation concerning the essential nature of these areas is
contained in our supporting record for this rulemaking.
Special Management Considerations or Protections
We believe the areas designated as critical habitat will require
some level of management and/or protection to address the current and
future threats to the California red-legged frog and maintain the PCEs
essential to its conservation in order to ensure the overall
conservation of the subspecies. Areas in need of management include not
only the immediate locations where the subspecies may be present, but
additional areas adjacent to these that can provide for normal
population fluctuations and/or dispersal. The designation of critical
habitat does not imply that lands outside of critical habitat do not
play an important role in the conservation of the California red-legged
frog. Federal activities outside of critical habitat are still subject
to review under section 7 of the Act if they may affect the California
red-legged frog or its critical habitat (such as development, land use
conversions, watershed condition, etc.). Prohibitions of section 9 of
the Act also continue to apply both inside and outside of designated
critical habitat.
A detailed discussion of threats to the California red-legged frog
and its habitat can be found in the final listing rule (61 FR 25813,
May 23, 1996), the previous critical habitat designation (66 FR 14626,
March 13, 2001), and the final Recovery Plan (May 28, 2002). Threats
that may warrant special management of those features that define
essential habitat (primary constituent elements) for the California
red-legged frog include, but are not limited to: trematode and chytrid
fungus disease; direct and indirect impacts from some human
recreational activities; flood control maintenance activities; water
diversions; overgrazing activities; competition and predation by
nonnative species; and habitat removal and alteration by urbanization.
Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating 34 units as critical habitat for the California
red-legged frog. The critical habitat areas described below constitute
our best assessment at this time of areas determined to be occupied at
the time of listing, that contain the primary constituent elements
essential for the conservation of the subspecies and that may require
special management, and those additional areas not occupied at the time
of listing but which have been found to be essential to the
conservation of the California red-legged frog. The areas designated as
critical habitat are identified in Tables 1 and 2 below. Table 1 shows
a summary of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for the
California red-legged frog, areas excluded, and areas designated as
critical habitat. Table 2 identifies the approximate area designated as
critical habitat for the California red-legged frog by land ownership.
Table 1.--Approximate Area (ac, (ha)) of Locations Supporting Features Essential to Conservation of the
California Red-Legged Frog Fitting the Selection Criteria for Critical Habitat, Areas Excluded From Critical
Habitat Pursuant to Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and Areas Designated as Critical Habitat for the California Red-
Legged Frog
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Areas with essential features Excluded areas Total critical habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ac ha ac ha ac ha
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
737,912 298,622 287,624 116,397 450,288 182,225
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Critical Habitat Units Designated for the California Red-Legged Frog [Area Estimates (ac, (ha)) Reflect the Entire Area Within the Critical
Habitat Unit Boundaries; Areas Supporting PCEs May be Less Within Each Unit.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal State Private/Local Total
Unit -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ac ha ac ha ac ha ac ha
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUT-1A-B................................................ .......... .......... 189 77 1,539 623 1,728 699
YUB-1................................................... .......... .......... .......... .......... 3,776 1,528 3,776 1,528
NEV-1................................................... 1,656 670 11 5 5,065 2,050 6,733 2,725
ELD-1................................................... .......... .......... .......... .......... 8,388 3,395 8,388 3,395
NAP-1................................................... .......... .......... .......... .......... 2,529 1,024 2,529 1,024
MRN-1................................................... .......... .......... .......... .......... 22,559 9,129 22,559 9,129
MRN-2................................................... 25,834 10,455 .......... .......... .......... .......... 25,834 10,455
SOL-1................................................... .......... .......... .......... .......... 2,844 1,151 2,844 1,151
CCS-1A.................................................. .......... .......... .......... .......... 4,095 1,657 4,095 1,657
ALA-1A.................................................. .......... .......... .......... .......... 285 115 285 115
ALA-1B.................................................. .......... .......... .......... .......... 533 216 533 216
SNM-1A.................................................. .......... .......... .......... .......... 10,398 4,208 10,398 4,208
SNM-2C.................................................. .......... .......... 1055 427 1,830 741 2,885 1,168
STC-1A.................................................. .......... .......... .......... .......... 28,059 11,355 28,059 11,355
STC-1B.................................................. .......... .......... 14,496 5,866 15,210 6,155 29,706 12,201
SCZ-1................................................... .......... .......... 280 113 12,794 5,177 13,074 5,291
SCZ-2................................................... 115 46 .......... .......... 3,942 1,595 4,057 1,642
MER-1A-B................................................ .......... .......... 1,869 756 10,308 4,171 12,176 4,928
[[Page 19266]]
MNT-1................................................... .......... .......... 519 210 .......... .......... 519 210
MNT-2................................................... 1,074 435 91 37 44,256 17,910 45,420 18,381
SNB-1................................................... .......... .......... 2,899 1,173 11,386 4,608 14,285 5,781
SNB-2................................................... 13 5 .......... .......... 9,603 3,886 9,616 3,891
SNB-3................................................... 13,820 5,593 .......... .......... 6,217 2,516 20,037 8,109
SLO-1A-B................................................ 171 69 .......... .......... 17,616 7,129 17,787 7,198
SLO-8................................................... 11,545 4,672 .......... .......... 4,732 1,915 16,277 6,587
STB-1................................................... 20,849 8,437 .......... .......... 4,262 1,725 25,111 10,162
STB-3................................................... 40,013 16,193 .......... .......... 7,427 3,005 47,439 19,198
STB-4................................................... .......... .......... .......... .......... 7,662 3,101 7,662 3,101
STB-5................................................... 1,112 450 1,255 508 8,960 3,626 11,328 4,584
STB-7................................................... 29,206 11,819 .......... .......... 3,299 1,335 32,505 13,154
VEN-1................................................... 5,151 2,085 .......... .......... 1,510 611 6,660 2,695
VEN-2................................................... .......... .......... .......... .......... 2,915 1,180 2,915 1,180
VEN-3................................................... 8,363 3,384 .......... .......... 474 192 8,837 3,576
LOS-1................................................... 3,909 1,582 .......... .......... 322 130 4,231 1,712
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 162,830 65,895 22,664 9,172 264,793 107,158 450,288 182,225
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presented below are brief descriptions of all units. The units are
listed in order geographically north to south and west to east, with
exception of the units in the Sierra Nevada foothills, which are listed
first, north to south.
BUT-1, Hughes Place Pond (1,728 ac (699 ha))
This unit is located in east-central Butte County, east of State
Highway 70 and west of Oroville-Quincy Highway. BUT-1 is essential for
the conservation of the subspecies 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 occupied by the subspecies. This unit encompasses
one of five known extant Sierra Foothill populations identified since
the time of listing and is located in the easternmost portion of the
subspecies' historic range. This unit represents the California red-
legged frog's adaptation to a wide range of habitat and ecological
variability, is known to be occupied, contains high quality habitat,
and contains the features essential for the conservation of the
subspecies. The unit consists of private and State land and is mapped
entirely from occurrence records subsequent to the time of listing.
Threats that may require special management in this unit include
necessary wildland fire suppression activities, which may dewater
aquatic habitats and thereby resulting in the desiccation of egg masses
or direct death of adults from water drafting; timber harvest
activities, which can alter or remove upland habitat; and predation by
nonnative species. We have excluded land (approximately 60 percent of
the revised proposed unit) from the final designation of critical
habitat that is managed under the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan by the
Plumas National Forest. For a further discussion of this exclusion see
Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act section below.
YUB-1, Little Oregon Creek (3,776 ac (1,528 ha))
This unit is located in northeastern Yuba County, north of
Marysville Road and south of La Porte Road. YUB-1 is considered an area
that is essential for the conservation of the subspecies 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 occupied by the subspecies. YUB-1
is the second of five known extant Sierra Foothill populations
identified since the time of listing and is located in the easternmost
portion of the subspecies' historic range. This unit represents the
California red-legged frog's adaptation to a wide range of habitat and
ecological variability, is known to be occupied, contains high quality
habitat, and contains the features essential for the conservation of
the subspecies. This unit consists of private land and is mapped
entirely from occurrence records subsequent to the time of listing.
Threats that may require special management in this unit include
necessary wildland fire suppression activities, which may dewater
aquatic habitats and thereby resulting in the desiccation of egg masses
or direct death of adults from water drafting; timber harvest
activities, which can alter or remove upland habitat; and predation by
nonnative species. We have excluded land (approximately 40 percent of
the revised proposed unit) from the final designation of critical
habitat that is managed under the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan by the
Plumas National Forest. For a further discussion of this exclusion see
Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act section below.
NEV-1, Sailor Flat (6,733 ac (2,725 ha))
This unit 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 considered an area that is essential for the
conservation of the subspecies 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
occupied by the subspecies. NEV-1 is the third of five known extant
Sierra Foothill populations and is located in the easternmost portion
of the subspecies' historic range. This unit represents the California
red-legged frog's adaptation to a wide range of habitat and ecological
variability, is known to be occupied, contains high quality habitat,
and contains the features essential for the conservation of the
subspecies. This unit consists of Federal, State, and private land and is
[[Page 19267]]
mapped entirely from occurrence records subsequent to the time of
listing. Threats that may require special management in this unit
include timber harvest activities; removal and alteration of habitat
due to potential urban development; 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; and predation by nonnative species. We have excluded land
(approximately 38 percent of the revised proposed unit) from the final
designation of critical habitat that is managed under the Sierra Nevada
Forest Plan by the Tahoe National Forest. For a further discussion of
this exclusion see Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below.
ELD-1, Spivey Pond (8,388 ac (3,395 ha))
This unit is located in central El Dorado County, south of State
Highway 50 and east of Newton Road. ELD-1 is essential for the
conservation of the subspecies 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
occupied by the subspecies. ELD-1 is the fourth of five known extant
Sierra Foothill populations and is located in the easternmost portion
of the subspecies' historic range. This unit represents the California
red-legged frog's adaptation to a wide range of habitat and ecological
variability, is known to be occupied, contains high quality habitat,
and contains the features essential for the conservation of the
subspecies. The unit consists entirely of private land and is mapped
entirely from occurrence records subsequent to the time of listing.
Threats that may require special management in this unit include
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 has been removed from this final designation of critical
habitat. However, due to technical mapping constraints we did not
physically remove the area from the map depicting unit ELD-1. We have
excluded land (approximately 5 percent of the revised proposed unit)
from the final designation of critical habitat which is managed under
the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan by the El Dorado National Forest. For a
further discussion of this exclusion see Application of Section 4(a)(3)
and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below.
CAL-1, Young's Creek
This unit is the fifth of five known extant Sierra Foothill
populations and has been excluded from the final designation. See
Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act section below.
NAP-1, Wragg Creek (2,529 ac (1,024 ha))
This unit 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 contains the following features that are essential for the
conservation of the subspecies: 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). NAP-1 was known to be
occupied at the time of listing and is currently occupied. 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 further west in the northbay;
represents the northern extent of the subspecies' range in the interior
coast range; and contains high quality habitat. The unit consists of
private land and is mapped from occurrence records at the time of
listing and subsequent to the time of listing. Threats that may require
special management in this unit include predation by nonnative species,
development, and recreational off-road vehicle use.
MRN-1, Salmon Creek (22,559 ac (9,129 ha))
This unit is located in north-central Marin County, east of State
Highway 1 and north of Point Reyes Petaluma Road. MRN-1 is occupied and
contains occurrence records subsequent to the time of listing. The area
contains features essential to the conservation of the subspecies
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 occupied by the
subspecies. MRN-1 provides for connectivity between populations in the
northbay region, and represents the northern extent of the subspecies'
coastal range. 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 entirely of
private and local government land and is mapped from occurrence records
subsequent to the time of listing. Threats that may require special
management in this unit include overgrazing of aquatic and riparian
habitats and predation by nonnative species.
MRN-2, Point Reyes Peninsula (25,834 ac (10,455 ha))
This unit is located in western Marin County, west of State Highway
1. MRN-2 contains the following features that are essential for the
conservation of the subspecies: 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-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
unit provides for connectivity between populations further inland and
represents the southern portion of the geographic range within the
northbay. The unit consists entirely of Federal land (National Park
Service) and is mapped from occurrence records at-time-of-listing and
subsequent to the time of listing. Threats that may require special
management in this unit include overgrazing of aquatic and riparian
habitats and predation by non-native species.
SOL-1, Sky Valley (2,844 ac (1,151 ha))
This unit 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 following features that are
essential for the conservation of the subspecies: 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). 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, 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 subspecies'
range and represents the southern extent of the subspecies in the
interior coast range north of the Suisun Bay. The unit consists of
private land and is mapped from occurrence records at the time of
listing and subsequent to the time of listing. Threats that may require
special management in this unit include
[[Page 19268]]
overgrazing of aquatic and riparian habitats, and removal and
alteration of habitat due to urbanization.
CCS-1A, Berkeley Hills (4,095 ac (1,657 ha))
This unit is located in western Contra Costa County, south of
Alhambra Valley Road and north of Bear Creek Road. CCS-1A contains the
following features that are essential for the conservation of the
subspecies: 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-1A 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 subspecies' range and is the only critical habitat
designated in Contra Costa County. The unit consists of private land
and local government land. Threats that may require special management
in this unit include removal and alteration of habitat due to
urbanization, overgrazing of aquatic and riparian habitats, and
predation by nonnative species.
CCS-1B, Mulligan Hill
This unit has been excluded from the final designation. Application
of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
section below.
ALA-1A, Los Vaqueros (285 ac (115 ha))
This unit is located in Alameda County, along Vasco Road. ALA-1A
contains the following features that are essential for the conservation
of the subspecies: 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). ALA-1A 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 subspecies' range and represents one of only two
areas in Alameda County designated as critical habitat. The unit
consists of private land and is mapped from occurrence records at-time-
of-listing and subsequent to the time of listing. Threats that may
require special management in this unit include overgrazing of aquatic
and riparian habitat and predation by nonnative species. We have
excluded land (approximately 31 percent of the revised proposed unit)
from the final designation of critical habitat because it falls within
the draft East Contra Costa County Natural Communities Conservation
Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan. The remainder of the unit
(approximately 68 percent of the revised proposed unit) was excluded
for disproportionately high economic costs. For a further discussion of
this exclusion see Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below.
ALA-1B, San Antonio Creek (533 ac (216 ha))
This unit is located in north-central Alameda County, along Collier
Canyon. ALA-1B contains the following features that are essential for
the conservation of the subspecies: 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). ALA-1B is
essential for the conservation of the California red-legged frog since
the unit 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
subspecies' range and represents one of only two areas in Alameda
County designated as critical habitat. The unit consists of private
land and is mapped from occurrence records at the time of listing and
subsequent to the time of listing. Threats that may require special
management in this unit include removal and alteration of habitat due
to urbanization, overgrazing of aquatic and riparian habitats, and
predation by nonnative species. Approximately 85 percent of the revised
proposed unit was excluded for disproportionately high economic costs.
For a further discussion of this exclusion see Application of Section
4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below.
ALA-1C, San Antonio Reservoir
This unit has been excluded from the final designation. See
Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act section below.
SNM-1A, Cahill Ridge (10,398 ac (4,208 ha))
This unit is located in northwestern San Mateo County, west of
Interstate 280 and east of California Route 1. SNM-1A contains the
following features that are essential for the conservation of the
subspecies: 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-1A 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 unit represents the
only unit in the San Francisco peninsula and would assist in
maintaining the California red-legged frog population within the San
Francisco area. The unit consists of private land and local government
land and is mapped from occurrence records at-time-of-listing and
subsequent to the time of listing. Threats that may require special
management in this unit include predation by nonnative species.
SNM-1B, Langley Hill
This unit has been excluded from the final designation. See
Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act section below.
SNM-1C, Peter's Creek
This unit has been excluded from the final designation. See
Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act section below.
SNM-2A, Gordon Ridge
This unit has been excluded from the final designation. See
Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act section below.
SNM-2B, Pescadero Creek
This unit has been excluded from the final designation. See
Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act section below.
SNM-2C, Ano Nuevo (2,885 ac (1,168 ha))
This unit is located in extreme northwestern Santa Cruz County.
SNM-2C contains the following features that are essential for the
conservation of the subspecies: 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-2C 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 subspecies' range and represents the
northern extent of the subspecies in the Santa Cruz area. The unit
consists of
[[Page 19269]]
private and State land and is mapped from occurrence records at-time-
of-listing and subsequent to the time of listing. Threats that may require
special management in this unit include predation by nonnative species.
STC-1A, Ca[ntilde]ada de Pala (28,059 ac (11,355 ha))
This unit is located in northcentral Santa Clara County, south of
Sierra Road and west of Mount Hamilton. STC-1A contains the following
features that are essential for the conservation of the subspecies:
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). STC-1A 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 assist
in preventing further fragmentation of habitat in this portion of the
subspecies' range and represents the northern portion of the two areas
designated within the Santa Clara area. This unit consists of private
and local government land and is mapped from occurrence records at the
time of listing and subsequent to the time of listing. Threats that may
require special management in this unit include removal and alteration
of habitat due to urbanization, overgrazing of aquatic and riparian
habitats, and predation by nonnative species.
STC-1B, Henry Coe State Park (29,706 ac (12,021 ha))
This unit is located in southeastern Santa Clara County, east of
Anderson Lake and north of State Highway 152. STC-1B contains the
following features that are essential for the conservation of the
subspecies: 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). STC-1B 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 subspecies' range and represents the southern
portion of two areas designated within Santa Clara County. The unit
consists of private and State land and is mapped from occurrence
records at-time-of-listing and subsequent to the time of listing.
Threats that may require special management in this unit include
predation by nonnative species.
SCZ-1, North Coastal Santa Cruz County (13,074 ac (5,291 ha))
This unit is located along the coastline of Santa Cruz County, from
approximately Waddell Creek to Yellow Bank Creek. It includes locations
within several watersheds that drain into the Pacific Ocean, and is
mapped from occurrence records at the time of listing and subsequent to
the time of listing. SCZ-1 contains the following features that are
essential for the conservation of the subspecies: 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). SCZ-1
provides connectivity between occupied sites along the coast and
further 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
three areas designated in Santa Cruz County. The unit consists of
private and State land. Threats that may require special management in
this unit include water diversions, which could dewater portions of
aquatic habitat, and thereby lead to desiccation of egg masses or
temporal loss of aquatic habitat. We have excluded land (4.9 ac (2 ha))
from the final designation of critical habitat which is managed under
the Bonny Doon Habitat Conservation Plan. For a further discussion of
this exclusion see Relationship of Critical Habitat to Habitat
Conservation Plan Lands--Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act below.
SCZ-2, Watsonville Slough (4,057 ac (1,642 ha))
This unit 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 is
mapped from occurrence records at the time of listing and subsequent to
the time of listing. SCZ-2 contains the following features that are
essential for the conservation of the subspecies: 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). SCZ-2
provides connectivity between occupied sites along the coast and
further inland. In addition, it contains permanent and ephemeral
aquatic habitats suitable for breeding and upland areas for dispersal,
shelter, and food. The unit consists of private land and Federal land.
Threats that may require special management in this unit include
mortality due to agricultural pollution, conversion of habitat by
introduced invasive plants, removal and alteration of aquatic and
upland habitat due to urbanization, and predation by nonnative species.
MER-1A-B, Pacheco Pass (12,176 ac (4,928 ha))
This unit includes two subunits, MER-1A and MER-1B; and is located
in southwestern Merced County and a small portion of southeastern Santa
Clara County, west of San Luis Reservoir. MER-1 is essential for the
conservation of the subspecies 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
occupied by the subspecies. MER-1 is an area determined to be occupied
since the time of listing and is currently occupied. The designation of
this unit is expected to prevent further fragmentation of habitat in
this portion of the subspecies' range. This is the only unit within the
central coast range with drainages that flow into the Central Valley.
The unit consists of private and State land and is mapped entirely from
occurrence records subsequent to time of listing. Threats that may
require special management in this unit include overgrazing of aquatic
and riparian habitat and predation by nonnative species.
MNT-1, Elkhorn Slough (519 ac (210 ha))
This unit is located along the coastal plain in northern Monterey
County, inland from the town of Moss Landing, and it is mapped from
occurrence records at the time of listing and subsequent to the time of
listing. MNT-1 contains the following features that are essential for
the conservation of the subspecies: 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 designation of
MNT-1 is expected to prevent further fragmentation of habitat in this
portion of the subspecies' 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 subspecies. Elkhorn
[[Page 19270]]
Slough is unique in that it is a large estuary/freshwater slough system
not typically found on the California coast. The unit consists of State
land. Threats that may require special management in this unit include
mortality due to agricultural pollution, trematode infestation and
chytrid fungus infection, and predation by nonnative species.
MNT-2, Carmel River (45,420 ac (18,381 ha))
This unit is located about 3 mi (5 km) south to about 22 mi (35 km)
southeast of the city of Monterey and includes locations in the Carmel
River Valley and nearby San Jose Creek. It is mapped from occurrence
records at the time of listing and subsequent to the time of listing at
the Carmel River, and at Las Garzas, San Jose, and San Clemente Creeks.
MNT-2 contains the following features that are essential for the
conservation of the subspecies: 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). MNT-2 is occupied by the
subspecies; contains permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitats suitable
for breeding; contains sufficient PCEs to support behaviors we have
determined are essential to the conservation of the subspecies; and
contains accessible upland areas for dispersal, shelter, and food. The
unit represents the largest designated habitat within Monterey County.
The unit consists of private, State, and Federal land (U.S. Forest
Service). Threats that may require special management in this unit
include removal and alteration of aquatic and upland habitat due to
urbanization, dewatering of aquatic habitat due to water pumping and
water diversions, and predation by nonnative species.
SNB-1, Hollister Hills (14,285 ac (5,781 ha))
This unit is located in northwestern San Benito County in the
foothills of the Gabilan Range. It is mapped from occurrence records at
the time of listing and subsequent to the time of listing near Saint
Frances Retreat, San Juan Oaks, Azalea Canyon, Bird Creek, and the
Hollister Hills State Vehicle Recreation Area. SNB-1 contains the
following features that are essential for the conservation of the
subspecies: 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). SNB-1 is occupied by the subspecies, is
expected to prevent further fragmentation of habitat in this portion of
the subspecies' range, and contains permanent and ephemeral aquatic
habitats suitable for breeding and accessible upland areas for
dispersal, shelter, and food. The unit consists of private and State
land. Threats that may require special management in this unit include
removal and alteration of aquatic and upland habitat due to
recreational and residential development, off-road vehicular
activities, and predation by nonnative species.
SNB-2, Paicines Reservoir and Tres Pinos Creek (9,616 ac (3,891 ha))
This unit is located in northwestern San Benito County,
approximately 8 mi (13 km) southeast of the City of Hollister and is
mapped from occurrence records subsequent-to-listing in and near
Paicines Reservoir and Tres Pinos Creek. SNB-2 is considered an area
that is essential for the conservation of the subspecies. The area
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). SNB-2 is essential to the conservation of the
subspecies because it provides connectivity between sites on the coast
plain and inner Coast Range, contains permanent and ephemeral aquatic
habitats suitable for breeding, and contains upland areas for
dispersal, shelter, and food. The unit consists of private and Federal
land (Bureau of Land Management (BLM)). Threats that may require
special management in this unit include removal and alteration of aquatic
and upland habitat due to urbanization and predation by nonnative species.
SNB-3, Pinnacles National Monument (20,037 ac (8,109 ha))
This unit 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 occurrence records at
the time of listing and subsequent to the time of listing. SNB-3
contains the following features that are essential for the conservation
of the subspecies: 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 designation of this unit is
expected to prevent further fragmentation of habitat in this portion of
the subspecies' range; contains permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitat
suitable for breeding and accessible upland areas for dispersal,
shelter, and food; and is occupied by the subspecies. The unit consists
of private and Federal land (National Park Service, BLM). Threats that
may require special management in this unit include overgrazing and
trampling of aquatic and upland habitat by feral pigs, recreational
activities, and predation by nonnative species.
SLO-1A-B, Cholame (17,787 ac (7,198 ha))
This unit consists of two subunits, SLO-1A and SLO-1b; and is
located in northeastern San Luis Obispo and northwestern Kern Counties;
includes locations in the Cholame Creek watershed; and is mapped from
occurrence records at the time of listing and subsequent to the time of
listing. SLO-1 contains the following features that are essential for
the conservation of the subspecies: 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). SLO-1 contains
permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitats suitable for breeding and
contains accessible upland areas for dispersal, shelter, and food. The
unit is the only area within the southern Coast Range that drains into
the Central Valley. The unit consists of private and Federal land
(BLM). 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 of aquatic
habitats due to water diversions.
SLO-2, Piedras Blancas
Lands containing features essential to the conservation of the
subspecies in unit SLO-2 are excluded from critical habitat designation
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act for economic reasons (see Application
of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
section below).
SLO-3, San Simeon
Lands containing features essential to the conservation of the
California red-legged frog in unit SLO-3 are excluded from critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act for economic
reasons (see Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below).
SLO-4, Santa Rosa Creek
Lands containing features essential to the conservation of the
California red-legged frog in unit SLO-4 are excluded from critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act for economic
reasons (see Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below).
[[Page 19271]]
SLO-5, Point Estero to Cayucos Creek
Lands containing features essential to the conservation of the
California red-legged frog in unit SLO-5 are excluded from critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act for economic
reasons (see Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below).
SLO-6, Willow and Toro Creeks
Lands containing features essential to the conservation of the
California red-legged frog in unit SLO-6 are excluded from critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act for economic
reasons (see Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below.).
SLO-7, San Luis Obispo
Lands containing features essential to the conservation of the
California red-legged frog in unit SLO-7 are exempted from critical
habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act (see Application
of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
section below).
SLO-8, Upper Salinas River (16,277 ac (6,587 ha))
This unit is located at the base of Garcia Mountain about 17 mi (27
km) east of the City of San Luis Obispo, and is mapped from occurrence
records subsequent to the time of listing. SLO-8 contains the following
features that are essential for the conservation of the subspecies:
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 designation of this unit is expected to prevent further
fragmentation of habitat in this portion of the subspecies' range and
is occupied by the subspecies. The unit represents the only area within
the interior coastal mountains within San Luis Obispo County. In
addition, it contains permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitats suitable
for breeding and contains accessible upland areas for dispersal,
shelter, and food. This unit consists of private and Federal land (U.S.
Forest Service). Threats that may require special management in this
unit include alteration of aquatic and upland habitat by recreational
activities and predation by nonnative species.
STB-1, La Brea Creek (25,111 ac (10,162 ha))
This unit is located in Los Padres National Forest in northern
Santa Barbara County, and is mapped from occurrence records at the time
of listing and subsequent to the time of listing. STB-1 contains the
following features that are essential for the conservation of the
subspecies: 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 designation of this unit is expected
to prevent further fragmentation of habitat in this portion of the
subspecies' range. The unit represents the northern portion of areas
designated within the Transverse Range. The unit also contains
permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitats suitable for breeding;
sufficient PCEs to support behaviors we have determined are essential
to the conservation of the subspecies; and accessible upland areas for
dispersal, shelter, and food. This unit is occupied by the subspecies.
The unit consists of private and Federal land (U.S. Forest Service).
Threats that may require special management in this unit include
alteration of aquatic and upland habitat by recreational activities.
STB-2, San Antonio Terrace
Lands containing features essential to the conservation of the
California red-legged frog in unit STB-2 are exempted from critical
habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act (see Application
of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
section below).
STB-3, Sisquoc River (47,439 ac (19,198 ha))
This unit occurs in northern Santa Barbara County, includes
locations in the Sisquoc River watershed and is mapped from occurrence
records at the time of listing and subsequent to the time of listing.
STB-3 contains the following features that are essential for the
conservation of the subspecies: 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 designation of this
unit is expected to prevent further fragmentation of habitat in this
portion of the subspecies' range; it is essential in stabilizing
populations of the subspecies in tributaries to the Santa Ynez River;
and contains permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitats suitable for
breeding and upland areas for dispersal, shelter, and food. The unit
consists of private and Federal land (U.S. Forest Service). Threats
that may require special management in this unit include alteration of
aquatic and upland habitat by recreational activities, predation by
nonnative species, and water management practices that could be
detrimental to California red-legged frog aquatic habitat.
STB-4, Jalama Creek (7,662 ac (3,101 ha))
This unit 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 occurrence records at the time of listing and subsequent to the
time of listing. STB-4 contains the following features that are
essential for the conservation of the subspecies: 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). STB-4
is occupied by the subspecies and provides connectivity between
locations along the coast and the Santa Ynez River watershed, and this
unit contains permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitats suitable for
breeding and upland areas for dispersal, shelter, and food. This unit
consists of private land. Threats that may require special management
in this unit include predation by nonnative species and water
management practices which could negatively affect California red-
legged frog aquatic habitat. Populations in this unit may also require
special management or protection due to their potential importance in
stabilizing populations in tributaries to the Santa Ynez River. Some
lands managed by Vandenberg Air Force Base containing features
essential to the conservation of the subspecies in the western portion
of unit STB-2 are exempted from critical habitat designation under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act (see Application of Section 4(a)(3) and
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below.).
STB-5, Gaviota Creek (11,328 ac (4,584 ha))
This unit 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 occurrence records at the time of listing and subsequent to
the time of listing. STB-5 contains the following features that are
essential for the conservation of the subspecies: 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). STB-5
is occupied by the subspecies, is expected to prevent further
fragmentation of habitat in this portion of the subspecies' range, and
contains upland areas for dispersal, shelter, and food. The unit
consists of private, State, and Federal land (U.S. Forest Service).
Threats that may require special management in this unit include
predation by nonnative species and water management practices that
could negatively affect California red-legged
[[Page 19272]]
frog aquatic habitat. Populations in this unit may also require special
management or protection due to their potential importance in
stabilizing populations in tributaries to the Santa Ynez River.
Approximately 12 percent of the revised proposed unit containing
features essential to the conservation of the subspecies in the
southeastern portion of unit STB-5 are excluded from critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act for economic reasons (see
Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act section below).
STB-6, Arroyo Quemado to Refugio Creek
Lands containing features essential to the conservation of the
California red-legged frog in unit STB-6 are excluded from critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act for economic
reasons (see Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions
Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below).
STB-7, Upper Santa Ynez River (32,505 ac (13,154 ha))
This unit is located in southeastern Santa Barbara County about 5
mi (8 km) north of the City of Santa Barbara. It includes locations in
the middle and upper Santa Ynez River watershed, and is mapped from
occurrence records at the time of listing and subsequent to the time of
listing. STB-7 contains the following features that are essential for
the conservation of the subspecies: 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). STB-7 is occupied
by the subspecies and is expected to prevent further fragmentation of
habitat in this portion of the subspecies' range. It 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 private and Federal land (U.S. Forest Service). Threats
that may require special management in this unit include flood control
and road maintenance activities, which could cause siltation in and
reduce available aquatic habitat and directly remove upland habitat.
Additional threats that may require special management include
recreational activities and predation by nonnative species.
Approximately 10 percent of the revised proposed unit containing
features essential to the conservation of the subspecies in the eastern
portion of unit STB-7 are excluded from critical habitat designation
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act for economic reasons (see Application
of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act section below).
VEN-1, Matilija Creek (6,660 ac (2,695 ha))
This unit is located in western Ventura County at Matilija Creek
and is mapped from occurrence records at the time of listing and
subsequent to the time of listing. VEN-1 contains the following
features that are essential for the conservation of the subspecies:
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). VEN-1 is occupied by the subspecies and important to the
subspecies' conservation in that persistence of the subspecies in this
area will prevent further isolation of breeding locations in this
portion of the subspecies' range. This unit also contains permanent and
ephemeral aquatic habitats suitable for breeding; contains upland areas
for dispersal, shelter, and food; and is expected to prevent further
fragmentation of habitat in this portion of the subspecies' range. The
unit consists of private and Federal land (U.S. Forest Service).
Threats that may require special management in this unit include
alteration of aquatic and upland habitat by recreational activities and
predation by nonnative species.
VEN-2, San Antonio Creek (2,915 ac (1,180 ha))
This unit is located in western Ventura County at San Antonio Creek
and is mapped from occurrence records at the time of listing and
subsequent to the time of listing. VEN-2 contains the following
features that are essential for the conservation of the subspecies:
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). VEN-2 is occupied by the subspecies. Persistence of the
subspecies in this area will prevent further isolation of breeding
locations in this portion of the subspecies' range. This unit also
contains permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitats suitable for breeding
and accessible upland areas for dispersal, shelter, and food, and it is
expected to prevent further fragmentation of habitat in this portion of
the subspecies' range. The unit consists of private land. Threats that
may require special management in this unit include alteration of
aquatic and upland habitat by recreational activities, sedimentation of
aquatic habitats, and predation by nonnative species.
VEN-3, Piru Creek (8,837 ac (3,576 ha))
This unit is located in eastern Ventura County and northwestern Los
Angeles County and is mapped from occurrence records at the time of
listing at Piru Creek. VEN-3 contains the following features that are
essential for the conservation of the subspecies: 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). VEN-3
is occupied by the subspecies. Persistence of the subspecies in this
area is important to prevent further isolation of breeding locations in
this portion of the subspecies' range. This unit also contains
permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitats suitable for breeding and
upland areas for dispersal, shelter, and food. The unit consists of
private and Federal land (U.S. Forest Service). Threats that may
require special management in this unit include alteration of aquatic
and upland habitat by unauthorized off-road vehicle use, conversion of
native habitat by introduced invasive plant species, and predation by
nonnative species.
VEN-4, Upper Las Virgenes Canyon Open Space Preserve
Lands containing features essential to the conservation of the
California red-legged frog in unit VEN-4 are excluded from the critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act for economic
reasons (see Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions
Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below).
LOS-1, San Francisquito Creek (4,231 ac (1,712 ha))
This unit is located in northwestern Los Angeles County and is
mapped from occurrence records at the time of listing. LOS-1 contains
the following features that are essential for the conservation of the
subspecies: 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). LOS-1 contains permanent and ephemeral
aquatic habitats suitable for breeding and accessible upland areas for
dispersal, shelter, and food. The unit consists of private and Federal
land (U.S. Forest Service). Threats that may require special management
in this unit include alteration and removal of aquatic and upland
habitat by residential development, degradation of habitat by
recreational activities, sedimentation of
[[Page 19273]]
aquatic habitats, conversion of native habitats by introduced invasive
plants, contamination by chytrid fungus and predation by African clawed
frogs (Xenopus laevis), and other nonnative species including bullfrogs
and nonnative fish.
RIV-1, Cole Creek
Lands containing features essential to the conservation of the
California red-legged frog in unit RIV-1 are excluded from critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act for economic
reasons (see Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below).
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Recent
decisions by the Fifth and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have
invalidated our regualtory definition for adverse modification.
Pursuant to current national policy and the statutory provisions of the
Act, destruction or adverse modification is now determined on the basis
of the Director's December 9, 2004, memorandum on destruction and
adverse modification.
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its
critical habitat, if any is proposed or designated. Regulations
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are
codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with
us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a proposed species or result in destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat. This is a procedural requirement only. However,
once a proposed species becomes listed, or proposed critical habitat is
designated as final, the full prohibitions of section 7(a)(2) apply to
any Federal action. The primary utility of the conference procedures is
to maximize the opportunity for a Federal agency to adequately consider
proposed species and critical habitat and avoid potential delays in
implementing their proposed action as a result of the section 7(a)(2)
compliance process, should those species be listed or the critical
habitat designated.
Under conference procedures, the Service may provide advisory
conservation recommendations to assist the agency in eliminating
conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action. The Service may
conduct either informal or formal conferences. Informal conferences are
typically used if the proposed action is not likely to have any adverse
effects to the proposed species or proposed critical habitat. Formal
conferences are typically used when the Federal agency or the Service
believes the proposed action is likely to cause adverse effects to
proposed species or critical habitat, inclusive of those that may cause
jeopardy or adverse modification.
The results of an informal conference are typically transmitted in
a conference report; the results of a formal conference are typically
transmitted in a conference opinion. Conference opinions on proposed
critical habitat are typically prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as
if the proposed critical habitat were designated. We may adopt the
conference opinion as the biological opinion when the critical habitat
is designated, if no substantial new information or changes in the
action alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)). As
noted above, any conservation recommendations in a conference report or
opinion are strictly advisory.
If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency)
must enter into consultation with us. As a result of this consultation,
compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) will be documented
through the Service's issuance of: (1) A concurrence letter for Federal
actions that may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, listed
species or critical habitat; or (2) a biological opinion for Federal
actions that may affect, but are likely to adversely affect, listed
species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to result in jeopardy to a listed species or the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat, we also provide reasonable
and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable.
``Reasonable and prudent alternatives'' are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as
alternative actions identified during consultation that can be
implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the
action, that are consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's
legal authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and
technologically feasible, and that the Director believes would avoid
jeopardy to the listed species or destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from
slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the
project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent
alternative are similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where a new
species is listed or critical habitat is subsequently designated that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action or such discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law. Consequently, some Federal
agencies may request reinitiation of consultation with us on actions
for which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions may
affect subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat or
adversely modify or destroy proposed critical habitat.
Federal activities that may affect the California red-legged frog
or its designated critical habitat will require section 7 consultation
under the Act. Activities on State, Tribal, local, or private lands
requiring a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act or a permit under
section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act from the Service) or involving some
other Federal action (such as funding from the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency) will also be subject to the section 7
consultation process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or
critical habitat, and actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands
that are not Federally-funded, authorized, or permitted, do not require
section 7 consultations.
Application of the Jeopardy and Adverse Modification Standards for
Actions Involving Effects to the California Red-legged Frog and Its
Critical Habitat
Jeopardy Standard
Prior to and following designation of critical habitat, the Service
has applied an analytical framework for California red-legged frog
jeopardy analyses that relies heavily on the importance of core
[[Page 19274]]
area populations of the California red-legged frog. The section 7(a)(2)
analysis is focused not only on these populations but also on the
habitat conditions necessary to support them.
Adverse Modification Standard
The analytical framework described in the Director's December 9,
2004, memorandum on destruction and adverse modification would be used
to complete section 7(a)(2) analyses for Federal actions affecting
California red-legged frog critical habitat.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat may also jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat
are those that alter the PCEs to an extent that the conservation value
of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog detailed in the
Director's December 9, 2004, memorandum on destruction and adverse
modification. Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized
by a Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and therefore result
in consultation for the California red-legged frog include, but are not
limited to:
(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 that alter water
conditions beyond the tolerances of the California red-legged frog and
result in direct or cumulative adverse affects to these individuals and
their life cycles.
(2) Actions that would significantly increase sediment deposition
within the 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; unauthorized 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 their ability
to complete their life cycles.
(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 and alter the timing, duration, water flows, and levels
that would degrade or eliminate the California red-legged frog and/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 and/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;
unauthorized off-road vehicle or recreational use; and other watershed
and floodplain disturbances.
(5) Introducing, spreading, or augmenting nonnative aquatic species
in stream segments or ponds used by 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;
aesthetics; biological control; 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, which
would adversely affect the California red-legged frog's ability to
complete its life cycle.
We consider all of the units designated as critical habitat, as
well as those previously proposed areas that have been excluded or
exempted, to contain features essential to the conservation of the
California red-legged frog. All designated units are within the
geographic range of the subspecies, all were occupied by the subspecies
at the time of or since listing, and all are likely to be used by the
California red-legged frog. Federal agencies already consult with us on
activities in areas currently occupied by the California red-legged
frog, or if the subspecies may be affected by the action, to ensure
that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of the
California red-legged frog. If you have questions regarding whether
specific activities may constitute adverse modification of critical
habitat contact the Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act
There are multiple ways to provide management for species' habitat.
Statutory and regulatory frameworks that exist at a local level can
provide such protection and management, as can lack of pressure for
change, such as areas too remote for anthropogenic disturbance.
Finally, State, local, or private management plans as well as
management under Federal agencies jurisdictions can provide protection
and management to avoid the need for designation of critical habitat.
When we consider a plan to determine its adequacy in protecting
habitat, we consider whether the plan, as a whole will provide the same
level of protection that designation of critical habitat would provide.
The plan need not lead to exactly the same result as a designation in
every individual application, as long as the protection it provides is
equivalent, overall. In making this determination, we examine whether
the plan provides management and protection of the PCEs that is at
least equivalent to that provided by a critical habitat designation,
and whether there is a reasonable expectation that the management,
protection, or enhancement actions will continue into the foreseeable
future. Each review is particular to the species and the plan, and some
plans may be adequate for some species and inadequate for others.
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, by November 17, 2001, an Integrated Natural Resource
Management Plan (INRMP). 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; and
wetland protection, enhancement, and restoration where necessary to support
[[Page 19275]]
fish and wildlife and enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public
Law No. 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 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C.
670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a
benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for
designation.''
We consult with the military on the development and implementation
of INRMPs for installations with listed species. INRMPs developed by
military installations located within the range of the critical habitat
designation for the California red-legged frog were analyzed for
statutory exemption under the authority of section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that critical habitat shall be
designated, and revised, on the basis of the best available scientific
data after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on
national security, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area
from critical habitat if [s]he determines that the benefits of such
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the
critical habitat, unless [s]he determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that
determination, the Secretary is afforded broad discretion and the
Congressional record is clear that in making a determination under the
section the Secretary has discretion as to which factors and how much
weight will be given to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in considering whether to exclude
a particular area from the designation, we must identify the benefits
of including the area in the designation, identify the benefits of
excluding the area from the designation, and determine whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. If an
exclusion is contemplated, then we must determine whether excluding the
area would result in the extinction of the species. In the following
sections, we address a number of general issues that are relevant to
the exclusions we considered.
Relationship of Critical Habitat to Section 4(a)(3) of the Act--
Approved Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans (INRMPs)
Vandenberg Air Force Base (Vandenberg)
Vandenberg completed an INRMP in 1997, prior to the passage and
implementation of the Sikes Act Improvements Act of 1997; in 2003,
Vandenberg revised their INRMP, and we provided comments on the revised
INRMP, in a letter dated August 2, 2004. The older plan and the revised
INRMP provide conservation measures for the California red-legged frog,
as well as for the management of important wetland habitats on the base.
Vandenberg's INRMP benefits California red-legged frogs through:
(1) Avoidance of California red-legged frogs and their habitat,
whenever possible, in project planning; (2) scheduling of activities
that may affect California red-legged frogs outside of the peak
breeding period (December-March); (3) coordination with Vandenberg
water quality staff to prevent degradation and contamination of aquatic
habitats; and (4) prohibiting the introduction of nonnative fishes into
streams on-base. In addition, Vandenberg's INRMP provides protection to
aquatic and upland habitats for the California red-legged frog by
excluding cattle from wetlands and riparian areas through the
installation and maintenance of fencing. Vandenberg's INRMP specifies
periodic monitoring of the distribution and abundance of California
red-legged frog populations on the base, and periodic surveys to
provide continuous evaluation of the subspecies' status at known and
new sites identified on the base.
Based on the above considerations, and consistent with the
direction provided in section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have
determined that conservation efforts identified in the INRMP will
provide benefits to the California red-legged frog and the features
essential to the subspecies conservation occurring on Vandenberg Air
Force Base. Therefore, Vandenberg Air Force Base is exempt from
inclusion in this designation of critical habitat for the subspecies'
pursuant to section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
Camp San Luis Obispo (CSLO)
CSLO completed an INRMP in November 2001. We have examined CSLO's
INRMP and determined that it does provide conservation measures for the
California red-legged frog, as well as for the management of important
riparian, wetland, and upland habitats across the base.
CSLO's INRMP benefits California red-legged frogs through: (1)
Protection of riparian habitats and wetlands through implementation of
erosion-control measures, including the exclusion of cattle through the
installation and maintenance of fencing; (2) enhancement of riparian,
wetland, and upland habitats through the implementation of revegetation
projects using native vegetation; (3) control of nonnative invasive
plant species; (4) elimination of military training exercises within
riparian, aquatic, and wetland areas; (5) maintenance and protection of
a 63-acre riparian exclosure on Chorro Creek; and (6) policies which
prohibit possible sources of contamination (e.g., soakage pits, field
shower points, water purification points, portable latrines) within 100
feet of surface water or streambeds. In addition, CSLO's INRMP provides
management direction on conserving listed and imperiled species and
their habitats on the base, including: (1) review of all training and
maintenance activities by staff from CSLO's Environmental Division; (2)
environmental awareness briefings given to employees, tenants, troops,
and contractors, regarding threatened and endangered species at CSLO;
and (3) surveys prior to activities that could potentially affect
California red-legged frogs. Sites with known populations of the
California red-legged frog are protected from disturbance from human
activities and grazing through measures appropriate to the given
situation. CSLO's INRMP specifies monitoring of California red-legged
frog populations on the base, and periodic surveys to provide
continuous evaluation of the subspecies' status at known and new sites
identified on the base. In addition, CSLO actively consults with us on
all actions that may affect California red-legged frogs on the base,
and has implemented conservation measures as recommended.
Based on the above considerations, and consistent with the
direction provided in section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have
determined that conservation efforts identified in the INRMP will
provide benefits to the California red-legged frog and the features
essential to the subspecies' conservation occurring on CSLO. Therefore,
CSLO is exempt from inclusion in this designation of critical habitat
for the subspecies pursuant to section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
[[Page 19276]]
Conservation Partnerships on Non-Federal Lands
Most federally listed species in the United States will not recover
without the cooperation of non-Federal landowners. More than 60 percent
of the United States is privately owned (National Wilderness Institute
1995), and at least 80 percent of endangered or threatened species
occur either partially or solely on private lands (Crouse et al. 2002).
Stein et al. (1995) found that only about 12 percent of listed species
were found almost exclusively on Federal lands (i.e., 90 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; Crouse et al. 2002; James 2002). Building
partnerships and promoting voluntary cooperation of landowners is
essential to understanding the status of species on non-Federal lands
and is necessary to implement recovery actions such as reintroducing
listed species, habitat restoration, and habitat protection.
Many non-Federal landowners derive satisfaction in contributing to
endangered species recovery. The Service promotes these private-sector
efforts through the Four Cs philosophy--conservation through
communication, consultation, and cooperation. This philosophy is
evident in Service programs such as Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs),
Safe Harbor Agreements, Candidate Conservation Agreements, and
conservation challenge cost-share grants and other partnership funding.
Many private landowners, however, are wary of the possible consequences
of encouraging endangered species to live on their property, and there
is mounting evidence that some regulatory actions by the Federal
Government, while well-intentioned and required by law, can under
certain circumstances have unintended negative consequences for the
conservation of species on private lands (Wilcove et al. 1996; Bean
2002; Conner and Mathews 2002; James 2002; Koch 2002; Brook et al.
2003). Many landowners fear a decline in their property value due to
real or perceived restrictions on land-use options where threatened or
endangered species are found. Consequently, harboring endangered
species is viewed by many landowners as a liability, resulting in anti-
conservation incentives because maintaining habitats that harbor
endangered species represents a risk to future economic opportunities
(Main et al. 1999; Brook et al. 2003).
The purpose of designating critical habitat is to contribute to the
conservation of threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. The outcome of the designation, triggering
regulatory requirements for actions funded, authorized, or carried out
by Federal agencies under section 7 of the Act, can sometimes be
counterproductive to its intended purpose on non-Federal lands.
According to some researchers, the designation of critical habitat on
private lands significantly reduces the likelihood that landowners will
support and carry out conservation actions (Main et al. 1999; Bean
2002; Brook et al. 2003). The magnitude of this negative outcome is
greatly amplified in situations where active management measures (e.g.,
reintroduction, fire management, control of invasive species) are
necessary for species conservation (Bean 2002).
The Service believes that the judicious use of excluding specific
areas of non-federally owned lands from critical habitat designations
can contribute to species' recovery and provide a superior level of
conservation than critical habitat alone. For example, less than 17
percent of Hawaii is federally owned, but the State is home to more
than 24 percent of all federally listed species, most of which will not
recover without State and private landowner cooperation. On the island
of Lanai, Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC, which owns 99 percent of the
island, entered into a conservation agreement with the Service. The
conservation agreement provides conservation benefits to target species
through management actions that remove threats (e.g,. axis deer,
mouflon sheep, rats, invasive nonnative plants) from the Lanaihale and
East Lanai Regions. Specific management actions include fire control
measures, nursery propagation of native flora (including the target
species), and planting of such flora. These actions will significantly
improve the habitat for all currently occurring species. Due to the low
likelihood of a Federal nexus on the island, we believe that the
benefits of excluding the lands covered by the MOA exceeded the
benefits of including them. As stated in the final critical habitat
rule for endangered plants on the Island of Lanai:
On Lanai, simply preventing ``harmful activities'' will not slow
the extinction of listed plant species. Where consistent with the
discretion provided by the Act, the Service believes it is necessary
to implement policies that provide positive incentives to private
landowners to voluntarily conserve natural resources and that remove
or reduce disincentives to conservation. While the impact of
providing these incentives may be modest in economic terms, they can
be significant in terms of conservation benefits that can stem from
the cooperation of the landowner. The continued participation of
Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC, in the existing Lanai Forest and
Watershed Partnership and other voluntary conservation agreements
will greatly enhance the Service's ability to further the recovery
of these endangered plants.
Secretary Norton's Four Cs philosophy--conservation through
communication, consultation, and cooperation--is the foundation for
developing the tools of conservation. These tools include conservation
grants, funding for Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, the Coastal
Program, and cooperative-conservation challenge cost-share grants. Our
Private Stewardship Grant program and Landowner Incentive Program
provide assistance to private land owners in their voluntary efforts to
protect threatened, imperiled, and endangered species, including the
development and implementation of HCPs.
Conservation agreements with non-Federal landowners (e.g., HCPs),
contractual conservation agreements, easements, and stakeholder-
negotiated State regulations) enhance species conservation by extending
species protections beyond those available through section 7
consultations. In the past decade we have encouraged non-Federal
landowners to enter into conservation agreements, based on a view that
we can achieve greater species conservation on non-Federal land through
such partnerships than we can through coercive methods (61 FR 63854;
December 2, 1996).
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
After consideration under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the following
areas of habitat have been excluded from critical habitat for the
California red-legged frog: Bonnie Doon Quarries Settlement Ponds HCP;
Draft East Contra Costa HCP; East Bay Regional Park District lands;
Spivey Pond Management Area (BLM); U.S. Forest Service lands within the
Sierra Nevada; Unit CAL-1 in Calaveras County; and other areas where
the designation of critical habitat has been determined to show a
disproportionately high economic cost
[[Page 19277]]
(See Relationship of Critical Habitat to Economic Impacts--Exclusions
Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below). A detailed analysis of
our exclusion of these lands under section 4(b)(2) of the Act is
provided in the paragraphs that follow.
General Principles of Section 7 Consultations Used in the 4(b)(2)
Balancing Process
The most direct, and potentially largest, regulatory benefit of
critical habitat is that federally authorized, funded, or carried out
activities require consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act to
ensure that they are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. There are two limitations to this regulatory effect. First, it
only applies where there is a Federal nexus--if there is no Federal
nexus, designation itself does not restrict actions that destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat. Second, it only limits destruction
or adverse modification. By its nature, the prohibition on adverse
modification is designed to ensure those areas that contain the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
subspecies or unoccupied areas that are essential to the conservation
of the subspecies are not eroded. Critical habitat designation alone,
however, does not require specific steps toward recovery.
Once consultation under section 7 of the Act is triggered, the
process may conclude informally when the Service concurs in writing
that the proposed Federal action is not likely to adversely affect the
listed subspecies or its critical habitat. However, if the Service
determines through informal consultation that adverse impacts are
likely to occur, then formal consultation would be initiated. Formal
consultation concludes with a biological opinion issued by the Service
on whether the proposed Federal action is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed species or result in destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat, with separate analyses being
made under both the jeopardy and the adverse modification standards.
For critical habitat, a biological opinion that concludes in a
determination of no destruction or adverse modification may contain
discretionary conservation recommendations to minimize adverse effects
to primary constituent elements, but it would not contain any mandatory
reasonable and prudent measures or terms and conditions with respect to
effects upon designated critical habitat resulting from the proposed
federal action. Mandatory reasonable and prudent alternatives to the
proposed Federal action would only be issued when the biological
opinion results in a jeopardy or adverse modification conclusion.
We also note that for 30 years prior to the Ninth Circuit Court's
decision in Gifford Pinchot, the Service equated the jeopardy standard
with the standard for destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. The Court ruled that the Service could no longer equate the
two standards and that adverse modification evaluations require
consideration of impacts on the recovery of species. Thus, under the
Gifford Pinchot decision, critical habitat designations may provide
greater benefits to the recovery of a species. However, we believe the
conservation achieved through implementing regional habitat
conservation plans (HCPs) or other regional habitat management plans is
typically greater than would be achieved through multiple site-by-site,
project-by-project, section 7 consultations involving consideration of
critical habitat. Management plans commit resources to implement long-
term management and protection to particular habitat for at least one
and possibly other listed or sensitive species. Section 7 consultations
only commit Federal agencies to prevent adverse modification to
critical habitat caused by the particular project, and they are not
committed to provide conservation or long-term benefits to areas not
affected by the proposed project. Thus, any HCP or management plan
which considers enhancement or recovery as the management standard will
always provide as much or more benefit than a one time consultation
under section 7 of the Act for critical habitat designation conducted
under the standards required by the Ninth Circuit in the Gifford
Pinchot decision.
The information provided in this section applies to all the
discussions below that discuss the benefits of inclusion and exclusion
of critical habitat in that it provides the framework for the
consultation process.
Educational Benefits of Critical Habitat
A benefit of including lands in critical habitat is that the
designation of critical habitat serves to educate landowners, State and
local governments, and the public regarding the potential conservation
value of an area. This helps focus and promote conservation efforts by
other parties by clearly delineating areas of high conservation value
for the California red-legged frog. In general, the educational benefit
of a critical habitat designation always exists, although in some cases
it may be redundant with other educational effects. For example,
regional HCPs have significant public input and may largely duplicate
the educational benefit of a critical habitat designation. This benefit
is closely related to a second, more indirect benefit: that designation
of critical habitat would inform State agencies and local governments
about areas that could be conserved under State laws or local ordinances.
However, we believe that there would be little additional
informational benefit gained from the designation of critical habitat
for the exclusions we are making in this rule because these areas were
included in the revised proposed rule as having habitat containing the
features essential to the conservation of the subspecies. Consequently,
we believe that the informational benefits are already provided even
though these areas are not designated as critical habitat.
Additionally, the purpose normally served by the designation of
informing State agencies and local governments about areas which would
benefit from protection and enhancement of habitat for the California
red-legged frog is already well established among State and local
governments, and Federal agencies, in those areas that we are excluding
from critical habitat in this rule on the basis of other existing
habitat management protections.
The information provided in this section applies to all the
discussions below concerning the benefits of inclusion and exclusion of
critical habitat.
Benefits of Excluding Lands With HCPs or Other Approved Management
Plans From Critical Habitat
The benefits of excluding lands with HCPs or other approved
management plans from critical habitat designation include relieving
landowners, communities, and counties of any additional regulatory
burden that might be imposed by a critical habitat designation. Most
HCPs and other conservation plans take many years to develop and, upon
completion, are consistent with the recovery objectives for listed
species that are covered within the plan area. In fact, designating
critical habitat in areas covered by a pending HCP or conservation plan
could result in the loss of some species' benefits if participants
abandon the planning process, in part because of the strength of the
perceived additional regulatory compliance that such designation would
entail. The time and cost of regulatory compliance for a critical
habitat designation do not have to be quantified for them to be
perceived as additional Federal regulatory burden
[[Page 19278]]
sufficient to discourage continued participation in plans targeting
listed species' conservation.
The benefits of excluding lands within approved management plans
from critical habitat designation include relieving landowners,
communities, and counties of any additional regulatory burden that
might be imposed by critical habitat. Many conservation plans provide
conservation benefits to unlisted sensitive species. Imposing an
additional regulatory review as a result of the designation of critical
habitat may undermine conservation efforts and partnerships in many
areas. Designation of critical habitat within the boundaries of
management plans that provide conservation measures for a species could
be viewed as a disincentive to those entities currently developing
these plans or contemplating them in the future, because one of the
incentives for undertaking conservation is greater ease of permitting
where listed species are affected. Addition of a new regulatory
requirement would remove a significant incentive for undertaking the
time and expense of management planning.
A related benefit of excluding lands within management plans from
critical habitat designation is the unhindered, continued ability to
seek new partnerships with future plan participants including States,
counties, local jurisdictions, conservation organizations, and private
landowners, which together can implement conservation actions that we
would be unable to accomplish otherwise. If lands within approved
management plan areas are designated as critical habitat, it would
likely have a negative effect on our ability to establish new
partnerships to develop these plans, particularly plans that address
landscape-level conservation of species and habitats. By preemptively
excluding these lands, we preserve our current partnerships and
encourage additional conservation actions in the future.
Furthermore, an HCP or NCCP/HCP application must itself be
consulted upon. Such a consultation would review the effects of all
activities covered by the HCP which might adversely impact the species
under a jeopardy standard, including possibly significant habitat
modification (see definition of ``harm'' at 50 CFR 17.3), even without
the critical habitat designation. In addition, Federal actions not
covered by the HCP in areas occupied by listed species would still
require consultation under section 7 of the Act and would be reviewed
for possibly significant habitat modification in accordance with the
definition of harm referenced above.
The information provided in this section applies to all the
discussions below that discuss the benefits of inclusion and exclusion
of critical habitat.
Relationship of Critical Habitat to Habitat Conservation Plan Lands--
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Bonny Doon Quarries Settlement Ponds Habitat Conservation Plan (Bonny
Doon HCP)
The Bonny Doon HCP encompasses 4.9 ac (2 ha) of privately-owned
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
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 pursuant to NEPA. We issued a non-
jeopardy biological opinion under section 7 of the Act on the Bonny
Doon HCP in August 1999. The Bonny Doon HCP contains measures to
minimize and mitigate impacts to the California red-legged frog and its
habitat from the operations, maintenance, and possible reclamation
activities and to further the conservation of the subspecies. 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
at all settlement and mitigation ponds for California red-legged frogs;
avoiding or relocating California red-legged frogs and their tadpoles
and eggs during maintenance activities; minimizing impacts of water
releases to breeding populations of California red-legged frogs;
inspecting the ground under vehicles for California red-legged frogs
prior to use; establishing a speed limit of 10 miles per hour on roads
within the operational area (although the incidental take permit only
authorizes incidental take associated with the proposed operation,
maintenance, and reclamation activities in the project area, not the
entire 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 exotic 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 in a manner that will
result in conservation of the California red-legged frog and its habitat.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh Benefits of Inclusion
We expect the Bonny Doon HCP to provide substantial protection of
the PCEs and special management of essential habitat features for the
California red-legged frog on Bonny Doon HCP conservation lands. We
expect the Bonny Doon HCP to provide a greater level of management for
the California red-legged frog on private lands than would designation
of critical habitat on private lands. Moreover, inclusion of these non-
Federal lands as critical habitat would not necessitate additional
management and conservation activities that would exceed the approved
Bonny Doon HCP and its implementing agreement. As a result, we do not
anticipate any action on these lands would destroy or adversely modify
the areas designated as critical habitat. Therefore, we do not expect
that including those areas in the final designation would lead to any
changes to actions on the conservation lands to avoid destroying or
adversely modifying that habitat.
The exclusion of these lands from critical habitat will help
preserve the partnerships that we have developed with the local
jurisdiction and project proponent in the development of the Bonny Doon
HCP, which provides for California red-legged frog conservation. The
educational benefits of critical habitat, including informing the
public of areas important for the long-term conservation of the
subspecies, are still accomplished from material provided on our Web
site and through public notice-and-comment procedures required to
establish the Bonny Doon HCP. 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.
We have reviewed and evaluated benefits of inclusion and exclusion
of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog. Based on this
evaluation,
[[Page 19279]]
we find that the benefits of excluding land in the planning area for
the Bonny Doon HCP outweigh the benefits of including that portion of
critical habitat in unit SCZ-1 as critical habitat.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Subspecies
We do not believe that this exclusion would result in the
extinction of the subspecies because the Bonny Doon HCP provides for
subspecies' conservation in this area through the detailed minimization
and mitigation measures described above.
Draft East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (ECCHCP)
The draft ECCHCP was released to the public on September 6, 2005.
We expect a finalized plan before the end of December 2006.
Participants in this HCP include the County of Contra Costa; the cities
of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg, California; and the
Contra Costa Water District. The draft ECCHCP 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 draft
ECCHCP is also a subregional plan under the State's Natural Community
Conservation Planning (NCCP) process and was developed in cooperation
with the California Department of Fish and Game. The draft ECCHCP
identifies the California red-legged frog as a covered subspecies and
has identified areas where growth and development are expected to
occur, as well as several conservation measures, including (1)
Preserving aquatic and upland California red-legged frog habitat; (2)
preserving major habitat connections linking existing public lands; (3)
incorporating a range of habitat and population management and
enhancement measures, including monitoring; (4) fully mitigating the
impacts to covered species and subspecies; (5) maintaining ecosystem
processes; and (6) contributing to the recovery of covered species and
subspecies. When the conservation measures are implemented, they will
benefit California red-legged frog conservation by preserving and
restoring existing wetland and upland habitat and creating new wetland
habitat for the subspecies. We expect that the draft ECCHCP, when
finalized, will provide substantial protection for all four of the
primary constituent elements for the California red-legged frog, and
that protected lands will receive special management they require
through funding mechanisms that will be implemented under the ECCHCP.
In total, we are excluding approximately 15,160 ac (6,135 ha) of land
from units CCS-1B and ALA-1A in Contra Costa County.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
We expect the ECCHCP to provide substantial protection of the PCEs
and special management of essential habitat for the California red-
legged frog on ECCHCP conservation lands. We expect the ECCHCP to
provide a greater level of management for the California red-legged
frog on private lands than would designation of critical habitat on
private lands. Moreover, inclusion of these non-Federal lands as
critical habitat would not necessitate additional management and
conservation activities that would exceed the approved ECCHCP and its
implementing agreement. As a result, we do not anticipate any action on
these lands would destroy or adversely modify the areas designated as
critical habitat. Therefore, we do not expect that including those areas
in the final designation would lead to any changes to actions on the
conservation lands to avoid destroying or adversely modifying that habitat.
The exclusion of these lands from critical habitat will help
preserve the partnerships that we have developed with the local
jurisdiction and project proponent in the development of the ECCHCP.
The educational benefits of critical habitat, including informing the
public of areas that are essential for the long-term conservation of
the subspecies, are still accomplished from material provided on our
Web site and through public notice-and-comment procedures required to
establish the ECCHCP. For these reasons, we believe that designating
critical habitat has little benefit in areas covered by the draft ECCHCP.
We have reviewed and evaluated the benefits of inclusion and the
benefits of exclusion of critical habitat for the California red-legged
frog. Based on this evaluation, we find that the benefits of exclusion
of the lands essential to the conservation of the California red-legged
frog in the planning area for the draft ECCHCP outweigh the benefits of
including those lands within eastern Contra Costa County.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Subspecies
We do not believe that this exclusion would result in the
extinction of the subspecies because the draft ECCHCP seeks to: (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 subspecies, including the California red-legged frog; (8) maintain
ecosystem processes; and (9) contribute to the recovery of covered
species and subspecies.
Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
In the revised proposed designation published in the Federal
Register on November 3, 2005 (70 FR 66906), we proposed the Western
Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) as a
potential exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The Economic
Analysis for the revised proposed designation identified Unit RIV-1
within a census tract with disproportionately high economic costs. As a
result of these costs, Unit RIV-1 has been excluded from the
designation (see Relationship of Critical Habitat to Economic Impacts--
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act below).
Relationship of Critical Habitat to Approved Management Plans--
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
East Bay Regional Park
The 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. The EBRPD Plan provides for monitoring and
conservation of rare, threatened, and endangered taxa, including the
California red-legged frog. 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).
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
We expect the EBRPD to provide substantial protection of the PCEs
and special management of essential habitat
[[Page 19280]]
for the California red-legged frog on EBRPD lands within units CCS-1B
and ALA-1A. We expect the EBRPD to provide a greater level of
management for the California red-legged frog on private lands than
would designation of critical habitat on private lands. Moreover,
inclusion of these non-Federal lands as critical habitat would not
necessitate additional management and conservation activities already
in place by the EBRPD. As a result, we do not anticipate any action on
these lands would destroy or adversely modify the areas designated as
critical habitat. Therefore, we do not expect that including those
areas in the final designation will lead to any changes to actions on
the conservation lands to avoid destroying or adversely modifying that
habitat.
The exclusion of these lands from critical habitat would help
preserve the partnerships that we have developed with the EBRPD. The
educational benefits of critical habitat, including informing the
public of areas that are essential for the long-term conservation of
the subspecies, are still accomplished from material provided on our
website and through public notice-and-comment procedures. The public
also has been informed through the public participation that occurred
during the development of the revised proposed designation and previous
listing and critical habitat actions for the subspecies. For these
reasons, we believe that designating critical habitat within units CCS-
1B and ALA-1A has little benefit in areas managed by the EBRPD.
We have evaluated the conservation measures for the California red-
legged frog identified by the EBRPD. Based on this evaluation, we
currently find that the benefits of excluding those portions of Unit
CCS-1B and ALA-1A considered essential to the conservation of the
California red-legged frog within the boundaries of the EBRPD land outweigh
the benefits of including those portions of land as critical habitat.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Subspecies
We have determined that exclusion of these lands within Unit CCS-1B
and ALA-1A, which are considered occupied habitat, would not result in
the extinction of the California red-legged frog. Actions which might
adversely affect the subspecies 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 habitat preservation through the section 7 process,
provide assurance that the subspecies will not go extinct. In addition,
the subspecies 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.
The subspecies occurs on lands protected and managed either
explicitly for the subspecies, or indirectly through more general
objectives to protect natural values; this factor acts in concert with
the other protections provided under the Act for these lands absent
designation of critical habitat on them, and acts in concert with
protections afforded the subspecies by the remaining critical habitat
designation for the subspecies, which leads us to find that exclusion
of these lands will not result in extinction of the California red-
legged frog. We do not believe that this exclusion would result in the
extinction of the subspecies because the subspecies 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 under U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service recovery permit number 817400. During the years of
1996, 2000, and 2004, EBRPD conducted California red-legged frog
surveys across all park lands for the purpose of population trend
monitoring and habitat assessment. Research 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 has used and continues to use for the conservation of
the California red-legged frog. Nearly 90 percent of the EBRPD land
holdings are protected and managed as natural parklands, thereby
providing protection for the PCEs (Bobzien, pers com. 2005).
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).
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 July 2004, a management plan for the
California red-legged frog was approved and signed by the Service, BLM,
Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), CDFG, El Dorado County, El Dorado
Irrigation District, the American River Conservancy, and the El Dorado
National Forest. The Spivey Pond Management Plan (SPMP) consists of six
management objectives specifically for the conservation of the
California red-legged frog: Control of bullfrogs and predatory fish;
monitoring of water quality; maintenance of the pond's integrity and
habitat/water quality; creation and management of additional California
red-legged frog breeding habitat; promotion of research and maintenance
of a GIS database; and providing input for watershed level planning and
activities that may benefit Spivey Pond.
In 1997, a population of a reproducing California red-legged frogs
was discovered in Spivey Pond on the north fork of Webber Creek. The
previous confirmed sightings of a California red-legged frog in the
Webber Creek watershed were in 1972 and 1975 for the entire Sierra
Nevada foothill region. 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 USBR, ARC succeeded in purchasing the 54-acre
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. In March 2004, we issued a non-jeopardy
biological opinion for development of a new breeding pond for the
subspecies (1-1-03-F-0289).
[[Page 19281]]
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh Benefits of Inclusion
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 area.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Subspecies
We also find that the exclusion of these lands will not lead to the
extinction of the subspecies, nor hinder its recovery because the
management emphasis of the SPMA is to protect and enhance habitat for
the California red-legged frog.
National Forest Lands Within the Sierra Nevada
We are excluding those portions of critical habitat units BUT-1,
YUB-1, NEV-1, and ELD-1 that are managed by the Plumas, Tahoe and El
Dorado National Forests from this final designation of critical habitat
for the California red-legged frog pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the
Act because those lands are managed under the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan
Amendment (SNFPA) (NEV-1, ELD-1, and BUT-1) and Herger-Feinstein Quincy
Library Group (HFQLG) (YUB-1, BUT-1, and NEV-1).
Of the five known Sierra Nevada foothill California red-legged frog
populations, only the Hughes Place (BUT-1) and Little Oregon Creek
(YUB-1) breeding populations are located exclusively on land managed by
the U.S. Forest Service (Plumas National Forest). The other three known
Sierra Nevada population breeding ponds are located on private (CAL-1
and NEV-1) or other Federally (BLM) owned land (ELD-1). However,
portions of two of the three (NEV-1 and ELD-1) critical habitat units
are on U.S. Forest Service lands. The Plumas National Forest is taking
an active role in the conservation and management of California red-
legged frog populations through direct land acquisition and research
concerning frog movement in the Sierra Nevada. We are excluding a total
of 7,644 ac (3,094 ha) of U.S. Forest Service land from critical
habitat units BUT-1, YUB-1, NEV-1 and ELD-1 from this final designation
of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog.
The El Dorado and Tahoe National Forests are managed through the
implementation of the SNFPA Record of Decision (ROD) by application of
the Aquatic Management Strategy (AMS). This strategy includes landscape
and project-level analysis, achieving Riparian Conservation Objectives
(RCO) and implementation of best management practices (BMPs). Standards
and guidelines will be implemented in order to achieve RCOs. These
standards and guidelines will include assessing and documenting aquatic
conditions prior to implementing ground disturbance activities, and
developing mitigation measures to avoid impacting the frog when ground-
disturbing activities are within Riparian Conservation Areas (RCA) or
critical aquatic refuges (CARs). Application of pesticides will be
avoided in areas within 500 ft (150 m) of known occupied sites unless
environmental analysis documents demonstrate that pesticides are needed
to restore or enhance habitat for the California red-legged frog.
The Plumas National Forest is managed through the implementation of
the SNFPA and HFQLG RODs. The HFQLG ROD applies Scientific Analysis
Team (SAT) guidelines for riparian area management. These guidelines
include implementation of 300 ft (90 m) buffers along all waterways and
ephemeral wetlands, and 500 ft (150 m) buffers along known occupied
California red-legged frog sites. However, these buffers may be varied
if the riparian management objectives of the SAT guidelines can be met.
Six critical aquatic refuges will be placed on the Plumas National
Forest after completion of the HFQLG pilot project. CARs are used to
protect known locations of threatened, endangered, or sensitive species
dependent on aquatic or riparian habitats. For non-HFQLG projects, the
Plumas National Forest implements the 2004 SNFPA AMS.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh Benefits of Inclusion
The SNFPA, through the implementation of its Aquatic Management
Strategy, provides more benefits for the conservation of the California
red-legged frog than critical habitat would. The SNFPA provides for
protection of the PCEs and implementation of actions that could address
special management needs such as habitat restoration, nonnative
predator control and land acquisitions. Activities conducted under
HFQLG provide buffer zone guidelines around known occupied California
red-legged frog sites and all other aquatic areas. Furthermore, all
actions that occur on USFS lands require consultation under section 7
of the Act. In 2003, we issued a biological opinion on the SNFPA
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and concluded that the
proposed alternative action was not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the California red-legged frog (Service number 1-1-03-F-2638).
We believe that the benefits of excluding U.S. Forest Service lands
managed under the SNFPA and HFQLG from the designation of critical
habitat for the California red-legged frog outweigh the benefits of
including those lands in critical habitat. We find that including the
U.S. Forest Service lands that are managed under the SNFPA and HFQLG
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 private lands containing essential features
adjacent to U.S. Forest Service lands, thereby providing a measure of
protection for the PCEs outside of the area.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Subspecies
We also find that the exclusion of these lands will not lead to the
extinction of the subspecies, nor hinder its recovery because the SNFPA
and HFQLG RODs have provisions for the conservation of the California
red-legged frog as part of their aquatic management strategies. These
strategies apply standards and guidelines, such as default riparian
conservation area buffers, critical aquatic refuges, and scientific
analysis team guidelines, to prevent, minimize, maintain, or enhance
riparian areas necessary to conservation of the California red-legged
frog. In addition, all actions that occur on USFS lands require
consultation under section 7 of the Act.
Relationship of Critical Habitat to Conservation Partnerships--
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Unit CAL-1, Young's Creek
The Young's Creek unit is located in Calaveras County north of
State Route 26 and south of Paloma Road. The unit consists of
approximately 4,449 ac (1,801 ha) of land, the majority of which is
private land. The unit contains one known population of California red-
legged frogs discovered in a single pond
[[Page 19282]]
in 2003. Since the discovery, we have been working with the private
landowner to enhance the existing pond and develop additional ponds on
the property. We have entered into a long-term management agreement
with the landowner to conserve these habitats on their lands. The long-
term management agreement identifies measures designed to protect,
preserve, and enhance habitat for the California red-legged frog. These
measures include: control livestock access to riparian and ponded
areas, provide technical assistance and oversight, provide biannual
monitoring reports, and conduct nonnative fish and bullfrog removal.
Additional Benefits of Exclusion
We have been working with an adjacent landowner in the unit to
develop a similar long-term management agreement for areas that could
potentially assist in the conservation of the California red-legged
frog. However, recently, the second landowner has decided not to pursue
an agreement with the Service. We believe that utilizing the
Secretary's discretion in excluding this unit will encourage other
willing landowners in the unit to continue their conservation
activities and will allow the Service to expand enrollment of other
private landowners in the unit into conservation partnerships for
conserving additional frog habitat. The benefits of exclusion include
providing incentive for continued conservation and restoration on
private lands where landowners have shown a willingness to participate
in such activities.
The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
Based on the above considerations, and consistent with the
direction provided in section 4(b)(2) of the Act and the Federal
District Court decision concerning critical habitat (Center for
Biological Diversity v. Norton, Civ. No. 01-409 TUC DCB D. Ariz. Jan.
13, 2003), we have determined that the benefits of excluding unit CAL-1
as critical habitat outweigh the benefits of including it as critical
habitat for the California red-legged frog. The area where the
California red-legged frog is known to occur is already managed to
protect and enhance habitat specifically for the subspecies (e.g.,
control livestock access to riparian and ponded areas, provide biannual
monitoring reports, and conduct nonnative fish and bullfrog removal).
Exclusion of these lands will not decrease existing protection of the
jeopardy standard under section 7 of the Act or the take prohibitions
under section 9 of the Act. Conservation of the California red-legged
frog in this area will require proactive restoration efforts and the
cooperation of private landowners, and such efforts are currently
underway. We believe that designating the remaining lands in the unit
as critical habitat will impair our efforts to work with private
landowners to conserve and help recover the subspecies in the county.
We further believe that utilizing the Secretary's discretion to exclude
these lands from designation as critical habitat will encourage willing
landowners to continue their conservation activities and will allow us
to expand enrollment of private landowners into conservation
partnerships for conserving frog habitat. We conclude that the benefits
of the public-private partnerships established in this area to conserve
the California red-legged frog are superior to the prohibitive
protections conferred by a critical habitat designation and the
potential for unintended anti-conservation incentives that such
designation could bring. In addition, we believe that critical habitat
designation provides little gain in the way of increased public
recognition for special habitat values on lands that are expressly
managed to protect and enhance those values and would deter other local
conservation efforts for the California red-legged frog in the County.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Subspecies
We do not believe that this exclusion would result in the
extinction of the subspecies because the long-term management agreement
with the landowner and enhancement and development of additional
California red-legged frog habitat on the property will assist in
conservation of the subspecies within the area. Also additional areas
in the Sierras (e.g., Spivey Pond) are protected and being managed for
the benefit of the California red-legged frog.
Relationship of Critical Habitat to Economic Impacts--Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows the Secretary to take into
consideration potential economic impacts of a critical habitat
designation and to exclude areas from critical habitat for economic
reasons if [s]he determines that the benefits of such exclusion exceed
the benefits of designating the area as critical habitat, unless the
exclusion will result in the extinction of the species concerned. This
is a discretionary authority Congress has provided to the Secretary
with respect to critical habitat. Although economics may not be
considered when listing a species, Congress has expressly required this
consideration when designating critical habitat.
In conducting economic analyses, we are guided by the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeal's ruling in the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association
case (248 F.3d at 1285), which directed us to consider all impacts,
``regardless of whether those impacts are attributable co-extensively
to other causes.'' As explained in the analysis, due to possible
overlapping regulatory schemes and other reasons, there are also some
elements of the analysis that may overstate some costs. However, we
have taken into consideration that all of the costs and other impacts
predicted in the economic analysis may not be avoided by excluding the
following areas from this final designation, due to the fact that all
of the areas in question are currently occupied by the listed
subspecies and there will still be requirements for consultation under
section 7 of the Act or for permits under section 10 (henceforth
``consultation''), for any authorized take of these subspecies, as well
as other protections for the subspecies elsewhere in the Act and under
State and local laws and regulations.
Conversely, the Ninth Circuit has recently ruled (Gifford Pinchot,
378 F.3d at 1071) that the Service's regulations defining ``adverse
modification'' of critical habitat are invalid because they define
adverse modification as affecting both survival and recovery of a
species. The Court directed us to consider that determinations of
adverse modification should be focused on impacts to recovery. While we
have not yet proposed a new definition for public review and comment,
compliance with the Court's direction may result in additional costs
associated with the designation of critical habitat (depending upon the
outcome of the rulemaking). In light of the uncertainty concerning the
regulatory definition of adverse modification, our current
methodological approach to conducting economic analyses of our critical
habitat designations is to consider all conservation-related costs.
This approach would include costs related to sections 4, 7, 9, and 10
of the Act, and should encompass costs that would be considered and
evaluated in light of the Gifford Pinchot ruling.
Application of Section 4(b)(2)--Economic Exclusion to 19 Census Tracts
We are excluding approximately 250,329 ac (101,305 ha)
(approximately 34 percent of the revised proposed critical habitat) of
the California red-
[[Page 19283]]
legged frog's essential habitat in the 19 census tracts listed in Table
3 based on disproportionately high economic costs.
Table 3.--Excluded Census Tracts and Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted welfare
Census tract County impact in final
economic analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6001451101..................... Alameda........... $45,017,296
6013355104..................... Contra Costa...... 39,737,940
6079011502..................... San Luis Obispo... 37,144,976
6079010901..................... San Luis Obispo... 36,953,856
6079011000..................... San Luis Obispo... 36,245,748
6001450721..................... Alameda........... 26,886,492
6079010400..................... San Luis Obispo... 21,288,106
6079010500..................... San Luis Obispo... 20,313,812
6083001701..................... Santa Barbara..... 17,040,264
6001450701..................... Alameda........... 16,035,912
6083002910..................... Santa Barbara..... 15,088,389
6111007404..................... Ventura........... 14,813,216
6065043224..................... Riverside......... 13,885,294
6013303200..................... Contra Costa...... 13,203,474
6013355106..................... Contra Costa...... 10,361,391
6079010800..................... San Luis Obispo... 9,565,995
6081613700..................... San Mateo......... 8,501,778
6095252202..................... Solano............ 6,903,767
6081613800..................... San Mateo......... 6,820,789
--------------------
Total...................... .................. 395,808,495
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The revised proposed designation and notice of availability of the
draft economic analysis (70 FR 66906; November 3, 2005) solicited
public comment on the potential exclusion of high cost areas. As we
finalized the economic analysis, we identified high costs associated
with the revised proposed critical habitat designation to public
projects in Kern, Merced, Riverside, and San Luis Obispo counties.
These public projects were the widening of State Routes 46, 152, 79,
and 46. The final economic analysis indicates additional costs in
census tracts in which these projects were located were approximately
$687,000 for the four projects. On the basis of the significance of
these costs, we determined that the project areas be excluded from the
designation. The critical habitat unit associated with the project area
in Riverside County is identified in Table 3 above for exclusion, and
no additional exclusion of this area was necessary.
Benefits of Inclusion of the 19 Excluded Census Tracts
The areas excluded (Table 3) are currently occupied by the
California red-legged frog. If these areas were designated as critical
habitat, any actions with a Federal nexus that may adversely affect the
critical habitat would require a consultation with us, as explained
above in the section of this notice entitled ``Effects of Critical
Habitat Designation.'' Primary constituent elements in these areas
would be protected from destruction or adverse modification by Federal
actions using a conservation standard based on the Ninth Circuit's
decision in Gifford Pinchot. This requirement would be in addition to
the requirement that proposed Federal actions avoid likely jeopardy to
the subspecies' continued existence. However, inasmuch as all these
units are currently occupied by the subspecies, consultation for
activities that may adversely affect the subspecies, including possibly
significant habitat modification (see definition of ``harm'' at 50 CFR
17.3), would be required even without the critical habitat designation.
The requirement to conduct such consultation would occur regardless of
whether the authorization for incidental take occurs under either
section 7 or section 10 of the Act. For the occupied areas, there is
still a requirement for a jeopardy analysis to ensure Federal actions
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the subspecies.
In the economic analysis, we determined, however, that designation
of critical habitat could result in approximately $395,808,495 in costs
in these 19 census tracts, the majority of which are directly related
to residential development impacts. We believe that the potential
decrease in residential housing development that could be caused by
this designation of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog
would minimize impacts to and potentially provide some protection to
the subspecies, aquatic habitats where they reside, and the physical
and biological features essential to the subspecies' conservation
(i.e., the primary constituent elements). Thus, this decrease in
residential housing development would directly translate into a potential
benefit to the subspecies that would result from this designation.
Another possible benefit of a critical habitat designation is
education of landowners and the public regarding the potential
conservation value of these areas. This may focus and contribute to
conservation efforts by other parties by clearly delineating areas of
high conservation value for certain species. However, we believe that
this education benefit has largely been achieved, or is being achieved
in equal measure by other means (e.g., Recovery Plan planning efforts).
The critical habitat designation and recovery plan would provide
information geared to the general public, landowners, and agencies
about areas that are important for the conservation of the subspecies
and what actions they can implement to further the conservation of the
California red-legged frog within their own jurisdiction and
capabilities. The recovery plan also contains provisions for ongoing
public outreach and education as part of the recovery process.
In summary, we believe that inclusion of the 19 census tracts as
critical habitat would provide some additional Federal
[[Page 19284]]
regulatory benefits for the subspecies. However, that benefit is
limited to some degree by the fact that the areas proposed as critical
habitat are occupied by the subspecies, and therefore there must, in
any case, be consultation with the Service for any Federal action that
may affect the subspecies in those 19 census tracts. The additional
educational benefits that might arise from critical habitat designation
are largely accomplished through the multiple opportunities for public
notice-and-comment, which accompanied the development of this
regulation; publicity associated with prior litigation; and public outreach
associated with the development of the draft, and the implementation of
the final, Recovery Plan for the California red-legged frog.
Benefits of Exclusion of the 19 Excluded Census Tracts
The economic analysis conducted for this proposal estimates that
the costs associated with designating these 19 census tracts would be
approximately $395,808,495. Costs would be associated with the
designation of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog in
amounts shown in Table 3 above. By excluding these census tracts, some
or all of these costs will be avoided. Three important public-sector
projects, the widening of State Routes 46, 79, and 152, will avoid
additional costs associated with critical habitat designation.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion of the 19
Census Tracts
We believe that the benefits of excluding these lands from the
designation of critical habitat--avoiding the potential economic and
human costs, both in dollars and jobs, predicted in the economic
analysis--exceed the educational and regulatory benefits that could
result from including those lands in this designation of critical habitat.
We have evaluated and considered the potential economic costs on
the residential development industry relative to the potential benefit
for the California red-legged frog and its primary constituent elements
derived from the designation of critical habitat. We believe that the
potential economic impact of more than approximately $395 million on
the development industry significantly outweighs the potential
conservation and protective benefits for the subspecies and their
primary constituent elements derived from avoiding residential
development as a result of this designation.
We also believe that excluding these lands, and thus helping
landowners avoid the additional costs that would result from the
designation, will contribute to a more positive climate for HCPs and
other active conservation measures that provide greater conservation
benefits than would result from designation of critical habitat--even
in the post-Gifford Pinchot environment--which requires only that there
be no adverse modification resulting from actions with a Federal nexus.
We therefore find that the benefits of excluding these areas from this
designation of critical habitat outweigh the benefits of including them
in the designation.
We believe that the recovery planning process has already provided
information about habitat that contains those features considered
essential to the conservation of the California red-legged frog and has
facilitated conservation efforts through heightened public awareness of
the plight of the listed subspecies to the public, State and local
governments, scientific organizations, and Federal agencies. The final
Recovery Plan contains explicit objectives for ongoing public
education, outreach, and collaboration at local, State, and Federal
levels, and between the private and public sectors, in recovering the
California red-legged frog.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Subspecies
We believe that exclusion of these lands will not result in the
extinction of the California red-legged frog as these areas are
considered occupied habitat, and actions that might adversely affect
the subspecies are expected to have a Federal nexus, which would
trigger a section 7 consultation with the Service. The jeopardy
standard of section 7 of the Act, and routine implementation of habitat
preservation through the section 7 process, as discussed in the
economic analysis, provide assurance that the subspecies will not go
extinct. In addition, the subspecies is protected from take under
section 9 of the Act. The exclusion leaves these protections unchanged
from those that would exist if the excluded areas were designated as
critical habitat.
Critical habitat is being designated for the subspecies in other
areas that will be accorded the protection from adverse modification by
Federal actions using the conservation standard based on the Ninth
Circuit decision in Gifford Pinchot. Additionally, the subspecies
occurs on lands protected and managed either explicitly for the
subspecies, or indirectly through more general objectives to protect
natural values. This provides protection from extinction while
conservation measures are being implemented. For example, the
California red-legged frog is protected on lands such as conservation
banks and other natural areas protected by perpetual conservation
easements and managed specifically for the subspecies and its habitat
(e.g., Ohlone Conservation Bank), and also on a variety of natural
areas managed to maintain and enhance natural values (e.g., Sierra
Nevada U.S. Forest Service Lands, Point Reyes National Park). The
subspecies also occurs on lands managed to protect and enhance wetland
values under the Wetlands Reserve Program of the Natural Resource
Conservation Service. These factors acting in concert with the other
protections provided under the Act for these lands absent designation
of critical habitat on them, and acting in concert with protections
afforded each species by the remaining lands that have been designated
critical habitat for the subspecies, lead us to find that exclusion of
these 19 census tracts will not result in extinction of the California
red-legged frog.
Economic Analysis
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific information available and
to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of designating a
particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas from critical
habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such exclusions
outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical habitat. We
cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat when such exclusion
will result in the extinction of the subspecies concerned.
Concurrent with the publication of the revised proposed critical
habitat designation, we announced the availability of an economic
analysis that estimated the potential economic effect of the
designation. The draft analysis was made available for public review on
November 3, 2005 (70 FR 66906). We accepted comments on the draft
analysis until February 1, 2006.
The primary purpose of the economic analysis is to estimate the
potential economic impacts associated with the designation of critical
habitat for the California red-legged frog. This information is
intended to assist the Secretary in making decisions about whether the
benefits of excluding particular areas from the designation outweigh
the benefits of including those areas in the designation. This economic
analysis considers the economic
[[Page 19285]]
efficiency effects that may result from the designation, including
habitat protections that may be co-extensive with the listing of the
subspecies. It also addresses distribution of impacts, including an
assessment of the potential effects on small entities and the energy
industry. This information can be used by the Secretary to assess
whether the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular
group or economic sector.
This analysis focuses on the direct and indirect costs of the rule.
However, economic impacts to land use activities can exist in the
absence of critical habitat. These impacts may result from, for
example, local zoning laws, State and natural resource laws, and
enforceable management plans and best management practices applied by
other State and Federal agencies. Economic impacts that result from
these types of protections are not included in the analysis as they are
considered to be part of the regulatory and policy baseline.
We received comments on the draft economic analysis of the revised
proposed designation. Following the close of the comment period, we
reviewed and considered the public comments and information we received
and prepared responses to those comments (see Responses to Comments
section above) or incorporated the information or changes directly into
this final rule or our final economic analysis.
The November 3, 2005, notice (70 FR 66906) provides a detailed
economics section that estimates an economic impact of the designation
on land development of $497,647,833. The revised impact on
transportation projects is $687,000. The total revised cost of
designation is thus $498,334,833, or $24,916,741 annualized over 20
years. By excluding the top 19 census tracts (80 percent of the costs)
(refer to the Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section above for further explanation), the
total cost of this final designation of critical habitat for the
California red-legged frog is reduced to $102,526,338 (or $5,126,317
annualized over 20 years).
A copy of the final economic analysis with supporting documents is
included in our administrative record and may be obtained by contacting
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
(see ADDRESSES section) or by downloading from the Internet at
http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/ 
.
Special Rule Under Section 4(d) of the Act Associated With Final
Listing
Section 4(d) of the Act imparts the authority to issue regulations
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened
species. Under section 4(d), 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. We
believe that, in certain instances, easing the general take
prohibitions on non-Federal lands may encourage continued responsible
land uses that provide an overall benefit to the subspecies. We also
believe that such a special rule will promote the conservation efforts
and private lands partnerships critical for subspecies recovery
(Wilcove et al. 1996; Knight 1999; Main et al. 1999; Norton 2000; Bean
2002; Conner and Matthews 2002; Crouse et al. 2002; James 2002; Koch
2002). However, in easing the take prohibitions under section 9 of the
Act, the measures developed in the special rule must also contain
prohibitions necessary and appropriate to conserve the subspecies.
As discussed elsewhere in this final rule, the California red-
legged frog faces many threats. Foremost among these is the continuing
loss of aquatic breeding and associated uplands. Historically,
permanent and ephemeral streams and ponds served as the predominant
breeding habitat for the California red-legged frog and were essential
components for the subspecies' stability throughout its range (Storer
1925; Jennings and Hayes 1994). With the loss of these natural habitats
during the last century, alternative breeding sites have become more
critical for the continued survival of the California red-legged frog.
Stock ponds created for livestock ranching are important
alternative breeding sites for the California red-legged frog, as
evidenced by the substantial number of California red-legged frog
locality records from these artificial habitats (CNDDB 2005). While
various activities associated with livestock operations may result in
inadvertent take of California red-legged frog adults, juveniles, or
eggs, livestock ranching stock ponds with suitable adjacent upland
habitat provide valuable upland habitat for forage, feeding, predator
avoidance, and dispersal for the remaining California red-legged frogs.
Maintaining California red-legged frog's use of stock ponds on
livestock ranches for breeding appears to be an important link in the
conservation and recovery of this subspecies. For this reason, we are,
in this rule, finalizing a special rule under section 4(d) of the Act
that exempts routine livestock ranching activities on private or Tribal
lands where there is no Federal nexus from the take prohibitions under
section 9 of the Act. The special rule applies to those situations,
whether currently existing or that may develop in the future, where
livestock ranching is the primary land use or livelihood and where the
routine activities are essential for the continued operation of the
livestock ranch.
Special rules developed under section 4(d) of the Act are published
in the Federal Register concurrent with or subsequent to the listing of
a species. With the finalization of this special rule, the general
regulations at 50 CFR 17.31 will not apply to the California red-legged
frog. Our rationale behind the development of the special rule is
discussed below.
Livestock ranching is 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 this 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.
Routine activities associated with livestock ranching have the
potential to affect California red-legged frogs. Some routine
activities have the potential to positively affect California red-
legged frogs (e.g., creation of suitable stock pond breeding habitats),
while other activities may be neutral with respect to California red-
legged frog effects (e.g., construction of ranch buildings in areas
unsuitable for California red-legged frog foraging or dispersal).
However, other routine ranching activities have the potential to
negatively affect California red-legged frogs, depending on when and
where the activities are conducted (e.g., direct take from discing
fencelines or perimeter areas for fire prevention during a rainy period
when California
[[Page 19286]]
red-legged frogs may be moving from one area to another).
While section 9 of the Act provides general prohibitions on
activities that would result in take of a threatened species, the
Service recognizes that routine ranching activities, even those with
the potential to inadvertently take California red-legged frogs, may be
necessary components of livestock operations. The Service also
recognizes that it is, in the long term, a benefit to the California
red-legged frog to maintain, as much as possible, those aspects of the
ranching landscape that can aid in the recovery of the subspecies. We
believe this special rule will further conservation of the subspecies
by discouraging further conversions of the ranching landscape into
habitats unsuitable for the California red-legged frog and encouraging
landowners and ranchers to continue managing the remaining landscape in
ways that meet the needs of their operation and provide suitable
habitat for the California red-legged frog. Development of this special
rule for the California red-legged frog follows that of the final
special rule for the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma
californiense) published in the Federal Register on August 4, 2004 (69
FR 47212). One difference between the special rules is that burrow
fumigant use is not exempted in the California tiger salamander rule;
areas in which the species and subspecies coexist would not be exempted
for this use.
Routine Livestock Ranching Activities Exempted by the Special Rule
The activities mentioned above and discussed below are merely
examples of routine ranching activities that would be exempted by the
special rule. Routine activities may vary from one ranching operation
to another, and vary with changing environmental and economic
conditions. Routine ranching activities include the activities
described below, and any others that a rancher may undertake to
maintain a sustainable ranching operation. Our premise for not
attempting to regulate routine activities is that, ultimately, we
believe that a rancher acting in the best interest of maintaining a
sustainable ranching operation also is providing incidental but
significant conservation benefits for the California red-legged frog.
In this special rule, we describe and recommend best management
practices for carrying out routine ranching activities in ways that
would minimize take of California red-legged frogs, but we do not
require these practices. Overall, we believe that minimizing the
regulatory restrictions on routine ranching activities will increase
the likelihood that more landowners will voluntarily allow California
red-legged frogs to persist or increase on their private lands, and
that the impacts to California red-legged frogs from such activities
are far outweighed by the benefits of maintaining a rangeland landscape
where California red-legged frogs can coexist with a ranching
operation, as opposed to alternative land uses in which California red-
legged frogs would be eliminated entirely.
Sustainable Livestock Grazing. The act of grazing livestock on
rangelands in a sustainable manner (i.e., not overgrazed to the point
where rangeland is denuded and compacted) has the potential for take of
the California red-legged frog. Grazing livestock in California red-
legged frog-occupied areas may trample individual California red-legged
frogs as they move to and from their upland habitats, or as adults and
newly metamorphosed juveniles leave breeding ponds (Fellers and Kleeman
2005). California red-legged frog egg masses could be trampled or
dislodged from egg braces by livestock milling in the pond.
Additionally, numerous studies, summarized by Kauffman and Krueger
(1984) and Belsky et al. (1999), have shown that unmanaged livestock
grazing (overgrazing) can negatively affect riparian and instream
aquatic habitat. Some of the effects of unmanaged grazing include:
higher instream water temperatures resulting from reduction or removal
of vegetation, channel down-cutting, lowered water tables, and loss of
plunge pools, which results in direct loss of pool habitats for the
California red-legged frog (Patla and Keinath 2005), as well as
diminished water quality through increased sediment loads and nutrient
levels (Belsky et al. 1999).
By contrast, sustainable grazing may benefit the California red-
legged frog in several ways. For example, at the Point Reyes National
Seashore in Marin County, an area where there are more than 120
breeding sites with an estimated total adult population of several
thousand California red-legged frogs, the majority of the breeding
sites are artificial stockponds constructed on lands that have been
grazed by cattle for over 150 years (Fellers and Guscio 2004). On the
EBRPD lands in Contra Costa and Alameda counties, 43 of 179 ponds
surveyed that were exposed to grazing, and were characterized with and
without emergent vegetation, supported successful breeding frog
populations, often exhibiting high rates of annual breeding (Bobzien et
al. 2000). Sustainable levels of grazing may keep ponds from becoming
completely vegetated by emergent aquatic vegetation. During the past 10
years of monitoring, EBRPD has noted 47 of 207 California red-legged
frog ponds silted in after being fenced off from livestock grazing
(Bobzien, in litt. 2005). California red-legged frogs are typically
found in ponds with both open water and emergent aquatic vegetation.
The potential benefits of sustainable livestock grazing, according to
normally acceptable and established levels of intensity to prevent
overgrazing, provide justification for including this routine activity
in this special rule.
Stock Pond Management and Maintenance. Stock ponds are necessary
components of livestock ranching in many parts of the California red-
legged frog range, due to California's dry summer climate and the
limited availability of naturally occurring water. As discussed
previously, created stock ponds may serve as alternative breeding sites
for the California red-legged frog in the absence of seasonal or
permanent pond or stream habitats. Once a stock pond is occupied as a
California red-legged frog breeding site, however, California red-
legged frogs may be vulnerable to take from the routine activities
necessary to manage and maintain the stock pond for continued livestock use.
Hydroperiod management (i.e., the amount of time the stock pond
contains water) of California red-legged frog-occupied stock ponds may
be so short that California red-legged frog larvae cannot complete
metamorphosis. Stock ponds with suitable hydroperiods for California
red-legged frog breeding cycles may require ongoing maintenance to
protect water supplies and the integrity of the storage system. Routine
maintenance activities can include periodic dredging, dam or berm
repair, and mechanical or chemical control of aquatic vegetation. If
any of these activities are conducted during the California red-legged
frog breeding season, take of California red-legged frogs may occur. In
addition, stock ponds may become infested by mosquitoes, requiring
controls in order to protect human or livestock health. Mosquito
infestations may be controlled by pesticide applications or by the
introduction of nonnative fish species that prey on mosquitoes. Take of
California red-legged frogs may occur if pesticide applications are
made during the California red-legged frog breeding season. Regardless
of the time of year nonnative fish are introduced for mosquito control,
they may become established in the stock pond and prey
[[Page 19287]]
on California red-legged frogs during the breeding season. For the
purposes of this special rule, we considered these various activities
with regard to whether they could be readily adapted to avoid take of
the California red-legged frog.
Hydroperiod management is likely dependent on many factors,
including the annual water needs of the livestock operation and the
local hydrological conditions (e.g., annual water availability). In any
given year, these variables may cause a ranching operation to adjust a
stock pond's hydroperiod in ways that could potentially disrupt the
California red-legged frog breeding cycle, resulting in take of
California red-legged frog adults, juveniles, or eggs. The Service
recommends maintaining consistent water levels through the California
red-legged frog breeding and juvenile rearing season (through August)
to minimize potential take. Drawdown of stock ponds after juvenile
metamorphosis would be desirable in some instances for control of
bullfrogs and nonnative predatory fish that prey on California red-
legged frogs and can significantly reduce juvenile and adult survival.
Although stock pond hydroperiods can theoretically be readily adapted
to avoid take by maintaining an optimal breeding period for the
California red-legged frog, we recognize that the continued viability
of a livestock ranching operation may depend on the flexibility to make
these hydroperiod adjustments on short notice. We also acknowledge the
Service would not be able to provide timely technical assistance to
most land managers. For these reasons, routine hydroperiod management
of ranching operation stock ponds is included in this special rule.
Periodic dredging to counter the long-term effects of siltation,
and the maintenance or repair of containment structures (e.g., dams,
berms, levees), are activities necessary to maintain stock pond utility
and integrity (N. Cremers, in litt. 2003). Although these actions may
result in take of California red-legged frogs if they coincide with the
California red-legged frog breeding season, the need to conduct these
maintenance activities is episodic and should not be necessary on a
regular basis. In addition, we believe it is unlikely that these
activities would be necessary during the California red-legged frog
breeding season, except in the case of emergency repairs on a
catastrophic breach, as a stock pond's integrity for the spring and
summer grazing season should be ensured prior to the previous year's
rainy winter season. We believe the infrequent nature of these routine
activities, coupled with the likelihood that they will be conducted
outside of the California red-legged frog breeding season, will have
minimal impacts on California red-legged frogs in occupied stock ponds.
For these reasons, the routine activities of periodic dredging and
containment structure maintenance for ranching operation stock ponds
are included in this special rule.
Aquatic vegetation, whether rooted or free-floating, may impede
stock pond functionality. Control of this vegetation may be mechanical,
(e.g., harvesters, rakes, skimmers), chemical (e.g., aquatic
herbicides), or biological (e.g., introduced herbivorous fish). Both
mechanical and chemical control methods may result in inadvertent take
of California red-legged frogs if conducted during the California red-
legged frog breeding and juvenile metamorphosis seasons. It is unlikely
that vegetation control would be needed during the breeding period, as
the primary time for explosive vegetative growth is during the warm
summer months. However, vegetation control may be necessary prior to
juvenile California red-legged frog metamorphosis, which could result
in take of pre-adult California red-legged frogs.
Mechanical controls may perturb the breeding habitat or cause death
or injury to resident California red-legged frogs; however, these
impacts would be restricted in time to singular control events. In
contrast, chemical control using aquatic herbicides may have little
immediate physical impact on California red-legged frogs or breeding
habitat, but may negatively impact California red-legged frog health or
reproductive fitness for an indefinite time beyond the control event.
Hayes et al. (2006) has shown adverse growth and developmental effects
can result from low (0.1 parts per billion) concentrations of a
combination of pesticides. In addition, because aquatic herbicides
disperse throughout a water body, all California red-legged frogs
within the water body may potentially be exposed.
We recognize that routine aquatic vegetation control may be
essential for the continued operation of stock ponds, and that this
activity may not be readily adapted (e.g., postpone control until after
California red-legged frog use of stock pond is discontinued) to avoid
take of the California red-legged frog. Although both mechanical and
chemical controls have the potential to negatively impact California
red-legged frogs, we believe mechanical controls pose less long-term
risk to breeding populations of California red-legged frogs. The
Service discourages the addition of fish to stock ponds (for
recreational use and vegetation control) that are, or could be, used by
California red-legged frogs. Nonnative, warm water fish can
significantly decrease the survivorship of juvenile California red-
legged frogs (Alvarez et al. 2003). For the reasons outlined above, the
routine activity of aquatic vegetation control in ranching operation
stock ponds is included in this special rule. While chemical control of
aquatic vegetation in stock ponds is included under the special rule
exemption, the Service recommends that this activity be conducted only
outside of the general breeding season (November through April) and
juvenile stage (April through September) of the California red-legged frog.
Mosquito abatement in aquatic systems is similar to vegetation
management, in that several control methods exist. The aquatic mosquito
larvae can be controlled by chemical larvicides (e.g., temephos and
methoprene), bacterial larvicides, or biological organisms (e.g.,
predaceous mosquitofish). In addition, mosquito larvae can be
controlled through breeding source reduction and proper water
management. Bacterial larvicides are especially target-specific, and
likely pose little risk to California red-legged frogs using a stock
pond; however, these products must be applied in specific timeframes
during larval mosquito development to be efficacious. A broader range
of non-target effects may be seen from chemical larvicides, with the
potential for direct impacts on higher order taxonomic groups such as
frogs (Ankley et al. 1998; Sparling and Lowe 1998). Biological
organisms such as mosquitofish may become established in the affected
water body and compete for resources with juvenile California red-
legged frogs. Lawler et al. (1999) found mosquitofish did not affect
the survival of California red-legged frog tadpoles; however, tadpoles
weighed 34 percent less at metamorphosis than did tadpoles that
developed in the absence of mosquitofish competition.
While mosquito control in stock ponds may be a routine activity on
ranching operations, we believe it unlikely that control would be
necessary during much of the California red-legged frog breeding
season, as this period coincides with the rainy winter and spring
months. However, when control cannot be avoided during the latter part
of the California red-legged frog breeding season, we believe mosquito
control activities can be readily adapted to prevent or minimize
potential take of California red-legged
[[Page 19288]]
frogs by appropriate water level management and/or the proper
application of bacterial larvicides. For this reason, these routine
activities are included in this special rule. Also included in the
special rule is the routine activity of properly applying (i.e.,
following label directions and product precautions) either chemical or
bacterial larvicides into ranching operation stock ponds outside of the
California red-legged frog general breeding season. This exemption for
routine mosquito control activities from the take prohibitions under
section 9 of the Act does not include the purposeful introduction at
any time of nonnative biological organisms (e.g., western mosquitofish
(Gambusia affinis), other predatory warm water fish such as bluegill or
bass, or bullfrogs) that may prey on California red-legged frog adults,
larvae, or eggs.
Rodent Control. California red-legged frogs may use small mammal
rodent burrows during summer months during upland foraging excursions
(Tatarian 2004; Fellers and Kleeman 2005); however, it is unknown the
extent to which small mammal burrows are essential for the conservation
of the California red-legged frog.
Burrowing rodents, particularly the California ground squirrel, may
pose problems for livestock ranching operations to such an extent that
control measures are necessary. Ground squirrels in sufficient numbers
may deplete livestock forage, while their burrows may be a physical
hazard for humans, livestock, and ranching machinery (N. Cremers, in
litt. 2003). Common control measures for these rodents include
shooting, poisoning with approved pesticides, and mechanical
modification of burrow complexes (Salmon and Gorenzel 2002). While
shooting of ground squirrels poses little risk to California red-legged
frogs, the application of pesticides may result in take of the
California red-legged frog. Because the location of burrow complexes
cannot be predicted or controlled, rodent control measures must be
site-specific and cannot be redirected. Thus, the activity of
controlling ground squirrels may not be readily adapted to avoid
implementation in California red-legged frog habitats. However, because
various control options are available that may minimize or prevent the
potential for take of California red-legged frog, routine rodent
control activities are included in this special rule.
Burrowing Rodent Control by Pesticide Application. Controlling
burrowing rodents with pesticides is generally accomplished through the
application of toxicant-treated grains, which are ingested by the
target animals, or by the introduction of fumigants (e.g., toxic or
suffocating gasses) into burrow complexes. Fumigants are not target-
specific, and all organisms inhabiting a treated burrow complex will
likely be subject to the effects of the pesticide (i.e., toxicant
exposure or oxygen depletion). Although specific data are not available
on the effects of fumigants on the California red-legged frog, the
permeable skin of amphibians is likely to increase susceptibility to
adverse effects from exposure to toxicants (Henry 2000). We believe it
is necessary to reduce the impact of fumigants on sheltering California
red-legged frogs. Based on the habitat requirement estimates presented
above, we recommend not using burrow fumigants within 0.7 mi (1.2 km)
in any direction from a water body, natural or human-made, suitable for
California red-legged frog breeding. The application of fumigants
outside of this area restriction is not prohibited. However, in areas
where California red-legged frogs and California tiger salamanders
coexist, the use of burrow fumigants is prohibited, and the prohibition
of take under section 9 of the Act still applies.
Toxicant-treated grains, primarily using anticoagulant compounds,
may be applied by several methods to control burrowing rodents
(Silberhorn et al. 2003). Grains may be broadcast over the ground
surface at defined rates, placed in confined bait stations, or placed
into burrow openings. Ground squirrels and other rodents ingest these
baits, and mortality of the exposed animal results from internal
hemorrhaging. No data were found on the toxicity of these anticoagulant
compounds to California red-legged frogs, although it is possible that
exposure to these baits may cause similar adverse effects in California
red-legged frogs. It is highly unlikely that California red-legged
frogs would directly ingest any grains encountered; however, indirect
exposure to the pesticides through dermal contact may occur if the
treated grains are placed into California red-legged frog-occupied
burrows. In addition, there may be potential for secondary exposure
from this application method if sheltering California red-legged frogs
consume burrow-dwelling invertebrates that have ingested the treated
grains. While no definitive risk assessment can be made for these
possible exposures, we believe this application method would result in
an increased risk for take of the California red-legged frog and should
therefore be avoided whenever possible.
California red-legged frogs may also face these potential indirect
and secondary exposures from the broadcast and bait station application
methods. However, by widely dispersing the treated grains over the
ground surface, the broadcast application method likely reduces the
probability of migrating California red-legged frogs being exposed
through dermal contact or through ingestion of exposed invertebrates.
Similarly, it is unlikely that California red-legged frogs would enter
a confined bait station, further reducing the probability of exposure.
While we do not endorse the use of rodenticides for ground squirrel or
other rodent control, we believe the use of rodenticides present a low
risk to California red-legged frog conservation. For the reasons
outlined above, broadcast and confined bait station application as part
of routine livestock ranch operation are included in the special rule.
Burrowing Rodent Control by Habitat Modification. Colonies of
ground squirrels and other burrowing rodents are sometimes controlled
by using cultivation equipment to destroy or modify burrow complexes.
The technique of deep-ripping is likely to result in complete
destruction of the burrow complex and eradication of the rodent colony.
Any California red-legged frogs using these burrows as sheltering sites
would also likely be killed by this activity. Discing of these burrow
systems, followed by surface grading, removes the physical hazard of
open holes and may successfully suppress the rodent colony. This
process may not destroy the entire burrow complex; some burrows may
remain intact. However, sheltering California red-legged frogs may also
suffer substantial mortality from this control method.
While modification of a burrow complex may aid in controlling a
rodent colony, the primary benefit of such modification for ranching
operations is the elimination of the physical hazards associated with
burrows and burrow openings (N. Cremers, in litt. 2003). This may be
particularly important for areas where livestock congregate in large
numbers, such as corrals and stock pond watering sites. Because stock
ponds have become important alternative breeding sites for the
California red-legged frog, the extent of potential take may be
directly related to the intensity of burrow complex modification around
such sites. Large-scale modification of these habitats around a stock
pond known to support California red-legged frogs would have the
potential to eliminate or drastically
[[Page 19289]]
reduce a localized breeding population of the California red-legged
frog. As discussed previously, the majority of a localized breeding
California red-legged frog population may be found in an area of
adjacent upland habitat extending up to 0.7 mi (1.2 km) in any
direction from the breeding pond.
The Service recognizes that physical modification of rodent burrow
complexes may be an essential activity to ranching operations. However,
while habitat modification may not be a widespread practice for
livestock ranches, we believe that an unmoderated approach to this
activity could have the potential for large-scale take of the
California red-legged frog in certain locales. Adverse effects upon
California red-legged frog that could result from large-scale
modifications could include both direct injury or mortality and
significant loss of suitable sheltering habitats. We believe that a
focused approach to burrow habitat modification would serve to achieve
the dual goals of minimizing take of the California red-legged frog and
reducing livestock ranching losses. To this end, rodent control through
burrow modification is included in this special rule; however, the
Service recommends that discing and/or grading of burrows should be
limited to those areas where livestock congregate or move in large
numbers. The Service also recommends that modification by deep-ripping
be avoided within 0.7 mi (1.2 km) of known or potential California red-
legged frog breeding ponds. We recognize that discing and/or grading
around stock ponds or other suitable breeding pools may increase the
risk to California red-legged frogs, and we encourage ranch operators
to minimize the modification footprint around these sites as much as
possible. We will continue to work with the livestock ranching
community in developing and refining ways to attain these dual objectives.
Fire Prevention Management. In order to prevent or minimize the
spread of wildfires in rangelands, livestock ranches may need to
construct fire breaks in various places throughout the property. These
fire breaks may be constructed by using cultivation equipment to create
swaths of unvegetated land along property boundaries or between fields.
If these fire breaks are constructed over rodent burrow complexes that
may be used for sheltering by the California red-legged frog, there is
the potential for take of the California red-legged frog. However, the
Service recognizes the critical importance of fire prevention
management in rangelands, and is thereby including this routine
ranching activity in this special rule.
Monitor Impacts on the California Red-legged Frog. While it appears
that the California red-legged frog may benefit from the creation of
stock ponds and the prevention of rangeland conversion to unsuitable
habitat throughout its range, much remains to be learned about the
effects of livestock ranching activities on the California red-legged
frog. We have concluded that developing a conservation partnership with
the livestock ranching community will allow us to answer important
questions about the impact of various ranching activities, and will
provide valuable information to assist in the recovery of the
subspecies. We further believe that, where consistent with the
discretion provided by the Act, implementing policies that promote such
partnerships is an essential component for the recovery of listed
species, particularly where the subspecies occur on private lands.
Conservation partnerships can provide positive incentives to private
landowners to voluntarily conserve natural resources, and can remove or
reduce disincentives to conservation (Wilcove et al. 1996; Knight 1999;
Main et al. 1999; Norton 2000; Bean 2002; Conner and Matthews 2002;
Crouse et al. 2002; James 2002; Koch 2002). The Service will work
closely with the ranching community and others in developing ways to
monitor impacts on the California red-legged frog from the routine
activities described above. We conclude this commitment is necessary
and appropriate, and will provide further insights into land
stewardship practices that foster the continued use of California's
rangelands in ways beneficial to both the California red-legged frog
and the livestock ranching community.
We recognize many of the threats as described in the previous final
listing rule (61 FR 25813) still affect the survival of the California
red-legged frog. However, as mentioned and outlined in the proposed
rule (70 FR 66906) our understanding of the threats of livestock
grazing and stock pond development described in the previous final
listing of the subspecies has changed. Below we present a threats
analysis of the special rule as it relates to the threats outlined in
the final listing rule for the California red-legged frog (61 FR 25813)
and our current understanding of the role of livestock grazing and
stock pond development and maintenance.
Factor A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the subspecies' habitat or range. The final listing rule
for the California red-legged frog (61 FR 5813) cites habitat loss and
alteration as primary factors that have negatively affected the
California red-legged frog. Grazing and ranching operations throughout
the range of the California red-legged frog maintain large undeveloped
areas which can provide suitable upland and aquatic habitat for the
California red-legged frog. We recognize that most ranching operations
operate on a thin financial margin, and additional regulatory
requirements could push some operations to bankruptcy. We believe that
sensible ranching operations are compatible with California red-legged
frog conservation and recovery, while alternate land uses such as high
density urban development, which could replace failed ranching
operations, are not compatible. To the extent ranching activities are
compatible with the California red-legged frog, we wish to encourage
such activities to continue. We believe that relaxing the general take
prohibitions on specific types of non-Federal lands through the special
rule is likely to encourage continued responsible ranching, a land use
that can provide an overall benefit to the conservation of the
California red-legged frog. The promulgation of this special rule has
the potential to reduce the threat of habitat loss due to conversion to
other land uses which are incompatible with California red-legged frog
conservation.
Livestock grazing was also cited in the final listing rule as a
contributing factor to the decline of the California red-legged frog.
While we still recognize unmanaged overgrazing as a threat, our
understanding of some grazing practices have changed as we outline in
the November 3, 2005 revised proposed rule (70 FR 66906). We now
recognize that managed livestock grazing at low to moderate levels has
a neutral or beneficial effect on California red-legged frog habitat
(Bobzien et al. 2000) by keeping a mix of open water habitat and
emergent vegetation which is beneficial to the subspecies. In some
cases, without managed grazing, stock ponds would quickly fill with
emergent vegetation resulting in habitat loss (Bobzien pers. comm.
2005). We provide an exemption of take of the California red-legged
frog for livestock grazing according to normally acceptable and
established levels of intensity in terms of the number of head of
livestock per acre of rangeland. Our basis for not attempting to
regulate routine ranching activities is that, ultimately, we believe
that a rancher acting in the best interest
[[Page 19290]]
of maintaining a sustainable ranching operation is also providing
incidental but significant conservation benefits for the California
red-legged frog.
Overall we believe that promulgation of this rule may reduce the
threat of habitat loss by reducing any real or perceived regulatory
controls over rangelands. This would promote sustainable ranches which
would help perpetuate maintenance of habitat for California red-legged
frog populations.
Factor B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific,
or educational purposes. We know of no information to document or
suggest routine ranching activities as outlined above contribute to the
commercial, recreational, scientific or educational overutilization use
of the California red-legged frog. Overall, we believe the threats of
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational
purposes do not exist within the context of the exemptions provided in
the special rule, and do not change as a result of this promulgated rule.
Factor C. Disease or predation. Stock ponds created and maintained
as part of a ranching operation can provide suitable breeding and non-
breeding aquatic habitat for the California red-legged frog. The
intentional introduction of nonnative predators, including warm water
fish and bullfrogs, is not exempt from the take prohibition. We realize
that natural colonization of stock ponds by bullfrogs could occur, and
in some instances of California red-legged frog occupied ponds, could
result in the local extirpation of the subspecies. As we mention above,
drawdown of stock ponds after juvenile metamorphosis would be desirable
in some instances for control of bullfrogs and nonnative predatory fish
that prey on California red-legged frogs and can significantly reduce
juvenile and adult survival. Although stock pond hydroperiods can
theoretically be readily adapted to avoid take by maintaining an
optimal breeding period for the California red-legged frog, we
recognize that the continued viability of a livestock ranching
operation may depend on the flexibility to make these hydroperiod
adjustments on short notice. We do exempt routine management and
maintenance of stock ponds and berms to maintain livestock water
supplies. However, we are not exempting the intentional introduction of
species into a stock pond, including non-native fish and bullfrogs,
which may prey on California red-legged frog adults, larvae, or eggs.
The promulgation of this rule, we believe will not significantly change
the nature of threat from disease or predation.
Factor D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The
promulgation of this rule will not modify any existing regulatory
mechanisms, except for rangelands covered by the rule itself.
Regulatory control over rangelands is modified by this rule, but
overall, we believe that this rule will provide some overall benefit to
species conservation within these areas.
Factor E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting the
subspecies' continued existence. The May 23, 1996, final listing rule
for the California red-legged frog (61 FR 25813) cites drought, the
overall effect of contaminants, wildfire, extensive flooding, and
habitat fragmentation as other factors that threaten the subspecies. As
described above under Factor A, we believe the exemption of routine
ranching activities would promote the preservation of large open tracts
of ranching/grazing lands. Preserving ranching and grazing lands is
expected to assist in preventing further habitat fragmentation in that
portion of the subspecies' range. Many of these threats are ongoing and
probably will occur in areas covered by this special rule under 4(d) of
the Act.
Conclusion. We believe that threats discussed in the original
listing rule are still present, and the threatened status of the
species is still appropriate. However, we believe that the outcome of
the special rule under 4(d) of the Act will be to promote the
conservation of rangelands and reduce the rate of conversion to other
land uses which are incompatible with frog conservation. Thus, we
anticipate that the effect of Factor A on the California red-legged
frog may be reduced with promulgation of this special rule under 4(d)
of the Act.
In our re-evaluation of our April 13, 2004 (69 FR 19620), proposed
critical habitat, we identified that a technical error was present in
50 CFR Sec. 17.11 concerning the extent of the geographic range for
which the California red-legged frog is listed. The extent of the
geographic range has been corrected to reflect the entire range of the
subspecies.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a
significant rule because it may raise novel legal and policy issues.
However, based on our economic analysis, it is not anticipated that
this designation of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog
will result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more
or affect the economy in a material way. Due to the timeline for
publication in the Federal Register, the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has not formally reviewed the rule or accompanying
economic analysis.
Further, Executive Order 12866 directs Federal Agencies
promulgating regulations to evaluate regulatory alternatives (Office of
Management and Budget, Circular A-4, September 17, 2003). Pursuant to
Circular A-4, once it has been determined that the Federal regulatory
action is appropriate, then the agency will need to consider
alternative regulatory approaches. Since the determination of critical
habitat is a statutory requirement pursuant to the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we must then
evaluate alternative regulatory approaches, where feasible, when
promulgating a designation of critical habitat.
In developing our designations of critical habitat, we consider
economic impacts, impacts to national security, and other relevant
impacts pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the discretion
allowable under this provision, we may exclude any particular area from
the designation of critical habitat providing that the benefits of such
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as critical
habitat and that such exclusion would not result in the extinction of
the subspecies. As such, we believe that the evaluation of the
inclusion or exclusion of particular areas, or combination thereof, in
a designation constitutes our regulatory alternative analysis.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996),
whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for
any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for
public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the
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 SBREFA amended the RFA to
require Federal agencies to provide a statement of factual basis for
certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA
[[Page 19291]]
also amended the RFA to require a certification statement.
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; as well as small businesses. 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 consider the types of
activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule, as
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general,
the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm's business operations.
To determine if the rule could significantly affect a substantial
number of small entities, we consider the number of small entities
affected within particular types of economic activities (e.g., housing
development, grazing, oil and gas production, timber harvesting). We
apply the ``substantial number'' test individually to each industry to
determine if certification is appropriate. However, the SBREFA does not
explicitly define ``substantial number'' or ``significant economic
impact.'' Consequently, to assess whether a ``substantial number'' of
small entities is affected by this designation, this analysis considers
the relative number of small entities likely to be impacted in an area.
In some circumstances, especially with critical habitat designations of
limited extent, we may aggregate across all industries and consider
whether the total number of small entities affected is substantial. In
estimating the number of small entities potentially affected, we also
consider whether their activities have any Federal involvement.
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted,
funded, or permitted by Federal agencies. Some kinds of activities are
unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by
critical habitat designation. In areas where the subspecies 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. 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.
The designation of critical habitat is not expected to result in
significant small business impacts since revenue losses would be less
than one percent of total small business revenues in affected areas.
The impacts on small business, small governments, and small nonprofits
are expected to be negligible. The annual number of affected small
firms is fewer than two for all counties examined. Counties not
examined have even smaller small business losses. Consequently, fewer
than three small firms are projected to have annual revenue losses
equal to their expected annual revenues as a consequence of critical
habitat designation.
In general, two different mechanisms in section 7 consultations
could lead to additional regulatory requirements for the approximately
four small businesses, on average, that may be required to consult with
us each year regarding a project's impact on the California red-legged
frog and its habitat. First, if we conclude, in a biological opinion,
that a proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a species or adversely modify its critical habitat, we can offer
``reasonable and prudent alternatives.'' Reasonable and prudent
alternatives are alternative actions that can be implemented in a
manner consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal
authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and technologically
feasible, and that would avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of
listed species or result in adverse modification of critical habitat. A
Federal agency and an applicant may elect to implement a reasonable and
prudent alternative associated with a biological opinion that has found
jeopardy or adverse modification of critical habitat. An agency or
applicant could alternatively choose to seek an exemption from the
requirements of the Act or proceed without implementing the reasonable
and prudent alternative. However, unless an exemption were obtained,
the Federal agency or applicant would be at risk of violating section
7(a)(2) of the Act if it chose to proceed without implementing the
reasonable and prudent alternatives.
Second, if we find that a proposed action is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed animal or plant species,
we may identify reasonable and prudent measures designed to minimize
the amount or extent of take and require the Federal agency or
applicant to implement such measures through non-discretionary terms
and conditions. We may also identify discretionary conservation
recommendations designed to minimize or avoid the adverse effects of a
proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, help implement
recovery plans, or to develop information that could contribute to the
recovery of the species.
Based on our experience with consultations pursuant to section 7 of
the Act for all listed species, virtually all projects--including those
that, in their initial proposed form, would result in jeopardy or
adverse modification determinations in section 7 consultations--can be
implemented successfully with, at most, the adoption of reasonable and
prudent alternatives. These measures, by definition, must be
economically feasible and within the scope of authority of the Federal
agency involved in the consultation. We can only describe the general
kinds of actions that may be identified in future reasonable and
prudent alternatives. These are based on our understanding of the needs
of the subspecies and the threats it faces, as described in the final
listing rule (61 FR 25813) and this critical habitat designation.
Within the final critical habitat units, the types of Federal actions
or authorized activities that we have identified as potential concerns are:
(1) Regulation of activities affecting waters of the United States
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean
Water Act;
(2) Regulation of water flows, damming, diversion, and
channelization implemented or licensed by Federal agencies;
(3) Regulation of timber harvest, grazing, mining, and recreation
by the USFS and BLM;
(4) Road construction and maintenance, right-of-way designation,
and regulation of agricultural activities;
(5) Hazard mitigation and post-disaster repairs funded by the FEMA;
and
(6) Activities authorized or funded by the EPA, U.S. Department of
Energy, or any other Federal agency.
It is likely that a developer or other project proponent could
modify a project or take measures to protect California red-legged
frogs. The kinds of actions that may be included if future
[[Page 19292]]
reasonable and prudent alternatives become necessary include
conservation set-asides, management of competing non-native species,
restoration of degraded habitat, and regular monitoring. These are
based on our understanding of the needs of the subspecies and the
threats it faces, as described in the final listing rule (61 FR 25813)
and revised proposed critical habitat designation (70 FR 66906). These
measures are not likely to result in a significant economic impact to
project proponents.
In summary, we have considered whether this rule would result in a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.
We have determined, for the above reasons and based on currently
available information, that it is not likely to affect a substantial
number of small entities. Federal involvement, and thus section 7
consultations, would be limited to a subset of the area designated. The
most likely Federal involvement could include U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers permits, permits we may issue under section 10(a)(1)(B) of
the Act, FHA funding for road improvements, hydropower licenses issued
by FERC, and regulation of timber harvest, grazing, mining, and recreation
by the USFS and BLM. A regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C 801 et seq.)
Under SBREFA, this rule is not a major rule. Our detailed
assessment of the economic effects of this designation is described in
the economic analysis. Based on the effects identified in the economic
analysis, we believe that this rule will not have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more, will not cause a major increase in
costs or prices for consumers, and will not have significant adverse
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with
foreign-based enterprises. Refer to the final economic analysis for a
discussion of the effects of this determination. (See ADDRESSES section
for information on obtaining a copy of the final economic analysis.)
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This final rule to
designate critical habitat for the California red-legged frog is not
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use.
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, Tribal
governments, or the private sector and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding'' and the State, local, or Tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. (At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work
programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants;
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption
Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services;
and Child Support Enforcement.) ``Federal private sector mandate''
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the
private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities who receive Federal
funding, assistance, permits or otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat
rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that
non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive
Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program,
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would critical
habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above
on to State governments.
(b) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal mandate
of $100 million or greater in any year, that is, it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. The designation of critical habitat imposes no obligations on
State or local governments. As such, Small Government Agency Plan is
not required.
Federalism
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. In keeping with DOI and Department of Commerce policy, we
requested information from, and coordinated development of, this final
critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource agencies
in California. The designation of critical habitat in areas currently
occupied by the California red-legged frog may impose nominal
additional regulatory restrictions to those currently in place and,
therefore, may have little incremental impact on State and local
governments and their activities. The designation may have some benefit
to these governments in that the areas that contain the features
essential to the conservation of the subspecies are more clearly
defined, and the primary constituent elements of the habitat necessary
to the conservation of the subspecies are specifically identified.
While making this definition and identification does not alter where
and what Federally sponsored activities may occur, it may assist these
local governments in long-range planning (rather than waiting for case-
by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order. We are
[[Continued on page 19293]]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[[pp. 19293-19342]]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog, and Special Rule
Exemption Associated With Final Listing for Existing Routine Ranching
Activities
[[Continued from page 19292]]
[[Page 19293]]
designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act. This final rule uses standard property
descriptions and identifies the primary constituent elements within the
designated areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat
needs of the California red-legged frog.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule
will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or
local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
It is our position that, outside the Tenth Circuit, we do not need
to prepare environmental analyses as defined by the NEPA in connection
with designating critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this
determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244). This assertion was upheld in the courts of the Ninth Circuit
(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 1995), cert.
denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996).)
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department
of Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have determined that
there are no Tribal lands occupied at the time of listing that contain
the features essential for the conservation of the subspecies, nor are
there any unoccupied Tribal lands that are essential for the
conservation of the California red-legged frog. Therefore, critical
habitat for the California red-legged frog has not been designated on
Tribal lands.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is
available upon request from the Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Author(s)
The primary authors of this notice are staff from the Sacramento,
Ventura, and Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Offices (see ADDRESSES section).
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 Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Amphibians
* * * * * * *
Frog, California red-legged...... Rana aurora U.S.A. (CA), Mexico. Entire.............. T 583 17.95(d) 17.43
draytonii.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
? 3. Amend Sec. 17.43 by adding a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.43 Special rules-amphibians.
* * * * *
(d) California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii).
(1) Which populations of the California red-legged frog are covered
by this special rule? This rule covers the California red-legged frog
(Rana aurora draytonii) rangewide.
(2) What activities are prohibited? Except as noted in paragraph
(d)(3) of this section, all prohibitions of Sec. 17.31 will apply to
the California red-legged frog.
(3) What activities are allowed on private or Tribal land?
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. Routine
ranching activities include, but are not limited to, the following:
(i) Livestock grazing according to normally acceptable and
established levels of intensity in terms of the number of head of
livestock per acre of rangeland;
(ii) Control of ground-burrowing rodents using poisonous grain
according to the labeled directions and local, State, and Federal
regulations and guidelines (In areas where California red-legged frogs
and California tiger salamanders coexist, the use of toxic or
suffocating gases is not exempt from the prohibitions due to their
nontarget-specific mode of action.);
(iii) Control and management of burrow complexes using discing and
grading to destroy burrows and fill openings (This exemption does not
apply to areas within 0.7 mi (1.2 km) of known or potential California
red-legged frog breeding ponds.);
(iv) Routine management and maintenance of stock ponds and berms to
maintain livestock water supplies (This exemption does not include the
intentional introduction of species into
[[Page 19294]]
a stock pond (including non-native fish and bullfrogs) that may prey on
California red-legged frog adults, larvae, or eggs.);
(v) Routine maintenance or construction of fences for grazing
management;
(vi) Planting, harvest, or rotation of unirrigated forage crops as
part of a rangeland livestock operation;
(vii) Maintenance and construction of livestock management
facilities such as corrals, sheds, and other ranch outbuildings;
(viii) Repair and maintenance of unimproved ranch roads (This
exemption does not include improvement, upgrade, or construction of new
roads.);
(ix) Discing of fencelines or perimeter areas for fire prevention
control;
(x) Placement of mineral supplements; and
(xi) Control and management of noxious weeds.
? 4. Amend Sec. 17.95(d) by revising critical habitat for the 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 aurora draytonii)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Alameda, Butte, Contra
Costa, El Dorado, Kern, Los Angeles, Marin, Merced, Monterey, Napa,
Nevada, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa
Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, 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
salinities less than 7.0 parts per thousand (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.
(ii) Non-Breeding Aquatic Habitat. Fresh water habitats as
described above, that may or may not hold water long enough for the
subspecies to hatch and complete its aquatic life cycle but that do
provide for shelter, foraging, predator avoidance, and aquatic
dispersal for juvenile and adult California red-legged frogs. Other
wetland habitats that would be considered to meet these elements
include, but are not limited to: Plunge pools within intermittent
creeks; seeps; quiet water refugia during high water flows; and springs
of sufficient flow to withstand the summer dry period.
(iii) Upland Habitat. Upland areas within 200 ft (60 m) of the edge
of the riparian vegetation or dripline surrounding aquatic and riparian
habitat and comprised of various vegetational series such as
grasslands, woodlands, and/or wetland/riparian plant species that
provides the frog shelter, forage, and predator avoidance. 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 wetland or riparian habitat. These upland
features contribute to the filling and drying of the wetland or
riparian habitat and are responsible for maintaining suitable periods
of pool inundation for larval frogs and their food sources, and provide
breeding, 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 can include structural features such as boulders, rocks
and organic debris (e.g., downed trees, logs), as well as small mammal
burrows and moist leaf litter.
(iv) Dispersal Habitat. Accessible upland or riparian dispersal
habitat within designated units and between occupied locations within
0.7 mi (1.2 km) of each other that allow for movement between such
sites. Dispersal habitat includes various natural habitats and altered
habitats such as agricultural fields, which also do not contain
barriers to dispersal. (An example of a barrier to dispersal is a
heavily traveled road constructed without bridges or culverts.)
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 reservoirs over 50 ac (20 ha) in size, or other
areas that do not contain those features identified in paragraphs 2(i),
(ii), or (iii) as essential to the conservation of the subspecies.
(3) Critical habitat does not include man-made structures existing
on May 15, 2006, 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) Index map of the critical habitat units in northern California
for California red-legged frog, follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 19295]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR13AP06.000
(5) Index map of the critical habitat units in southern California
for the California red-legged frog, follows:
[[Page 19296]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR13AP06.001
(6) Unit BUT-1: Butte County, California.
(i) Unit BUT-1A: Butte County, California. From USGS 1:24,000 scale
quadrangle Berry Creek. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10,
NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 636014, 4398157; 635988, 4397179; 635183,
4397763; 634514, 4397948; 634511, 4398157; 634504, 4398602; 636026,
4398626; returning to 636014, 4398157.
(ii) Unit BUT-1B: Butte County, California. From USGS 1:24,000
scale quadrangle Berry Creek and Brush Creek. Land bounded by the
following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 639158, 4398542; 639158,
[[Page 19297]]
4398541; 639162, 4398541; 639356, 4398550; 639519, 4398557; 639628,
4398345; 640086, 4398179; 640211, 4397826; 640211, 4397826; 639961,
4397731; 640006, 4396948; 639187, 4396960; 639186, 4396974; 637634,
4396983; 637652, 4395435; 637065, 4395560; 637131, 4395999; 637040,
4396417; 636462, 4396956; 636835, 4396964; 636840, 4397249; 637236,
4397279; 637232, 4398141; 636881, 4398134; 636851, 4398620; 637230,
4398623; 637230, 4398948; 637614, 4398951; 637599, 4398614; 638035,
4398594; 638033, 4398108; 638391, 4398097; 638437, 4397694; 638816,
4397686; 638814, 4398059; 639169, 4398061; 639152, 4398538; 638426,
4398576; 638441, 4399315; 639162, 4399250; 639158, returning to
4398542; and excluding land bound by 638797, 4397490; 638801, 4397274;
639181, 4397286; 639178, 4397495; returning to 638797, 4397490.
(iii) Note: Unit BUT-1 (Map 3) follows:
[[Page 19298]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR13AP06.002
(7) Unit YUB-1, Yuba County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Challenge. Land bounded by
the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N):656980, 4365996;
[[Page 19299]]
656963, 4366384; 656120, 4366359; 656148, 4365966; 656980, 4365996;
657043, 4364816; 657742, 4364812; 657772, 4364057; 657015, 4363927;
656165, 4364014; 656168, 4362832; 655836, 4362878; 655558, 4363109;
655202, 4363849; 655669, 4364315; 655690, 4364586; 655027, 4365526;
654779, 4365758; 654445, 4365837; 654319, 4366013; 654149, 4366639;
653990, 4366874; 653883, 4367381; 653710, 4367531; 653751, 4368687;
656133, 4368825; 656096, 4367969; 657473, 4368012; 657481, 4367769;
657690, 4367431; 657689, 4367226; 657934, 4367235; 658905, 4366554;
659222, 4366053; 659360, 4365977; 659370, 4365689; 658988, 4365675;
658726, 4365936; 658571, 4365925; 658565, 4366039; 658336, 4366076;
657704, 4366025; 657709, 4365629; 657364, 4365618; 657333, 4365997;
returning to 656980, 4365996.
(ii) Note: Unit YUB-1 is depicted on Map 4--Unit YUB-1 and NEV-
1; see paragraph (8)(ii):
(8) Unit NEV-1, Nevada County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Nevada City and North
Bloomfield. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83
coordinates (E,N):676693, 4356744; 676962, 4356305; 677130, 4356317;
677130, 4356317; 677306, 4356068; 677670, 4355985; 677882, 4356056;
678051, 4356296; 678231, 4356310; 678277, 4355825; 678217, 4355664;
678320, 4355521; 678448, 4355341; 678417, 4355258; 678120, 4355258;
678022, 4355505; 677872, 4355497; 677839, 4355496; 677890, 4355253;
677791, 4355212; 677142, 4354929; 678242, 4353900; 678000, 4353891;
678010, 4352268; 677172, 4352234; 677188, 4351077; 676817, 4351057;
676812, 4350531; 676440, 4350485; 676117, 4350571; 675325, 4350412;
675293, 4350711; 675063, 4351133; 672710, 4351546; 672074, 4351586;
670738, 4352158; 670705, 4352783; 670633, 4354099; 670847, 4354102;
671174, 4353907; 671425, 4353854; 671435, 4353852; 671437, 4353664;
672180, 4353672; 672195, 4353656; 672287, 4353562; 672450, 4353566;
672938, 4353818; 672900, 4353937; 672900, 4353937; 673158, 4353946;
673148, 4354137; 672855, 4354130; 672757, 4354434; 673117, 4354665;
673122, 4354681; 673144, 4354750; 673253, 4355088; 673222, 4355269;
673188, 4355465; 673229, 4355515; 673283, 4355581; 673316, 4355516;
673402, 4355344; 673475, 4355349; 674072, 4355387; 674698, 4355703;
674907, 4355945; 675027, 4355928; 675578, 4355648; 675622, 4355625;
675647, 4355612; 675763, 4355477; 675770, 4355334; 675773, 4355263;
675947, 4355197; 676036, 4355164; 676143, 4355418; 676445, 4355779;
676456, 4356381; returning to 676693, 4356744.
(ii) Note: Unit NEV-11 is depicted on Map 4--Unit YUB-1 and NEV-
1; which follows:
[[Page 19300]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR13AP06.003
(9) Unit ELD-1: El Dorado County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Camino, Pollock Pines and
Sly Park. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83
[[Page 19301]]
coordinates (E,N):712379, 4292813; 712379, 4292406; 712447, 4292408;
712357, 4292219; 712201, 4292042; 711866, 4291905; 711680, 4291585;
711576, 4291195; 711182, 4290958; 710718, 4290490; 710054, 4290648;
709523, 4290568; 708873, 4289705; 708143, 4289015; 707771, 4289015;
707493, 4288896; 707161, 4288617; 707148, 4288404; 706245, 4287927;
705913, 4287369; 705568, 4287037; 705289, 4286586; 704068, 4286188;
703935, 4286055; 703696, 4286055; 703444, 4285816; 702900, 4285564;
702422, 4285219; 702369, 4285524; 702618, 4285934; 702683, 4286195;
702470, 4286461; 701885, 4286497; 701891, 4286789; 701757, 4286837;
701495, 4286860; 701263, 4286770; 700823, 4287009; 700042, 4286915;
699847, 4287036; 699171, 4287213; 698928, 4287502; 698765, 4287582;
698754, 4287797; 698937, 4288006; 699302, 4288030; 699587, 4288228;
700848, 4288565; 701165, 4288948; 702025, 4289287; 702406, 4289714;
702679, 4289855; 702774, 4289856; 702774, 4289849; 702848, 4289851;
703038, 4289857; 703074, 4289922; 703126, 4289926; 703129, 4290021;
703254, 4290250; 703584, 4290256; 703585, 4290257; 703590, 4290257;
703590, 4290266; 703950, 4290938; 704423, 4290921; 704803, 4291038;
704899, 4290959; 705129, 4290959; 705303, 4290355; 705172, 4290348;
705178, 4289926; 705574, 4289921; 705596, 4290371; 705522, 4290367;
705493, 4290545; 705761, 4290578; 705811, 4290733; 705924, 4290751;
705932, 4290340; 706320, 4290350; 706369, 4289576; 706803, 4289579;
706764, 4289998; 706666, 4289998; 706655, 4290187; 706578, 4290186;
706574, 4290369; 706777, 4290369; 706756, 4291450; 707659, 4291644;
708554, 4292134; 708989, 4292267; 709674, 4292706; 709766, 4292736;
709816, 4292639; 710327, 4293012; 712042, 4292979; returning to 712379,
4292813; and excluding land bound by 708426, 4291544; 708412, 4291176;
709003, 4291194; 709025, 4291561; returning to 708426, 4291544; and
excluding land bound by 707590, 4290430; 707003, 4290400; 706995,
4290008; 707594, 4290027; 707590, 4290430; 707995, 4290448; 708014,
4290791; 707587, 4290776; returning to 707590, 4290430; and excluding
land bound by 705960, 4289093; 705974, 4288722; 706388, 4288730;
706372, 4289105; 705960, 4289093; 705946, 4289741; 704959, 4289733;
704985, 4289548; 704386, 4289529; 704391, 4289082; returning to 705960,
4289093.
(ii) Note: Unit ELD-1 (Map 5) follows:
[[Page 19302]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR13AP06.004
(10) Unit NAP-1: Napa County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Capell Valley. Land bounded
by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N):571668,
[[Page 19303]]
4256238; 571744, 4256065; 572003, 4256097; 572230, 4255795; 572479,
4255665; 572879, 4255676; 573063, 4255384; 573603, 4255200; 573949,
4255535; 574100, 4255568; 574468, 4255395; 574835, 4255535; 575408,
4255427; 575408, 4255017; 575765, 4254649; 575808, 4254465; 575408,
4254033; 575214, 4253957; 575333, 4253892; 575419, 4253676; 575321,
4253562; 574972, 4253480; 574899, 4253535; 574411, 4253302; 573831,
4253776; 573386, 4253663; 572909, 4253921; 572328, 4253749; 572020,
4253414; 571495, 4253784; 571420, 4254184; 571204, 4254368; 570339,
4254400; 570079, 4254573; 569593, 4254725; 569474, 4254865; 569290,
4255416; 569344, 4255525; 570015, 4255676; 570207, 4255556; 570458,
4255211; 570966, 4255049; 571009, 4255752; 571117, 4256141; 571301,
4256141; 571560, 4256281; returning to 571668, 4256238.
(ii) Note: Unit NAP-1 (Map 6) follows:
[[Page 19304]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR13AP06.005
(11) Unit MRN-1, Marin County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Inverness, Petaluma and
Point Reyes NE. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83
[[Page 19305]]
coordinates (E,N): 512634, 4232438; 512942, 4232244; 513362, 4232450;
513734, 4232386; 513953, 4232187; 513849, 4231832; 513876, 4231594;
513952, 4231792; 514067, 4231818; 514431, 4231744; 514514, 4231516;
514879, 4231915; 515164, 4231822; 515265, 4231703; 515682, 4231600;
515889, 4231847; 516087, 4231574; 516369, 4231437; 517058, 4231285;
517463, 4231696; 517667, 4231496; 517811, 4231094; 518083, 4230966;
518308, 4231014; 518538, 4230841; 518822, 4230448; 518810, 4230285;
519137, 4230506; 519320, 4230466; 519594, 4230608; 519999, 4230511;
520239, 4230269; 519882, 4229855; 519849, 4229396; 519476, 4228998;
519042, 4228213; 518370, 4227840; 517943, 4228049; 517694, 4228069;
517400, 4227982; 517186, 4227771; 517250, 4227548; 517183, 4226684;
517345, 4226172; 517664, 4225822; 517996, 4225774; 518119, 4225599;
518363, 4225531; 518498, 4225403; 518968, 4225411; 519190, 4225560;
519810, 4225258; 520064, 4225362; 520277, 4225592; 520630, 4225713;
520910, 4225546; 521150, 4225647; 521560, 4225362; 521576, 4225682;
521667, 4225821; 521971, 4225822; 522179, 4225963; 522417, 4225897;
522749, 4226030; 523034, 4226041; 523698, 4225705; 524366, 4225189;
524595, 4225339; 524810, 4225202; 525135, 4225139; 525269, 4225297;
525742, 4225446; 525981, 4225301; 526083, 4225122; 526307, 4225022;
526330, 4224726; 526452, 4224537; 525811, 4224326; 525534, 4224449;
525206, 4224371; 525087, 4224261; 524671, 4224229; 524230, 4223937;
523743, 4223997; 523498, 4223688; 523161, 4223685; 522965, 4223495;
522613, 4223424; 522258, 4223101; 522271, 4222843; 522555, 4222444;
522613, 4222102; 522055, 4221641; 521969, 4221349; 521990, 4221082;
521763, 4220864; 521855, 4220541; 521774, 4220127; 521924, 4219896;
521494, 4219662; 521368, 4219377; 520678, 4218787; 520378, 4218869;
519872, 4218838; 519845, 4218996; 519642, 4219152; 519519, 4219421;
519233, 4219697; 518902, 4219651; 518147, 4219746; 517653, 4219916;
517225, 4219917; 516987, 4220313; 517367, 4221065; 517036, 4221398;
516444, 4221115; 515956, 4221049; 515114, 4221102; 514867, 4220920;
514755, 4220678; 514594, 4220665; 514360, 4221329; 514397, 4221492;
513978, 4221885; 513976, 4222125; 513628, 4222855; 513416, 4222692;
513134, 4222645; 512740, 4222361; 512112, 4222334; 511866, 4222643;
511826, 4222861; 511527, 4223048; 511437, 4223216; 511547, 4223360;
511501, 4223757; 511629, 4224296; 511844, 4224569; 511904, 4225113;
512157, 4225513; 512337, 4225573; 512356, 4225792; 512529, 4226054;
512756, 4226159; 513037, 4226157; 513607, 4226528; 513769, 4226828;
514078, 4226893; 514392, 4227258; 514388, 4227874; 512822, 4228591;
512598, 4229082; 512261, 4229363; 512328, 4229507; 512245, 4229751;
512645, 4230037; 512816, 4230363; 512685, 4231053; 512208, 4231918;
512365, 4232457; 512525, 4232501; returning to 512634, 4232438.
(ii) Note: Unit MRN-1 is depicted on Map 7--Unit MRN-1 and MRN-
2; see paragraph (12)(ii):
(12) Unit MRN-2, Marin County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Drakes Bay and Inverness.
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N):
510133, 4216765; 510281, 4216124; 510849, 4215727; 510877, 4215571;
511057, 4215680; 511122, 4215630; 511518, 4214941; 511580, 4214681;
512054, 4214589; 512415, 4214708; 512679, 4214614; 512889, 4214540;
513012, 4214356; 513012, 4214356; 512976, 4214203; 513029, 4214231;
513021, 4213650; 513020, 4213570; 513018, 4213444; 513270, 4212875;
513483, 4212773; 513567, 4212632; 513638, 4212511; 513653, 4212486;
514053, 4212327; 514053, 4212327; 514172, 4212008; 514216, 4212003;
514243, 4212000; 514261, 4211733; 514446, 4211580; 514704, 4211012;
515314, 4210595; 515637, 4210194; 515507, 4210013; 515537, 4209798;
515379, 4209620; 515206, 4209561; 515138, 4209264; 515492, 4208446;
515871, 4208068; 516070, 4207700; 516021, 4207494; 515640, 4207206;
515590, 4206816; 515322, 4206667; 515113, 4206403; 515065, 4205839;
514924, 4205969; 514912, 4205983; 514847, 4206047; 514807, 4206091;
514807, 4206091; 514795, 4206108; 514766, 4206132; 514688, 4206208;
514619, 4206251; 514578, 4206289; 514276, 4206502; 514261, 4206517;
514212, 4206547; 514204, 4206556; 514164, 4206598; 514110, 4206623;
514098, 4206627; 513943, 4206736; 513922, 4206754; 513922, 4206760;
513907, 4206767; 513881, 4206789; 513803, 4206859; 513726, 4206889;
513726, 4206889; 513648, 4206944; 513645, 4206948; 513636, 4206953;
513082, 4207343; 513081, 4207347; 513080, 4207355; 513009, 4207394;
512782, 4207555; 512777, 4207559; 512747, 4207581; 512740, 4207585;
512595, 4207687; 512517, 4207721; 512462, 4207753; 512427, 4207773;
512239, 4207849; 512122, 4207903; 512106, 4207914; 511957, 4207983;
511835, 4208055; 511693, 4208105; 511658, 4208126; 511576, 4208150;
511438, 4208217; 511339, 4208243; 511298, 4208263; 511279, 4208268;
511111, 4208342; 510313, 4208639; 510305, 4208640; 510252, 4208659;
510049, 4208709; 509880, 4208738; 509877, 4208739; 509866, 4208740;
509787, 4208753; 509560, 4208803; 509246, 4208876; 509168, 4208889;
509159, 4208891; 509144, 4208894; 509141, 4208894; 509109, 4208900;
508815, 4208922; 508629, 4208949; 508612, 4208947; 508535, 4208957;
508381, 4208967; 507880, 4209000; 507679, 4209002; 507313, 4209005;
507122, 4208993; 507061, 4209007; 507008, 4209025; 506981, 4209029;
506928, 4209037; 506775, 4209072; 506522, 4209015; 506495, 4209017;
506487, 4209019; 506159, 4209247; 506147, 4209260; 506026, 4209510;
506065, 4209601; 506079, 4209594; 506083, 4209592; 506189, 4209495;
506192, 4209490; 506404, 4209297; 506476, 4209213; 506566, 4209137;
506592, 4209128; 506599, 4209122; 507025, 4209067; 507025, 4209070;
507029, 4209069; 507050, 4209081; 507034, 4209108; 507022, 4209113;
507021, 4209143; 507031, 4209142; 507076, 4209099; 507122, 4209102;
507162, 4209124; 507171, 4209124; 507259, 4209115; 507270, 4209117;
507283, 4209116; 507296, 4209122; 507302, 4209123; 507340, 4209138;
507346, 4209143; 507438, 4209184; 507483, 4209182; 507491, 4209180;
507616, 4209126; 507642, 4209138; 507646, 4209137; 507656, 4209127;
507659, 4209128; 507674, 4209113; 507699, 4209112; 507708, 4209118;
507788, 4209094; 507804, 4209107; 507856, 4209125; 507879, 4209126;
507898, 4209139; 507911, 4209157; 507905, 4209191; 507906, 4209195;
507937, 4209221; 507989, 4209219; 508011, 4209212; 508016, 4209208;
508021, 4209209; 508183, 4209159; 508204, 4209140; 508218, 4209125;
508225, 4209109; 508247, 4209094; 508283, 4209098; 508303, 4209088;
508333, 4209088; 508350, 4209081; 508383, 4209084; 508416, 4209079;
508418, 4209079; 508475, 4209068; 508475, 4209068; 508475, 4209068;
508475, 4209068; 508541, 4209085; 508580, 4209081; 508605, 4209086;
508633, 4209102; 508662, 4209135; 508694, 4209156; 508742, 4209175;
508751, 4209175; 509049, 4209111; 509066, 4209117; 509068, 4209117;
509069, 4209119; 509190, 4209162; 509287, 4209156; 509395, 4209114;
509405, 4209110; 509423, 4209097; 509499, 4209071; 509499, 4209071;
509499, 4209071; 509499, 4209071;
[[Page 19306]]
509587, 4209078; 509634, 4209094; 509720, 4209108; 509756, 4209033;
509763, 4209000; 509787, 4208945; 509811, 4208918; 509812, 4208918;
509812, 4208918; 509891, 4208860; 509956, 4208850; 509994, 4208851;
509994, 4208851; 509994, 4208851; 509994, 4208851; 510025, 4208865;
510051, 4208893; 510049, 4208896; 510119, 4208953; 510136, 4208954;
510154, 4208978; 510154, 4208981; 510157, 4208984; 510153, 4209434;
510169, 4209453; 510233, 4209478; 510263, 4209499; 510282, 4209538;
510287, 4209602; 510495, 4209864; 510496, 4209864; 510513, 4209942;
510535, 4210134; 510535, 4210135; 510535, 4210135; 510511, 4210154;
510476, 4210146; 510475, 4210145; 510075, 4209536; 510074, 4209535;
510074, 4209534; 510058, 4209501; 510053, 4209499; 510035, 4209456;
510033, 4209447; 509882, 4209127; 509881, 4209127; 509881, 4209127;
509881, 4209127; 509881, 4209127; 509874, 4209060; 509880, 4209033;
509904, 4208991; 509936, 4208966; 509966, 4208958; 510000, 4208888;
509999, 4208887; 509859, 4208919; 509811, 4209078; 509810, 4209085;
509795, 4209132; 509794, 4209132; 509535, 4209403; 509534, 4209408;
509599, 4209906; 509498, 4210182; 509530, 4210514; 509465, 4210572;
509464, 4210574; 509458, 4210578; 509421, 4210611; 509409, 4210605;
509404, 4210606; 509380, 4210604; 509363, 4210579; 509363, 4210579;
509363, 4210579; 509368, 4210353; 509347, 4210247; 509373, 4210107;
509376, 4209967; 509371, 4209951; 509262, 4209739; 509262, 4209739;
509262, 4209739; 509262, 4209739; 509335, 4209619; 509304, 4209566;
509231, 4209471; 509144, 4209412; 509101, 4209366; 509045, 4209333;
509039, 4209333; 508890, 4209328; 508807, 4209332; 508761, 4209334;
508147, 4209491; 508011, 4209679; 508011, 4209679; 508054, 4209731;
508113, 4209786; 508172, 4209874; 508173, 4209875; 508173, 4209876;
508194, 4209921; 508207, 4210018; 508221, 4210065; 508255, 4210124;
508257, 4210230; 508275, 4210305; 508275, 4210305; 508276, 4210307;
508276, 4210307; 508411, 4210455; 508409, 4210463; 508410, 4210464;
508406, 4210485; 508393, 4210517; 508358, 4210636; 508357, 4210637;
508327, 4210662; 508315, 4210665; 508313, 4210666; 508301, 4210671;
508157, 4210758; 508247, 4210952; 508299, 4210996; 508310, 4211016;
508308, 4211073; 508305, 4211078; 508308, 4211083; 508293, 4211095;
508290, 4211100; 508283, 4211104; 508072, 4211274; 508069, 4211277;
507972, 4211519; 507982, 4211523; 507979, 4211538; 507965, 4211550;
507961, 4211548; 507957, 4211557; 507956, 4211546; 507938, 4211538;
507937, 4211537; 507924, 4211537; 507906, 4211507; 507891, 4211365;
507858, 4211301; 507855, 4211227; 507865, 4211194; 507866, 4211170;
507866, 4211111; 507858, 4211088; 507862, 4211027; 507861, 4211009;
507865, 4210893; 507858, 4210840; 507856, 4210821; 507852, 4210809;
507843, 4210780; 507734, 4210610; 507724, 4210572; 507642, 4210465;
507637, 4210364; 507590, 4210269; 507590, 4210261; 507579, 4210249;
507564, 4210209; 507566, 4210186; 507584, 4210155; 507584, 4210056;
507604, 4210021; 507619, 4209772; 507589, 4209658; 507563, 4209596;
507559, 4209589; 507506, 4209538; 507495, 4209534; 507282, 4209578;
507227, 4209789; 507223, 4209842; 507204, 4209906; 507191, 4209931;
507190, 4209931; 507189, 4209938; 507188, 4209933; 507182, 4209936;
507178, 4209921; 507175, 4209934; 507155, 4209926; 507148, 4209903;
507137, 4209871; 507121, 4209677; 507120, 4209657; 507097, 4209573;
507073, 4209527; 507016, 4209497; 506955, 4209484; 506647, 4209503;
506641, 4209505; 506593, 4209653; 506593, 4209657; 506592, 4209658;
506585, 4209679; 506463, 4209767; 506437, 4209793; 506405, 4209809;
506367, 4209804; 506365, 4209797; 506360, 4209796; 506346, 4209775;
506295, 4209746; 506278, 4209746; 505984, 4209765; 505982, 4209766;
505907, 4210064; 505904, 4210076; 505916, 4210144; 505945, 4210227;
505986, 4210380; 505989, 4210422; 505977, 4210468; 505974, 4210473;
505975, 4210478; 505969, 4210481; 505949, 4210513; 505896, 4210548;
505841, 4210606; 505803, 4210629; 505717, 4210639; 505707, 4210644;
505676, 4210659; 505673, 4210661; 505656, 4210677; 505483, 4210945;
505621, 4211187; 505641, 4211217; 505644, 4211227; 505662, 4211260;
505803, 4211801; 505861, 4211906; 505863, 4211908; 505883, 4211908;
505928, 4211924; 506003, 4211989; 506047, 4212011; 506105, 4212024;
506155, 4212049; 506214, 4212116; 506241, 4212134; 506293, 4212165;
506371, 4212210; 506402, 4212220; 506505, 4212292; 506528, 4212306;
506603, 4212436; 506603, 4212436; 506812, 4212425; 506814, 4212424;
506814, 4212424; 506814, 4212424; 506814, 4212425; 506833, 4212520;
506827, 4212563; 506808, 4212610; 506806, 4212654; 506883, 4212722;
506922, 4212733; 506957, 4212757; 507032, 4212829; 507055, 4212866;
507053, 4212873; 507062, 4212882; 506875, 4213038; 506977, 4213242;
506995, 4213259; 507046, 4213291; 507124, 4213324; 507190, 4213339;
507338, 4213392; 507345, 4213404; 507383, 4213434; 507417, 4213476;
507701, 4213616; 507701, 4213616; 507701, 4213616; 507715, 4213632;
507713, 4213669; 507738, 4213778; 507741, 4213781; 507766, 4213902;
507766, 4213902; 507766, 4213902; 507766, 4213902; 507760, 4213947;
507747, 4213955; 507719, 4213955; 507701, 4213945; 507701, 4213945;
507498, 4213731; 507325, 4213740; 507141, 4213533; 507009, 4213617;
507005, 4213620; 506995, 4213626; 506829, 4213731; 506822, 4213739;
506821, 4213746; 506849, 4213856; 506850, 4213857; 506841, 4213886;
506838, 4213887; 506833, 4213896; 506786, 4214008; 506784, 4214074;
506764, 4214102; 506764, 4214110; 506743, 4214115; 506721, 4214099;
506675, 4214021; 506675, 4213972; 506679, 4213957; 506695, 4213891;
506705, 4213871; 506726, 4213771; 506726, 4213696; 506702, 4213593;
506690, 4213546; 506639, 4213430; 506493, 4213195; 506447, 4213088;
506445, 4213069; 506444, 4213063; 506389, 4212903; 506386, 4212901;
506368, 4212883; 506333, 4212864; 506305, 4212849; 506244, 4212827;
506226, 4212766; 506219, 4212763; 505872, 4212953; 505866, 4212962;
505841, 4213041; 505835, 4213107; 505828, 4213128; 505813, 4213149;
505807, 4213152; 505803, 4213158; 505797, 4213178; 505797, 4213184;
505806, 4213201; 505847, 4213244; 505883, 4213318; 505897, 4213364;
505895, 4213409; 505888, 4213447; 505875, 4213473; 505866, 4213478;
505863, 4213485; 505860, 4213492; 505798, 4213534; 505786, 4213556;
505786, 4213557; 505786, 4213561; 505804, 4213605; 505843, 4213823;
505838, 4213854; 505841, 4213871; 505834, 4213885; 505834, 4213902;
505834, 4213911; 505809, 4213957; 505791, 4213968; 505700, 4214146;
505700, 4214146; 505700, 4214147; 505855, 4214491; 505906, 4214567;
505930, 4214584; 505980, 4214660; 505992, 4214695; 505998, 4214772;
505994, 4214800; 505996, 4214804; 505992, 4214815; 505990, 4214829;
505980, 4214847; 505922, 4214995; 505667, 4215174; 505724, 4215207;
505734, 4215206; 505800, 4215221; 505864, 4215288; 505994, 4215348;
506029, 4215380; 506031, 4215385; 506047, 4215394; 506153, 4215767;
506215, 4215826; 506233, 4215840; 506249, 4215857; 506306, 4215910;
506306, 4215910; 506294, 4215923; 506279, 4215918; 506249, 4215927;
[[Page 19307]]
506249, 4215930; 506199, 4215946; 506186, 4215947; 506113, 4215969;
506113, 4215969; 506113, 4215969; 506113, 4215969; 506113, 4215969;
506079, 4215953; 506066, 4215953; 506033, 4215923; 505970, 4215915;
505960, 4215907; 505956, 4215897; 505942, 4215858; 505920, 4215843;
505866, 4215821; 505761, 4215779; 505734, 4215768; 505686, 4215727;
505664, 4215685; 505663, 4215684; 505665, 4215590; 505714, 4215483;
505716, 4215417; 505704, 4215387; 505658, 4215331; 505592, 4215201;
505496, 4215077; 505473, 4215046; 505470, 4215016; 505477, 4215013;
505486, 4214990; 505539, 4214972; 505558, 4214956; 505562, 4214934;
505526, 4214858; 505519, 4214764; 505506, 4214746; 505394, 4214667;
505333, 4214573; 505305, 4214543; 505298, 4214535; 505261, 4214459;
505248, 4214444; 505250, 4214437; 505239, 4214416; 505240, 4214383;
505241, 4214380; 505241, 4214374; 505255, 4214357; 505295, 4214291;
505308, 4214248; 505313, 4214130; 505310, 4214086; 505288, 4213850;
505286, 4213729; 505264, 4213673; 505232, 4213641; 505224, 4213618;
505187, 4213517; 505166, 4213472; 505162, 4213451; 505154, 4213428;
505145, 4213370; 505079, 4213204; 505078, 4213202; 505075, 4213159;
505087, 4213140; 505121, 4212886; 505120, 4212883; 504900, 4212697;
504899, 4212687; 504895, 4212683; 504895, 4212682; 504889, 4212676;
504875, 4212625; 504880, 4212589; 504885, 4212581; 504885, 4212573;
504814, 4212568; 504796, 4212572; 504677, 4212564; 504641, 4212575;
504585, 4212592; 504540, 4212594; 504497, 4212582; 504425, 4212561;
504349, 4212551; 504314, 4212533; 504304, 4212532; 504233, 4212526;
504199, 4212538; 504121, 4212539; 504119, 4212539; 504108, 4212556;
504093, 4212588; 504072, 4212609; 504025, 4212680; 504093, 4212841;
504106, 4212856; 504118, 4212887; 504117, 4212896; 504120, 4212904;
504112, 4212922; 504111, 4212928; 504106, 4212934; 504102, 4212944;
504103, 4212955; 504088, 4212973; 504015, 4213135; 504020, 4213168;
504034, 4213195; 504046, 4213249; 504054, 4213282; 504062, 4213381;
504072, 4213441; 504080, 4213481; 504081, 4213486; 504109, 4213700;
504109, 4213702; 504113, 4213731; 504104, 4213742; 504104, 4213742;
504103, 4213744; 503996, 4213871; 503995, 4213892; 504004, 4213904;
504015, 4213931; 504023, 4213943; 504023, 4213951; 504028, 4213962;
504022, 4213996; 503995, 4214034; 503988, 4214047; 503982, 4214194;
503977, 4214196; 503977, 4214204; 503965, 4214214; 503898, 4214229;
503831, 4214256; 503830, 4214257; 503847, 4214311; 503863, 4214329;
503865, 4214331; 503876, 4214339; 503877, 4214356; 503878, 4214358;
503877, 4214373; 503870, 4214384; 503876, 4214401; 503856, 4214404;
503853, 4214410; 503824, 4214430; 503822, 4214429; 503815, 4214438;
503759, 4214428; 503738, 4214410; 503736, 4214280; 503761, 4214202;
503773, 4214189; 503779, 4214183; 503793, 4214029; 503769, 4213973;
503779, 4213963; 503785, 4213963; 503786, 4213959; 503794, 4213963;
503799, 4213963; 503821, 4213725; 503823, 4213683; 503835, 4213653;
503859, 4213627; 503890, 4213594; 503891, 4213591; 503896, 4213564;
503885, 4213543; 503806, 4213464; 503752, 4213437; 503729, 4213414;
503716, 4213377; 503716, 4213290; 503705, 4213278; 503696, 4213267;
503691, 4213250; 503704, 4213148; 503707, 4213138; 503706, 4213134;
503711, 4213125; 503719, 4213100; 503747, 4213057; 503747, 4213056;
503772, 4212975; 503779, 4212966; 503780, 4212964; 503791, 4212938;
503811, 4212923; 503831, 4212896; 503831, 4212895; 503833, 4212871;
503816, 4212843; 503703, 4212705; 503699, 4212701; 503653, 4212683;
503653, 4212655; 503658, 4212650; 503657, 4212649; 503662, 4212645;
503673, 4212632; 503676, 4212631; 503680, 4212626; 503694, 4212620;
503974, 4212395; 503975, 4212394; 504085, 4212347; 504111, 4212329;
504214, 4212280; 504269, 4212267; 504285, 4212266; 504304, 4212249;
504325, 4212210; 504383, 4212104; 504395, 4212054; 504403, 4212037;
504411, 4211996; 504448, 4211935; 504477, 4211906; 504486, 4211902;
504527, 4211808; 504523, 4211640; 504458, 4211285; 504441, 4211246;
504428, 4211242; 504346, 4211287; 504314, 4211321; 504297, 4211326;
504291, 4211331; 504261, 4211363; 504126, 4211457; 503976, 4211540;
503970, 4211541; 503952, 4211542; 503924, 4211545; 503895, 4211548;
503867, 4211561; 503856, 4211573; 503790, 4211675; 503789, 4211677;
503788, 4211677; 503788, 4211678; 503747, 4211728; 503715, 4211754;
503682, 4211789; 503572, 4211855; 503491, 4211936; 503469, 4211937;
503231, 4212050; 503199, 4212071; 503161, 4212073; 503125, 4212040;
503133, 4212020; 503162, 4211990; 503190, 4211939; 503191, 4211931;
503200, 4211920; 503205, 4211909; 503207, 4211908; 503208, 4211906;
503511, 4211755; 503522, 4211746; 503521, 4211733; 503453, 4211699;
503407, 4211715; 503382, 4211702; 503382, 4211693; 503382, 4211680;
503409, 4211652; 503414, 4211644; 503447, 4211617; 503490, 4211597;
503507, 4211598; 503514, 4211594; 503524, 4211586; 503536, 4211580;
503584, 4211547; 503632, 4211531; 503646, 4211510; 503654, 4211454;
503661, 4211449; 503665, 4211439; 503688, 4211418; 503703, 4211409;
503773, 4211253; 503773, 4211248; 503777, 4211245; 503785, 4211225;
503785, 4211223; 503787, 4211223; 503792, 4211211; 504028, 4211206;
504214, 4211085; 504265, 4211030; 504332, 4210980; 504401, 4210944;
504453, 4210930; 504453, 4210930; 504520, 4210811; 504528, 4210791;
504538, 4210775; 504541, 4210765; 504561, 4210736; 504606, 4210661;
504611, 4210652; 504640, 4210596; 504646, 4210590; 504659, 4210567;
504904, 4210306; 504935, 4210255; 504955, 4210217; 504976, 4210195;
505026, 4210171; 505044, 4210158; 505067, 4210133; 505142, 4209980;
505213, 4209756; 505214, 4209729; 505217, 4209711; 505237, 4209682;
505279, 4209661; 505307, 4209661; 505324, 4209654; 505374, 4209663;
505374, 4209663; 505374, 4209663; 505380, 4209674; 505372, 4209689;
505363, 4209794; 505371, 4209796; 505400, 4209791; 505438, 4209778;
505488, 4209777; 505547, 4209768; 505620, 4209605; 505615, 4209593;
505402, 4209512; 505400, 4209510; 505377, 4209502; 505339, 4209463;
505306, 4209375; 505281, 4209347; 505237, 4209328; 505210, 4209322;
505098, 4209316; 505004, 4209296; 504994, 4209295; 504720, 4209278;
504582, 4209245; 504559, 4209245; 504496, 4209228; 504486, 4209222;
504387, 4209199; 504301, 4209170; 504170, 4209127; 504100, 4209114;
504089, 4209108; 504056, 4209102; 503988, 4209075; 503983, 4209074;
503876, 4209031; 503790, 4209003; 503638, 4208937; 503440, 4208860;
503411, 4208840; 503381, 4208827; 503345, 4208795; 503021, 4208576;
502999, 4208556; 502994, 4208553; 502952, 4208525; 502821, 4208400;
502733, 4208323; 502620, 4208235; 502424, 4208062; 502415, 4208052;
502333, 4207960; 502290, 4207900; 502257, 4207854; 502092, 4207655;
502009, 4207523; 502001, 4207513; 501980, 4207478; 501949, 4207432;
501944, 4207419; 501936, 4207406; 501911, 4207366; 501899, 4207349;
501879, 4207338; 501847, 4207264; 501833, 4207241; 501794, 4207159;
501770, 4207118; 501673, 4206965; 501629, 4206876; 501600, 4206827;
501595, 4206809; 501590, 4206799; 501582, 4206769; 501503, 4206524;
[[Page 19308]]
501501, 4206521; 501470, 4206438; 501425, 4206248; 501425, 4206243;
501401, 4206059; 501402, 4206006; 501401, 4205996; 501403, 4205988;
501402, 4205973; 501404, 4205967; 501404, 4205949; 501407, 4205930;
501419, 4205909; 501420, 4205905; 501421, 4205903; 501464, 4205704;
501464, 4205655; 501464, 4205640; 501465, 4205636; 501466, 4205587;
501492, 4205572; 501492, 4205570; 501510, 4205563; 501517, 4205557;
501529, 4205556; 501734, 4205477; 501759, 4205459; 501784, 4205457;
501850, 4205432; 501883, 4205393; 501915, 4205384; 501964, 4205388;
501964, 4205388; 501964, 4205388; 501982, 4205371; 502018, 4205316;
502080, 4205256; 502163, 4205229; 502220, 4205194; 502302, 4205166;
502351, 4205134; 502625, 4205121; 502707, 4205083; 502763, 4205080;
502779, 4205085; 502813, 4205110; 502821, 4205113; 502868, 4205110;
502873, 4205060; 502914, 4205006; 502929, 4204963; 502972, 4204912;
503013, 4204824; 503014, 4204823; 503019, 4204813; 503035, 4204794;
503089, 4204754; 503110, 4204746; 503120, 4204730; 503116, 4204723;
503115, 4204722; 503084, 4204718; 503041, 4204712; 503036, 4204709;
502935, 4204711; 502927, 4204720; 502920, 4204719; 502917, 4204724;
502810, 4204750; 502632, 4204765; 502492, 4204737; 502448, 4204739;
502387, 4204741; 502331, 4204839; 502345, 4204867; 502346, 4204895;
502307, 4204948; 502291, 4204956; 502287, 4204960; 502267, 4204968;
502256, 4204973; 502254, 4204973; 502253, 4204973; 502251, 4204977;
502089, 4204976; 502035, 4204991; 501984, 4205018; 501890, 4205031;
501888, 4205031; 501872, 4205027; 501809, 4205008; 501743, 4205006;
501715, 4204985; 501682, 4204983; 501614, 4205008; 501563, 4205013;
501522, 4204995; 501474, 4204995; 501446, 4205028; 501400, 4205051;
501377, 4205051; 501362, 4205038; 501329, 4205031; 501301, 4205041;
501227, 4205013; 501227, 4205005; 501227, 4204997; 501224, 4204985;
501227, 4204973; 501227, 4204947; 501208, 4204941; 501139, 4205068;
501133, 4205082; 501130, 4205083; 501127, 4205088; 501124, 4205086;
501116, 4205090; 501112, 4205086; 501090, 4205082; 501084, 4205090;
501080, 4205081; 501050, 4205076; 501047, 4205079; 501028, 4205109;
501014, 4205109; 500976, 4205145; 500975, 4205145; 500973, 4205148;
500964, 4205149; 500923, 4205165; 500851, 4205216; 500811, 4205234;
500773, 4205234; 500704, 4205198; 500696, 4205197; 500665, 4205194;
500653, 4205193; 500575, 4205162; 500559, 4205142; 500558, 4205129;
500552, 4205058; 500476, 4205028; 500451, 4205028; 500407, 4205100;
500409, 4205116; 500380, 4205146; 500380, 4205146; 500379, 4205146;
500367, 4205151; 500361, 4205157; 500293, 4205180; 500226, 4205168;
500176, 4205160; 500142, 4205139; 500112, 4205121; 500097, 4205128;
500082, 4205134; 500067, 4205119; 500059, 4205100; 500054, 4205086;
500043, 4205081; 500017, 4205111; 500014, 4205138; 500000, 4205138;
499994, 4205138; 499993, 4205140; 499990, 4205138; 499973, 4205139;
499960, 4205144; 499942, 4205135; 499938, 4205133; 499933, 4205132;
499931, 4205118; 499925, 4205094; 499878, 4205063; 499874, 4205063;
499857, 4205056; 499855, 4205056; 499837, 4205061; 499812, 4205072;
499796, 4205072; 499784, 4205059; 499704, 4205064; 499700, 4205069;
499692, 4205065; 499657, 4205066; 499653, 4205069; 499647, 4205068;
499641, 4205067; 499616, 4205069; 499609, 4205070; 499582, 4205074;
499556, 4205076; 499548, 4205076; 499542, 4205076; 499541, 4205076;
499541, 4205076; 499530, 4205076; 499510, 4205074; 499506, 4205075;
499502, 4205075; 499472, 4205154; 499474, 4205158; 499474, 4205160;
499477, 4205163; 499476, 4205175; 499471, 4205191; 499461, 4205221;
499452, 4205234; 499443, 4205245; 499415, 4205250; 499410, 4205250;
499347, 4205290; 499348, 4205303; 499338, 4205313; 499300, 4205322;
499281, 4205323; 499280, 4205323; 499258, 4205324; 499236, 4205319;
499055, 4205311; 499054, 4205316; 499045, 4205317; 499044, 4205319;
499044, 4205318; 499041, 4205318; 499038, 4205315; 499032, 4205311;
499019, 4205310; 499013, 4205311; 499013, 4205310; 499006, 4205309;
498986, 4205239; 498984, 4205244; 498985, 4205265; 498976, 4205282;
498985, 4205302; 498984, 4205303; 498988, 4205307; 498985, 4205317;
498978, 4205325; 498957, 4205328; 498933, 4205329; 498933, 4205328;
498933, 4205328; 498699, 4205145; 498688, 4205145; 498657, 4205156;
498651, 4205159; 498632, 4205167; 498599, 4205178; 498594, 4205178;
498566, 4205175; 498546, 4205169; 498499, 4205182; 498489, 4205198;
498476, 4205219; 498466, 4205214; 498471, 4205196; 498471, 4205190;
498340, 4205226; 498338, 4205241; 498327, 4205256; 498300, 4205261;
498271, 4205265; 498246, 4205277; 498212, 4205268; 498192, 4205279;
498173, 4205288; 498156, 4205287; 498150, 4205287; 498115, 4205273;
498063, 4205265; 498041, 4205269; 498014, 4205270; 498010, 4205265;
498004, 4205259; 498005, 4205256; 497900, 4205240; 497891, 4205242;
497891, 4205244; 497902, 4205373; 497909, 4205386; 497929, 4205414;
497942, 4205427; 497949, 4205433; 497979, 4205447; 497993, 4205472;
498013, 4205509; 498041, 4205538; 498033, 4205552; 498041, 4205566;
498051, 4205586; 498065, 4205600; 498084, 4205618; 498084, 4205618;
498096, 4205610; 498099, 4205615; 498106, 4205613; 498112, 4205632;
498126, 4205665; 498113, 4205667; 498113, 4205670; 498140, 4205694;
498142, 4205698; 498149, 4205703; 498152, 4205722; 498165, 4205752;
498167, 4205755; 498187, 4205785; 498188, 4205786; 498460, 4205688;
498474, 4205671; 498497, 4205674; 498497, 4205674; 498497, 4205674;
498536, 4205694; 498539, 4205695; 498540, 4205696; 498575, 4205705;
498576, 4205711; 498587, 4205715; 498586, 4205727; 498585, 4205755;
498581, 4205765; 498579, 4205772; 498596, 4205781; 498604, 4205795;
498622, 4205791; 498627, 4205797; 498633, 4205801; 498651, 4205820;
498665, 4205838; 498665, 4205844; 498667, 4205854; 498676, 4205887;
498680, 4205902; 498692, 4205918; 498695, 4205922; 498733, 4205930;
498751, 4205927; 498770, 4205914; 498787, 4205921; 498810, 4205908;
498817, 4205919; 498819, 4205919; 498827, 4205935; 498836, 4205949;
498860, 4205968; 498903, 4206059; 498987, 4206197; 499018, 4206311;
499033, 4206350; 499089, 4206461; 499112, 4206496; 499142, 4206542;
499195, 4206675; 499225, 4206736; 499290, 4206839; 499326, 4206928;
499366, 4207027; 499367, 4207060; 499801, 4208196; 499855, 4208302;
499858, 4208310; 499860, 4208314; 499880, 4208364; 499885, 4208398;
499916, 4208496; 499982, 4208669; 500000, 4208697; 500000, 4208717;
500015, 4208754; 500064, 4208850; 500117, 4208955; 500148, 4209028;
500153, 4209118; 500223, 4209301; 500297, 4209425; 500298, 4209427;
500303, 4209435; 500331, 4209492; 500363, 4209590; 500365, 4209623;
500366, 4209632; 500373, 4209695; 500478, 4209969; 500541, 4210077;
500553, 4210120; 500561, 4210146; 500562, 4210154; 500570, 4210182;
500576, 4210224; 500635, 4210379; 500653, 4210421; 500665, 4210448;
500667, 4210464; 500894, 4211057; 500902, 4211075; 500903, 4211082;
501245, 4211976; 501245, 4211976; 501245, 4211976; 501413, 4212457;
501426, 4212483; 501435, 4212522; 501531, 4212795; 501542, 4212814;
[[Page 19309]]
501598, 4212910; 501626, 4213017; 501629, 4213078; 501700, 4213280;
501713, 4213301; 501731, 4213339; 501750, 4213373; 501752, 4213386;
501753, 4213388; 501764, 4213463; 501833, 4213660; 501882, 4213754;
501902, 4213806; 501940, 4213909; 501941, 4213914; 501943, 4213921;
501952, 4213973; 501952, 4214001; 501997, 4214131; 502021, 4214162;
502039, 4214201; 502042, 4214206; 502042, 4214208; 502053, 4214232;
502065, 4214292; 502065, 4214326; 502161, 4214600; 502213, 4214682;
502230, 4214728; 502242, 4214750; 502288, 4214887; 502289, 4214948;
502293, 4214978; 502328, 4215077; 502375, 4215177; 502392, 4215235;
502397, 4215274; 502467, 4215474; 502491, 4215520; 502579, 4215755;
502675, 4216062; 502677, 4216075; 502738, 4216251; 502751, 4216272;
502781, 4216349; 502807, 4216432; 502807, 4216447; 503058, 4217168;
503060, 4217170; 503345, 4217022; 503799, 4216555; 504526, 4216621;
505550, 4217104; 506541, 4216757; 506604, 4217067; 506532, 4217185;
506994, 4217323; 507410, 4217877; 508102, 4217877; 509072, 4218155;
509626, 4218155; 510135, 4217982; 510291, 4217860; 510312, 4217844;
510344, 4217819; 510140, 4217687; 509963, 4217330; returning to 510133,
4216765.
(ii) Note: Unit MRN-2 is depicted on Map 7--Unit MRN-1 and MRN-
2; which follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 19310]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR13AP06.006
(13) Unit SOL-1: Solano County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Benecia, Cordella,
Fairfield South and Vine hill. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone
10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N):577701, 4222110; 577941, 4222006; 577819,
4221920;
[[Page 19311]]
577847, 4221604; 577479, 4221571; 577347, 4221465; 577148, 4220519;
577340, 4219959; 577833, 4219667; 578242, 4219600; 578200, 4218615;
577917, 4218473; 576672, 4218298; 576363, 4218080; 575846, 4217579;
575754, 4217070; 575612, 4216753; 575044, 4216728; 574412, 4217019;
574245, 4217461; 574066, 4217508; 573773, 4217765; 573768, 4218399;
573898, 4218583; 573806, 4218855; 573858, 4218995; 573996, 4219035;
574013, 4219312; 574399, 4219535; 574626, 4219534; 574729, 4219611;
575326, 4219251; 575368, 4219375; 575260, 4219532; 575295, 4219728;
576090, 4220236; 576036, 4220726; 576129, 4220971; 576020, 4221093;
576034, 4221345; 576242, 4221326; 576789, 4222071; 577054, 4222051;
577390, 4222239; returning to 577701, 4222110;
(ii) Note: Unit SOL-1 (Map 8) follows:
[[Page 19312]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR13AP06.007
(14) Unit CCS-1: Contra Costa County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Briones Valley and Walnut
Creek. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates
[[Page 19313]]
(E,N):577415, 4202403; 577553, 4202269; 577370, 4202080; 577433,
4202019; 577181, 4201778; 577260, 4201778; 577331, 4201778; 577332,
4201711; 577529, 4201776; 577538, 4201779; 577538, 4201608; 577528,
4201603; 577180, 4201413; 577253, 4201191; 577204, 4200806; 577344,
4200493; 577350, 4200480; 577162, 4200287; 577000, 4200273; 576947,
4200268; 576858, 4200184; 576858, 4200181; 576929, 4199888; 576847,
4199627; 576755, 4199545; 576480, 4199299; 576758, 4199082; 576934,
4198944; 576998, 4198671; 576798, 4198592; 576812, 4198531; 576761,
4198489; 576106, 4197955; 575987, 4197664; 576041, 4197179; 575860,
4197013; 575587, 4196999; 575433, 4196825; 575386, 4197011; 574718,
4197534; 574372, 4197457; 574234, 4197426; 573757, 4197318; 573683,
4197437; 573707, 4197621; 573715, 4197685; 573747, 4197924; 573750,
4197950; 573599, 4197933; 573543, 4198199; 573353, 4198414; 573063,
4198504; 572836, 4198432; 572549, 4198584; 572485, 4198723; 572221,
4198785; 572141, 4198998; 572010, 4199081; 571670, 4199102; 571533,
4199186; 571566, 4199461; 573237, 4199507; 573236, 4199597; 573230,
4199612; 573309, 4200760; 573350, 4200872; 573764, 4200880; 573764,
4201156; 573763, 4201334; 573759, 4201334; 573748, 4201343; 573742,
4201477; 574752, 4201447; 575224, 4201592; 575241, 4201597; 575198,
4201759; 575276, 4202021; 575292, 4202031; 575335, 4202058; 575390,
4202092; 575413, 4202254; 575420, 4202307; 575672, 4202256; 575729,
4202104; 575955, 4202109; 576042, 4201903; 576028, 4201691; 576025,
4201654; 576171, 4201610; 576257, 4201780; 576262, 4201789; 576282,
4201829; 576264, 4201889; 576236, 4201982; 576236, 4201985; 576235,
4201988; 576289, 4202050; 576381, 4202154; 576537, 4202156; 576591,
4202063; 576682, 4201909; 576696, 4201885; 576745, 4201856; 576871,
4201782; 577165, 4202394; 577286, 4202312; 577377, 4202449; returning
to 577415, 4202403.
(ii) Note: Unit CCS-1 (Map 9) follows:
[[Page 19314]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR13AP06.008
(15) Unit ALA-1: Alameda County, California.
(i) Unit ALA-1A: Alameda County, California. From USGS 1:24,000
scale quadrangle Byron Hot Springs. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone
[[Page 19315]]
10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N):611343, 4180152; 611148, 4180026; 610992,
4180035; 610813, 4180272; 610550, 4180400; 610267, 4180791; 610074,
4180901; 610005, 4180941; 611138, 4181316; 611241, 4181282; 611321,
4181255; 611418, 4181200; 611661, 4180732; 611386, 4180481; returning
to 611343, 4180152.
(ii) Unit ALA-1B: Alameda County, California. From USGS 1:24,000
scale quadrangle Tassajara and Livermore. Land bounded by the following
UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 605516, 4174746; 605237, 4174452;
604995, 4175282; 604955, 4175708; 605011, 4175914; 604929, 4176374;
605014, 4177114; 604922, 4177797; 604522, 4178217; 604715, 4178963;
605183, 4178930; 605395, 4178792; 605397, 4178557; 605278, 4178437;
605371, 4178338; 605610, 4178091; 605266, 4177312; 605266, 4176726;
605364, 4176151; 605528, 4175946; 605569, 4175466; 605350, 4175393;
returning to 605516, 4174746.
(iii) Note: Unit ALA-1 (Map 10) follows:
[[Page 19316]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR13AP06.009
(16) Unit SNM-1: San Mateo County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Montara Mountain, San Mateo
and Woodside. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83
[[Page 19317]]
coordinates (E,N):551533, 4158189; 551784, 4157671; 551868, 4157218;
552272, 4156690; 552452, 4156693; 552617, 4156913; 552824, 4156958;
553599, 4156836; 553844, 4156973; 554208, 4157441; 554604, 4156948;
555975, 4154930; 556342, 4154266; 556618, 4153473; 557037, 4152693;
557619, 4151860; 557376, 4151775; 557087, 4151351; 556770, 4151283;
556693, 4150916; 556801, 4150517; 556747, 4150326; 556496, 4150243;
556451, 4150130; 556101, 4150168; 555956, 4150068; 555921, 4149873;
555759, 4149818; 555598, 4150134; 555585, 4150212; 555747, 4150212;
555426, 4151032; 555409, 4151357; 555135, 4151742; 555070, 4151722;
554936, 4151865; 554987, 4151957; 554843, 4152027; 554859, 4152219;
555062, 4152225; 554948, 4152608; 554865, 4152594; 554830, 4152290;
554541, 4152285; 554537, 4152688; 553155, 4152682; 552636, 4152392;
552037, 4153063; 551741, 4153172; 551730, 4153476; 550980, 4153502;
550622, 4153722; 550576, 4153934; 550351, 4154028; 549746, 4154736;
549381, 4154860; 549325, 4154994; 548878, 4155367; 548769, 4155840;
548526, 4156215; 547966, 4156268; 547737, 4156592; 547598, 4156478;
547334, 4156525; 546807, 4157023; 546841, 4157226; 547331, 4157630;
547400, 4157932; 547709, 4158010; 547720, 4158010; 547720, 4158013;
547763, 4158024; 548363, 4158007; 548694, 4158371; 548720, 4158743;
549043, 4159119; 548850, 4159394; 548699, 4159399; 548470, 4159723;
548619, 4160034; 548554, 4160344; 548424, 4160496; 548353, 4160580;
548433, 4161321; 548601, 4161211; 549116, 4160998; 549218, 4160956;
549754, 4160406; 549811, 4160220; 550088, 4160005; 550095, 4159783;
550342, 4159427; 550724, 4159325; 550929, 4158841; 551543, 4158433;
returning to 551533, 4158189.
(ii) Note: Unit SNM-1 (Map 11) follows:
[[Page 19318]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR13AP06.010
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(17) Unit SNM-2, Santa Cruz County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Ano Nuevo and Franklin
[[Page 19319]]
Point. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates
(E,N):562883, 4108193; 562877, 4108189; 561117, 4111462; 560718,
4114535; 560736, 4114551; 560996, 4114768; 561669, 4114768; 562091,
4114947; 562386, 4114281; 562414, 4114216; 562761, 4113432; 562770,
4113416; 563257, 4112585; 563504, 4111460; 563520, 4111387; 563875,
4110389; 563695, 4110111; 563524, 4109846; 563566, 4109375; 563338,
4108933; 563338, 4108576; 563224, 4108504; 562883, 4108193; returning
to 562883, 4108193.
(ii) Note: Unit SNM-2 is depicted on Map 12--Unit SNM-2 and SCZ-
1; see paragraph (18)(ii):
(18) Unit SCZ-1, Santa Cruz County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Ano Nuevo, Davenport and
Santa Cruz. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83
coordinates (E,N):564479, 4107160; 566634, 4105910; 567103, 4105347;
567118, 4104849; 567025, 4104348; 567712, 4104017; 568417, 4104162;
568799, 4104049; 569040, 4103968; 569287, 4103649; 570005, 4103995;
570626, 4103898; 571224, 4103498; 571428, 4102995; 571405, 4102392;
571014, 4101827; 570727, 4101666; 572239, 4100487; 572580, 4101093;
573541, 4101360; 574404, 4100932; 574656, 4099895; 574323, 4099265;
573943, 4098177; 574618, 4098204; 575136, 4097850; 575519, 4097115;
575464, 4096542; 574982, 4095962; 574626, 4095860; 575097, 4095407;
575329, 4094831; 575269, 4094227; 575005, 4093879; 574661, 4093673;
574649, 4093711; 574654, 4093718; 574647, 4093726; 574644, 4093728;
574634, 4093761; 574634, 4093761; 574634, 4093773; 574618, 4093770;
574606, 4093770; 574606, 4093770; 574606, 4093780; 574606, 4093788;
574598, 4093799; 574585, 4093828; 574581, 4093843; 574570, 4093861;
574569, 4093861; 574569, 4093861; 574548, 4093872; 574538, 4093876;
574511, 4093888; 574447, 4093911; 574447, 4093912; 574400, 4093921;
574400, 4093921; 574400, 4093921; 574388, 4093913; 574376, 4093903;
574361, 4093891; 574213, 4093862; 574186, 4093876; 574186, 4093876;
574186, 4093876; 574165, 4093867; 574148, 4093858; 574148, 4093859;
574148, 4093871; 574146, 4093882; 574145, 4093887; 574149, 4093904;
574143, 4093917; 574143, 4093918; 574143, 4093918; 574143, 4093918;
574136, 4093914; 574133, 4093912; 574088, 4093913; 574084, 4093917;
574081, 4093934; 574064, 4093936; 574064, 4093936; 574064, 4093936;
574064, 4093936; 574064, 4093936; 574016, 4093928; 574016, 4093928;
574015, 4093927; 574001, 4093913; 573987, 4093913; 573984, 4093916;
573962, 4093916; 573953, 4093926; 573956, 4093958; 573986, 4093990;
573996, 4094026; 573984, 4094063; 573984, 4094063; 573973, 4094074;
573965, 4094080; 573968, 4094122; 573982, 4094131; 573982, 4094131;
573983, 4094142; 573927, 4094255; 573927, 4094255; 573875, 4094343;
573874, 4094343; 573865, 4094349; 573859, 4094352; 573848, 4094351;
573843, 4094359; 573847, 4094377; 573846, 4094378; 573824, 4094408;
573808, 4094427; 573807, 4094428; 573797, 4094457; 573795, 4094457;
573783, 4094458; 573740, 4094463; 573735, 4094464; 573735, 4094464;
573735, 4094464; 573735, 4094464; 573723, 4094432; 573722, 4094432;
573722, 4094432; 573711, 4094436; 573711, 4094435; 573685, 4094442;
573685, 4094469; 573685, 4094469; 573685, 4094484; 573666, 4094501;
573666, 4094501; 573673, 4094532; 573673, 4094532; 573665, 4094542;
573645, 4094551; 573631, 4094561; 573622, 4094589; 573618, 4094605;
573610, 4094596; 573608, 4094584; 573567, 4094509; 573565, 4094507;
573564, 4094508; 573558, 4094521; 573556, 4094538; 573551, 4094557;
573538, 4094555; 573532, 4094556; 573524, 4094556; 573523, 4094548;
573493, 4094537; 573491, 4094538; 573482, 4094559; 573482, 4094559;
573472, 4094589; 573468, 4094591; 573462, 4094605; 573455, 4094603;
573450, 4094623; 573437, 4094619; 573442, 4094598; 573418, 4094590;
573395, 4094632; 573343, 4094652; 573322, 4094685; 573322, 4094685;
573312, 4094702; 573308, 4094696; 573256, 4094803; 573254, 4094835;
573254, 4094835; 573254, 4094846; 573252, 4094860; 573237, 4094865;
573237, 4094865; 573236, 4094865; 573222, 4094869; 573199, 4094872;
573199, 4094872; 573199, 4094872; 573174, 4094868; 573163, 4094862;
573135, 4094855; 573135, 4094855; 573135, 4094855; 573115, 4094862;
573085, 4094860; 573085, 4094860; 573085, 4094860; 573063, 4094842;
573063, 4094842; 573063, 4094842; 573058, 4094847; 573056, 4094849;
573049, 4094854; 573043, 4094859; 573043, 4094860; 573009, 4094872;
573008, 4094872; 572995, 4094885; 572971, 4094886; 572966, 4094887;
572934, 4094898; 572934, 4094898; 572934, 4094898; 572934, 4094898;
572903, 4094881; 572890, 4094886; 572868, 4094911; 572868, 4094911;
572872, 4094927; 572868, 4094940; 572868, 4094940; 572867, 4094940;
572867, 4094942; 572866, 4094942; 572852, 4094966; 572852, 4094966;
572852, 4094966; 572839, 4094965; 572833, 4094945; 572833, 4094945;
572798, 4094943; 572798, 4094943; 572786, 4094955; 572766, 4094970;
572766, 4094970; 572766, 4094970; 572765, 4094970; 572761, 4094961;
572764, 4094955; 572762, 4094936; 572758, 4094937; 572731, 4094951;
572701, 4094984; 572699, 4094987; 572685, 4095002; 572685, 4095002;
572684, 4095002; 572669, 4095014; 572655, 4095024; 572654, 4095024;
572656, 4095044; 572693, 4095122; 572711, 4095144; 572825, 4095121;
572822, 4095141; 572832, 4095139; 572832, 4095139; 572832, 4095139;
572832, 4095139; 572820, 4095181; 572817, 4095201; 572810, 4095225;
572806, 4095237; 572798, 4095285; 572737, 4095292; 572740, 4095315;
572740, 4095315; 572730, 4095325; 572676, 4095317; 572651, 4095302;
572621, 4095306; 572623, 4095342; 572623, 4095342; 572623, 4095342;
572615, 4095350; 572572, 4095334; 572441, 4095333; 572473, 4095494;
572489, 4095506; 572497, 4095534; 572488, 4095572; 572492, 4095594;
572459, 4095612; 572438, 4095633; 572438, 4095633; 572438, 4095633;
572425, 4095631; 572418, 4095635; 572413, 4095630; 572412, 4095630;
572412, 4095630; 572409, 4095626; 572367, 4095582; 572344, 4095586;
572257, 4095667; 572257, 4095667; 572257, 4095667; 572214, 4095651;
572160, 4095709; 572160, 4095709; 572160, 4095709; 572132, 4095701;
572132, 4095698; 572110, 4095690; 572101, 4095731; 572106, 4095747;
572086, 4095799; 572079, 4095831; 572073, 4095833; 572073, 4095835;
572050, 4095860; 571953, 4095880; 571935, 4095898; 571872, 4095899;
571869, 4095900; 571864, 4095959; 571868, 4096010; 572017, 4096086;
571990, 4096534; 572088, 4096879; 571997, 4097039; 571971, 4097358;
571479, 4097342; 571313, 4097557; 571286, 4097339; 570876, 4097134;
570768, 4097225; 570866, 4097358; 570755, 4097417; 570654, 4097326;
570439, 4097557; 570413, 4097433; 570508, 4097358; 570448, 4097118;
570448, 4097118; 570441, 4097140; 570430, 4097154; 570394, 4097231;
570313, 4097299; 570243, 4097400; 570199, 4097438; 570191, 4097450;
569854, 4097588; 569851, 4097590; 569810, 4097673; 569808, 4097683;
569801, 4097729; 569790, 4097763; 569790, 4097764; 569734, 4097852;
569707, 4097879; 569700, 4097892; 569693, 4097892; 569690, 4097895;
569660, 4097903; 569660, 4097903; 569660, 4097903; 569607, 4097898;
[[Page 19320]]
569529, 4097904; 569408, 4097944; 569334, 4097956; 569334, 4097956;
569334, 4097956; 569319, 4097953; 569293, 4097948; 569281, 4097935;
569280, 4097921; 569128, 4097932; 569123, 4097936; 569066, 4098078;
569064, 4098088; 569058, 4098098; 568951, 4098366; 568803, 4098527;
568790, 4098562; 568784, 4098672; 568740, 4098758; 568733, 4098789;
568700, 4098807; 568552, 4099214; 568548, 4099237; 568540, 4099245;
568514, 4099316; 568512, 4099351; 568494, 4099407; 568461, 4099461;
568411, 4099600; 568413, 4099607; 568413, 4099607; 568413, 4099629;
568395, 4099644; 568363, 4099730; 568185, 4099909; 568185, 4099917;
568102, 4100018; 568015, 4100096; 567955, 4100139; 567845, 4100249;
567817, 4100284; 567718, 4100446; 567639, 4100512; 567558, 4100615;
567554, 4100623; 567543, 4100635; 566920, 4101431; 566558, 4101664;
566549, 4101683; 566549, 4101683; 566544, 4101694; 566509, 4101721;
566509, 4101721; 566437, 4101741; 566379, 4101789; 566355, 4101800;
566391, 4101991; 566306, 4102128; 566302, 4102144; 566272, 4102202;
566239, 4102236; 566136, 4102401; 566118, 4102589; 566067, 4102633;
566055, 4102666; 565997, 4102692; 565991, 4102697; 565980, 4102686;
565933, 4102662; 565928, 4102634; 565918, 4102623; 565915, 4102704;
565938, 4102736; 565918, 4102813; 565918, 4102813; 565917, 4102819;
565894, 4102839; 565894, 4102840; 565894, 4102840; 565894, 4102840;
565871, 4102832; 565871, 4102809; 565889, 4102766; 565882, 4102722;
565801, 4102878; 565806, 4102897; 565835, 4102913; 565835, 4102913;
565834, 4102928; 565819, 4102948; 565819, 4102948; 565847, 4103002;
565838, 4103028; 565842, 4103042; 565738, 4103204; 565731, 4103202;
565731, 4103202; 565693, 4103201; 565693, 4103201; 565665, 4103183;
565661, 4103175; 565657, 4103172; 565637, 4103164; 565606, 4103244;
565555, 4103276; 565543, 4103296; 565578, 4103439; 565422, 4103696;
565390, 4103715; 565384, 4103722; 565218, 4103819; 565199, 4103831;
565193, 4103825; 565127, 4103809; 565110, 4103779; 565097, 4103733;
565087, 4103724; 565077, 4103722; 565155, 4103874; 565064, 4104181;
564991, 4104337; 564988, 4104370; 564920, 4104488; 564892, 4104548;
564706, 4104697; 564896, 4104779; 564952, 4105241; 564816, 4105396;
564664, 4105432; 564514, 4105388; 564385, 4105227; 564337, 4105546;
564258, 4105659; 564172, 4105782; 564241, 4105967; 564276, 4106061;
564330, 4106206; 564256, 4106176; 564277, 4106066; 564166, 4105981;
564125, 4105784; 564261, 4105601; 564288, 4105564; 564273, 4105405;
564272, 4105403; 564272, 4105402; 564272, 4105402; 564270, 4105402;
564198, 4105597; 563569, 4106326; 563523, 4106412; 563477, 4106460;
563477, 4106460; 563431, 4106492; 563420, 4106499; 563245, 4106701;
563500, 4106909; 563695, 4107069; 563721, 4107072; 564224, 4107131;
returning to 564479, 4107160; and excluding land bound by 573580,
4098341; 573624, 4098338; 573660, 4098454; returning to 573580,
4098341; and excluding land bound by 573381, 4098107; 573397, 4098073;
573480, 4098118; returning to 573381, 4098107; and excluding land bound
by 574744, 4097505; 574777, 4097483; 574803, 4097522; returning to
574744, 4097505.
(ii) Note: Unit SCZ-1 is depicted on Map 12--Unit SNM-2 and SCZ-
1, which follows:
[[Page 19321]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR13AP06.011
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(19) Unit SCZ-2, Santa Cruz County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Watsonville West. Land
[[Page 19322]]
bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 607874,
4086411; 608701, 4084860; 608605, 4084937; 608520, 4084844; 608271,
4084560; 608221, 4084334; 607164, 4083847; 606471, 4082967; 606324,
4083005; 605956, 4083724; 605973, 4084135; 606148, 4084358; 606145,
4084654; 605804, 4085090; 605562, 4085868; 605307, 4086095; 604763,
4086054; 604698, 4086167; 604132, 4086258; 603690, 4086684; 603615,
4086756; 603520, 4086848; 603133, 4087000; 602103, 4087771; 601519,
4088060; 601570, 4088484; 602074, 4088759; 602064, 4088910; 602395,
4089247; 602360, 4089344; 602512, 4089607; 603336, 4088906; 604761,
4088286; 606286, 4087760; 607611, 4086748; returning to 607874, 4086411.
(ii) Note: Unit SCZ-2 is depicted on Map 13--Unit SCZ-2 and MNT-
1; see paragraph (20)(ii):
(20) Unit MNT-1, Monterey County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Prunedale. Land bounded by
the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 612824, 4076812;
613380, 4076378; 613142, 4076444; 613147, 4076371; 613064, 4076368;
613366, 4076130; 613249, 4075818; 613416, 4075763; 613219, 4075623;
613496, 4075230; 613600, 4075201; 613180, 4074959; 612571, 4074924;
612260, 4075009; 612080, 4075185; 612505, 4076777; 612513, 4077290;
612970, 4077581; 613035, 4077429; returning to 612824, 4076812.
(ii) Note: Unit MNT-1 is depicted on Map 13--Unit SCZ-2 and MNT-
1, which follows:
[[Page 19323]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR13AP06.012
(21) Unit MNT-2: Monterey County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Carmel Valley, Monterey,
Mt. Carmel, Seaside, Soberanes Point, Spreckles and Ventana Cones. Land
[[Page 19324]]
bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 599419,
4045578; 599642, 4045473; 600088, 4045563; 600834, 4045542; 602271,
4045215; 602387, 4044955; 602995, 4044764; 603443, 4044360; 604112,
4044534; 604453, 4044544; 605099, 4044296; 605466, 4044057; 605685,
4044068; 605887, 4043958; 606225, 4043919; 606596, 4043689; 607244,
4043808; 607797, 4043794; 608466, 4043373; 608793, 4043110; 608866,
4042937; 609413, 4042802; 609830, 4042815; 610740, 4042432; 611573,
4041944; 611814, 4041289; 612726, 4040175; 613137, 4039874; 613762,
4038586; 614228, 4038610; 614670, 4038326; 615292, 4037674; 615771,
4037572; 616123, 4037392; 616407, 4036778; 616880, 4036290; 616920,
4035275; 616678, 4034771; 616638, 4034268; 616839, 4033784; 617237,
4033276; 617217, 4032493; 616886, 4031650; 617061, 4031299; 617286,
4031246; 618297, 4031323; 619110, 4031095; 619626, 4031260; 620016,
4031198; 620351, 4030986; 620815, 4030435; 622090, 4029729; 622246,
4029496; 622413, 4028936; 622376, 4028207; 621962, 4027644; 620983,
4027465; 621194, 4026936; 621269, 4026418; 621514, 4026327; 621676,
4026123; 621725, 4026061; 621941, 4025789; 622122, 4025275; 622237,
4024946; 622230, 4024686; 621666, 4024752; 621500, 4024594; 621292,
4024148; 621076, 4024116; 620947, 4023973; 620321, 4023915; 620122,
4024004; 619689, 4023918; 619165, 4024583; 619106, 4025057; 618744,
4025179; 618124, 4024982; 617215, 4025429; 616920, 4025731; 616877,
4025775; 616865, 4025862; 616821, 4026177; 616765, 4026584; 616901,
4027004; 617157, 4027413; 617802, 4027746; 618213, 4028428; 618251,
4028652; 618171, 4028813; 617414, 4028715; 616590, 4028838; 616584,
4028841; 615937, 4029218; 615531, 4029325; 615477, 4029371; 615347,
4029482; 615199, 4029924; 614332, 4030476; 614306, 4030755; 614893,
4031381; 614938, 4032234; 615264, 4032552; 615263, 4032820; 614984,
4033076; 613899, 4033293; 613272, 4033235; 612943, 4033471; 612757,
4033306; 612519, 4033230; 612322, 4032837; 612081, 4032745; 611814,
4032778; 611483, 4032893; 611376, 4033035; 611161, 4033081; 610979,
4033234; 610671, 4033935; 609995, 4034101; 609467, 4034431; 609391,
4034316; 609094, 4034287; 608941, 4033993; 608584, 4033799; 608648,
4033376; 608456, 4033012; 608619, 4032790; 608670, 4032435; 608390,
4032418; 607772, 4032658; 607467, 4032689; 606920, 4033267; 606778,
4033515; 606720, 4034435; 606579, 4034653; 606274, 4034867; 605616,
4034921; 604950, 4035256; 604498, 4034915; 604201, 4034891; 603365,
4035385; 603037, 4035880; 602964, 4036294; 603128, 4036775; 603074,
4037070; 602039, 4038212; 601367, 4038793; 600744, 4039190; 599942,
4039551; 599666, 4039810; 599380, 4039875; 598979, 4039833; 598735,
4040019; 598525, 4040532; 598311, 4040704; 597701, 4040900; 597253,
4041444; 596744, 4041800; 596256, 4042297; 596287, 4042405; 596132,
4042505; 596122, 4042511; 596028, 4042421; 595930, 4042473; 595940,
4042476; 595977, 4042497; 595977, 4042497; 595985, 4042502; 596065,
4042584; 596066, 4042584; 596143, 4042699; 596193, 4042814; 596206,
4042818; 596213, 4042819; 596210, 4042853; 596216, 4042865; 596214,
4042869; 596225, 4042892; 596185, 4042950; 596175, 4043007; 596157,
4043037; 596119, 4043047; 596143, 4043164; 596136, 4043239; 596145,
4043305; 595921, 4043926; 595920, 4043937; 595918, 4043952; 595912,
4044008; 595910, 4044024; 595908, 4044039; 595907, 4044043; 595853,
4044154; 595824, 4044195; 595804, 4044252; 595824, 4044277; 595980,
4044472; 596641, 4044556; 597625, 4043868; 598316, 4044030; 598771,
4043986; 599109, 4044228; 599364, 4044256; 599492, 4044450; 599412,
4044472; 599400, 4044703; 598784, 4044876; 598904, 4045023; 598904,
4045172; 598777, 4045395; 599154, 4045565; returning to 599419, 4045578.
(ii) Note: Unit MNT-2 (Map 14) follows:
[[Page 19325]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR13AP06.013
(22) Unit STC-1: Santa Clara County, California.
(i) Unit STC-1A: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Calaveras,
Isabel Valley, Lick Observatory, Mt. Day, Mt. Sizer and San Jose East.
Land bounded
[[Page 19326]]
by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 612237, 4141991;
612203, 4141589; 611893, 4140940; 611969, 4140675; 611962, 4140096;
612152, 4139946; 612459, 4139974; 612630, 4139772; 612795, 4139794;
613168, 4139551; 613570, 4139450; 613566, 4139244; 613666, 4139098;
613605, 4138264; 613708, 4137981; 614063, 4137873; 614140, 4138041;
614245, 4138095; 614254, 4138099; 614319, 4138132; 614482, 4137897;
614504, 4137865; 614981, 4137741; 614963, 4137477; 615187, 4137120;
615811, 4136523; 615810, 4136000; 615928, 4135865; 615873, 4135230;
616080, 4134655; 616360, 4134378; 616515, 4133842; 616638, 4133676;
616652, 4133124; 616852, 4132690; 616866, 4132313; 616973, 4132054;
617158, 4131944; 617178, 4131687; 617302, 4131573; 617591, 4131501;
617760, 4131146; 617872, 4131197; 618145, 4130995; 618693, 4131033;
618729, 4130940; 618624, 4130736; 618718, 4130655; 618878, 4130668;
619015, 4130511; 618867, 4130338; 618893, 4130253; 619031, 4129801;
619591, 4129713; 619800, 4129796; 619824, 4129621; 619976, 4129526;
619994, 4129332; 620342, 4129194; 620734, 4129474; 620830, 4129720;
621072, 4129096; 621462, 4129008; 621419, 4128672; 621515, 4128408;
621521, 4127932; 621824, 4127708; 621904, 4127423; 622072, 4127349;
622112, 4127201; 621723, 4127166; 621697, 4126941; 621435, 4126877;
621352, 4126717; 621817, 4126034; 622192, 4125876; 622527, 4125851;
622683, 4125916; 622816, 4125749; 622945, 4125721; 623173, 4125332;
623145, 4125105; 623593, 4124887; 623820, 4124576; 623432, 4123749;
623411, 4123461; 623160, 4123340; 623127, 4123235; 622990, 4123202;
622789, 4123298; 622251, 4123347; 621997, 4123271; 621663, 4123853;
621531, 4123870; 620991, 4124263; 620200, 4124592; 619688, 4124402;
619283, 4124541; 619042, 4124072; 619272, 4123773; 618944, 4123821;
618586, 4123638; 618594, 4123516; 618368, 4123456; 618252, 4123774;
617445, 4124567; 617250, 4124480; 616751, 4124670; 616302, 4124977;
616210, 4125133; 616289, 4125209; 616263, 4125318; 615978, 4125432;
615751, 4125708; 615362, 4125663; 614866, 4125945; 614911, 4126099;
614684, 4126506; 614809, 4127047; 614657, 4127186; 614631, 4127335;
614662, 4127620; 614585, 4127828; 614642, 4128130; 614464, 4128227;
614191, 4128589; 614313, 4128775; 614225, 4129047; 614367, 4129352;
614308, 4129391; 614236, 4129438; 613739, 4129766; 613576, 4130060;
613441, 4130080; 613506, 4130560; 613508, 4130573; 613344, 4131136;
612798, 4131727; 612621, 4132064; 612436, 4132202; 612358, 4132261;
612330, 4132365; 612259, 4132633; 612113, 4132698; 611912, 4132787;
611946, 4132924; 611824, 4133110; 611820, 4133148; 611802, 4133324;
611635, 4133479; 611647, 4133759; 611509, 4133949; 611493, 4134315;
611423, 4134445; 611342, 4134597; 611161, 4134610; 611121, 4134719;
610777, 4134766; 610731, 4134969; 610426, 4135080; 610042, 4135853;
609508, 4136147; 609270, 4136458; 608787, 4137441; 608491, 4137793;
608182, 4137930; 607593, 4137951; 607210, 4138322; 607091, 4138579;
606846, 4138652; 606040, 4138540; 606098, 4138947; 605923, 4138995;
605932, 4139155; 605426, 4138980; 605059, 4138971; 604471, 4139194;
604343, 4139170; 604159, 4139363; 604133, 4139623; 604367, 4139882;
604382, 4140096; 604574, 4140118; 604608, 4140376; 604783, 4140578;
604789, 4140721; 605055, 4141023; 605536, 4141023; 605764, 4141137;
605993, 4141092; 606145, 4140955; 606545, 4141045; 606686, 4141124;
606832, 4141464; 607076, 4141722; 607541, 4141680; 608014, 4141870;
608199, 4142141; 608300, 4142611; 608715, 4142602; 609083, 4142211;
609302, 4142219; 609329, 4141976; 609532, 4141860; 609743, 4141951;
609851, 4142170; 610315, 4141978; 610614, 4142075; 610999, 4142707;
611151, 4142845; 611408, 4142925; 612012, 4142381; 612059, 4142174;
returning to 612237, 4141991;
(ii) Note: Unit STC-1A (Map 15) follows:
[[Page 19327]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR13AP06.014
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(iii) Unit STC-1B: From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Gilroy Hot
Springs, Mississippi Creek, Mt. Sizer and Mustang Creek. Land bounded by
[[Page 19328]]
the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 640255, 4116331;
640334, 4116041; 640468, 4115985; 640873, 4116030; 640963, 4115792;
640948, 4115782; 640963, 4115758; 640888, 4115617; 640880, 4115611;
640838, 4115593; 640763, 4115570; 640708, 4115566; 640704, 4115552;
640691, 4115548; 640687, 4115423; 640742, 4115381; 640753, 4115369;
640787, 4115329; 640864, 4115290; 640864, 4115290; 640899, 4115264;
640991, 4115276; 641202, 4115056; 641208, 4114957; 641185, 4114861;
641176, 4114797; 641180, 4114723; 641197, 4114607; 641212, 4114587;
641230, 4114563; 641234, 4114559; 641237, 4114523; 641271, 4114030;
641270, 4114028; 641271, 4114026; 641272, 4114014; 641447, 4113651;
641786, 4113527; 641895, 4113090; 641917, 4113067; 641943, 4112993;
641992, 4112986; 642017, 4112959; 642221, 4113013; 642397, 4112815;
642598, 4112752; 642677, 4112913; 642699, 4112942; 642713, 4112980;
642726, 4113000; 642739, 4113013; 642756, 4113029; 642776, 4113030;
642824, 4113036; 642852, 4113043; 642877, 4113062; 642927, 4113086;
642966, 4113106; 642967, 4113107; 642971, 4113110; 643008, 4113133;
643030, 4113147; 643141, 4113191; 643762, 4112948; 644625, 4112180;
644755, 4111924; 644707, 4111793; 644868, 4111373; 644618, 4111095;
644303, 4111137; 644020, 4110840; 644093, 4110256; 643844, 4109750;
643838, 4109578; 643597, 4109387; 643309, 4109542; 643282, 4109149;
643268, 4108958; 643047, 4108898; 642726, 4108655; 642526, 4108288;
642405, 4108275; 642229, 4108418; 641866, 4108352; 641568, 4109095;
641544, 4109156; 641218, 4109330; 641131, 4109077; 641125, 4109057;
640693, 4108616; 640602, 4108030; 640381, 4107983; 640587, 4107620;
640919, 4107366; 640928, 4106886; 641039, 4106730; 640961, 4106402;
641107, 4106265; 641191, 4105822; 641360, 4105532; 641609, 4105444;
641740, 4105241; 641966, 4105105; 642566, 4104955; 642742, 4104186;
642907, 4103962; 642670, 4103545; 642834, 4103214; 642887, 4102821;
643785, 4102560; 643825, 4102358; 644111, 4102187; 644320, 4101481;
643798, 4101517; 643607, 4101399; 643458, 4101543; 642537, 4101612;
642343, 4101478; 642184, 4101196; 641700, 4101679; 641611, 4101688;
640727, 4101236; 640421, 4100955; 639538, 4100683; 639044, 4101048;
638772, 4101063; 638595, 4101575; 637798, 4102121; 637393, 4102637;
637080, 4102782; 636982, 4103052; 636500, 4103641; 636390, 4103954;
636189, 4104067; 636169, 4104413; 635958, 4104641; 634954, 4105208;
634610, 4106791; 634422, 4107257; 634104, 4107651; 634218, 4107977;
634332, 4108042; 634253, 4108384; 633835, 4108507; 633573, 4108820;
633465, 4108838; 633640, 4109358; 633411, 4109899; 633222, 4109873;
632855, 4109976; 632770, 4110090; 632413, 4110161; 632084, 4110384;
631923, 4110836; 631442, 4111239; 631408, 4111617; 631101, 4111955;
630676, 4112129; 630646, 4112268; 630266, 4112721; 630329, 4112914;
630725, 4113088; 630961, 4113401; 631280, 4113114; 631547, 4113040;
631870, 4113005; 632029, 4113074; 632229, 4112962; 632687, 4113061;
632784, 4113361; 632658, 4113499; 632786, 4113929; 632728, 4114292;
632799, 4114417; 632931, 4114650; 633144, 4114773; 633510, 4114766;
633754, 4114652; 634132, 4114806; 634263, 4114658; 634255, 4114449;
634576, 4114361; 634917, 4114667; 634940, 4114871; 634745, 4115132;
634807, 4115267; 635230, 4115138; 635818, 4115255; 636049, 4115136;
636255, 4115165; 636657, 4115026; 637037, 4115230; 637370, 4115130;
637574, 4115310; 637646, 4115732; 637753, 4115890; 637729, 4116086;
638838, 4116075; 639575, 4116443; 640064, 4116480; returning to 640255,
4116331;
(iv) Note: Unit STC-1B is depicted on Map 16--Unit STC-1B and
MER-1; see paragraph (23)(iii):
(23) Unit MER-1, Merced County, California.
(i) Unit MER-1A: Merced and Santa Clara counties, California. From
USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Pacheco Pass. Land bounded by the
following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 663627, 4106508;
663570, 4106426; 663516, 4106355; 663436, 4106277; 663378, 4106239;
663328, 4106213; 663267, 4106189; 663227, 4106173; 663018, 4106143;
662423, 4106202; 662421, 4106202; 662416, 4106202; 662414, 4106202;
662346, 4106201; 662342, 4106200; 662337, 4106200; 662332, 4106199;
662253, 4106183; 662253, 4106183; 662248, 4106182; 662243, 4106181;
662242, 4106180; 662242, 4106180; 662118, 4106135; 662116, 4106135;
661836, 4106028; 661687, 4105970; 661685, 4105970; 661680, 4105968;
661677, 4105966; 661610, 4105928; 661528, 4105915; 661067, 4105920;
661066, 4105920; 661065, 4105920; 660974, 4105919; 660970, 4105918;
660966, 4105918; 660961, 4105917; 660959, 4105917; 660892, 4105901;
660813, 4105886; 660813, 4105886; 660808, 4105885; 660804, 4105883;
660799, 4105882; 660794, 4105880; 660793, 4105879; 660736, 4105849;
660734, 4105848; 660730, 4105846; 660640, 4105787; 660639, 4105787;
660635, 4105784; 660632, 4105780; 660629, 4105778; 660584, 4105734;
660583, 4105734; 660580, 4105730; 660577, 4105726; 660575, 4105724;
660232, 4105235; 660191, 4105182; 660138, 4105125; 660002, 4105074;
659947, 4105061; 659613, 4105055; 659610, 4105054; 659605, 4105054;
659605, 4105054; 659480, 4105037; 659475, 4105037; 659470, 4105035;
659465, 4105034; 659464, 4105034; 659339, 4104989; 659336, 4104987;
659332, 4104985; 659327, 4104983; 659323, 4104980; 659319, 4104977;
659315, 4104975; 659181, 4104858; 659181, 4104858; 659177, 4104855;
659174, 4104851; 659170, 4104847; 659168, 4104843; 659165, 4104839;
659163, 4104835; 659097, 4104706; 659097, 4104705; 659095, 4104701;
659093, 4104697; 658921, 4104214; 658850, 4104053; 658819, 4104012;
658780, 4103987; 658718, 4103984; 658717, 4103984; 658712, 4103984;
658707, 4103983; 658702, 4103982; 658697, 4103980; 658693, 4103978;
658688, 4103976; 658684, 4103974; 658680, 4103971; 658675, 4103969;
658672, 4103965; 658669, 4103963; 658668, 4103962; 658665, 4103958;
658661, 4103954; 658658, 4103950; 658656, 4103946; 658654, 4103943;
658336, 4104136; 658086, 4104436; 658011, 4104558; 658029, 4104560;
658098, 4104568; 658089, 4104860; 657953, 4104883; 657946, 4104894;
657821, 4105076; 657472, 4105243; 656855, 4105861; 656596, 4105904;
656565, 4105909; 656523, 4105837; 656491, 4105783; 656410, 4105781;
656402, 4105836; 656306, 4106493; 656436, 4106466; 656576, 4106581;
656814, 4106624; 656905, 4106742; 657051, 4106932; 657058, 4106934;
657340, 4106992; 657342, 4106998; 657397, 4107158; 657319, 4107627;
657355, 4107628; 661420, 4107769; 661596, 4107147; 661847, 4106966;
662730, 4106534; 663507, 4106525; 663573, 4106524; returning to 663627,
4106508.
(ii) Unit MER-1B: Merced and Santa Clara counties, California. From
USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Pacheco Pass. Land bounded by the
following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 662307, 4106033;
662279, 4105978; 662270, 4105981; 662013, 4105663; 662342, 4105664;
662711, 4105446; 662009, 4105242; 662066, 4105166; 662389, 4105237;
662414, 4105130; 662796, 4105173; 662709, 4104890; 662790, 4104882;
663101, 4105220; 663074, 4104935; 663211, 4105025; 663367, 4104913;
663391, 4104802;
[[Page 19329]]
663558, 4104878; 663873, 4104702; 663441, 4104682; 663226, 4104792;
662938, 4104683; 662986, 4104610; 663124, 4104670; 663237, 4104619;
663418, 4104442; 662986, 4104259; 662873, 4104417; 662768, 4104372;
662606, 4104504; 662589, 4104714; 662436, 4104459; 662444, 4104221;
662366, 4104260; 662399, 4104372; 662156, 4104778; 662035, 4104796;
662040, 4105003; 661877, 4104950; 661429, 4105112; 661778, 4104857;
661865, 4104574; 662068, 4104321; 661980, 4104275; 661844, 4104383;
661873, 4104274; 662069, 4104123; 661884, 4104089; 661812, 4103968;
661678, 4103977; 661331, 4104251; 661154, 4104203; 660631, 4104454;
661016, 4104224; 660980, 4104159; 661085, 4104158; 661091, 4104071;
661287, 4104095; 661371, 4103973; 661518, 4104002; 661627, 4103844;
661792, 4103805; 661945, 4103871; 661967, 4103802; 662129, 4103938;
662259, 4103942; 662315, 4103643; 662496, 4103834; 662991, 4103814;
662950, 4103707; 662705, 4103575; 662766, 4103454; 662653, 4103456;
662613, 4103344; 662377, 4103354; 661862, 4103206; 662489, 4103154;
662519, 4103091; 662374, 4102970; 662520, 4102981; 662598, 4102816;
662660, 4103104; 662972, 4103441; 663143, 4103405; 663117, 4103569;
663196, 4103666; 663676, 4103790; 663833, 4103642; 663969, 4103734;
663996, 4103597; 664140, 4103636; 664151, 4103487; 664566, 4103031;
664581, 4102731; 664454, 4102481; 664601, 4102415; 664665, 4102120;
664499, 4102089; 664745, 4101925; 664659, 4101858; 664780, 4101690;
664698, 4101455; 664516, 4101335; 664550, 4101254; 664216, 4100934;
664672, 4100988; 664679, 4100858; 664848, 4100714; 664613, 4100658;
664753, 4100531; 664640, 4100466; 664690, 4100382; 664265, 4100296;
656384, 4098693; 656229, 4098662; 655918, 4098986; 655795, 4099251;
655791, 4099567; 655921, 4099641; 656002, 4099688; 656464, 4099730;
656477, 4099748; 656864, 4100316; 657021, 4100680; 657071, 4101195;
656999, 4101300; 657131, 4101522; 657082, 4101623; 657168, 4101900;
657327, 4102147; 657329, 4102278; 657574, 4102542; 657709, 4102978;
657871, 4103125; 658079, 4103104; 658325, 4103295; 658922, 4103499;
658904, 4103616; 659001, 4103617; 658995, 4103627; 658869, 4103858;
658913, 4103887; 658913, 4103887; 658918, 4103890; 658921, 4103893;
658925, 4103896; 658928, 4103900; 658932, 4103904; 658973, 4103957;
658976, 4103961; 658976, 4103962; 658979, 4103966; 658982, 4103970;
658984, 4103974; 658985, 4103977; 658999, 4104008; 659062, 4104149;
659062, 4104151; 659064, 4104154; 659235, 4104636; 659292, 4104747;
659404, 4104845; 659500, 4104879; 659508, 4104882; 659620, 4104897;
659957, 4104903; 659961, 4104903; 659966, 4104904; 659971, 4104905;
659973, 4104905; 660041, 4104921; 660044, 4104921; 660048, 4104923;
660051, 4104924; 660209, 4104983; 660211, 4104984; 660216, 4104986;
660220, 4104989; 660225, 4104991; 660229, 4104994; 660232, 4104997;
660236, 4105001; 660238, 4105003; 660292, 4105061; 660305, 4105075;
660306, 4105077; 660309, 4105081; 660354, 4105138; 660354, 4105138;
660356, 4105141; 660695, 4105625; 660730, 4105658; 660775, 4105687;
660810, 4105710; 660854, 4105733; 660922, 4105747; 660922, 4105747;
660924, 4105747; 660985, 4105761; 661067, 4105763; 661532, 4105757;
661533, 4105757; 661538, 4105757; 661543, 4105758; 661545, 4105758;
661647, 4105774; 661650, 4105775; 661655, 4105776; 661660, 4105777;
661665, 4105779; 661669, 4105781; 661673, 4105783; 661747, 4105825;
662170, 4105987; 662288, 4106030; returning to 662307, 4106033.
(iii) Note: Unit MER-1 is depicted on Map 16--Unit STC-1B and
MER-1, which follows:
[[Page 19330]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR13AP06.015
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(24) Unit SNB-1, San Benito County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Hollister, Mt. Harlan, Tres
[[Page 19331]]
Pinos and San Juan Bautista. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10,
NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 636333, 4075764; 636809, 4075566; 637368,
4075520; 637770, 4075623; 638436, 4075288; 639151, 4074594; 639270,
4074217; 639547, 4073979; 640024, 4073740; 640877, 4073582; 641790,
4073621; 642345, 4072947; 642290, 4072223; 642286, 4072173; 642327,
4072128; 642484, 4071954; 642762, 4071855; 643099, 4071915; 643635,
4071756; 644786, 4072133; 645168, 4072165; 645297, 4072025; 645689,
4072165; 645934, 4072108; 645583, 4071554; 644771, 4071306; 644570,
4071098; 644078, 4070211; 643423, 4069300; 643207, 4069137; 642999,
4068980; 642764, 4068214; 642401, 4068048; 642285, 4067815; 641550,
4067654; 641481, 4067639; 640877, 4067786; 640417, 4067543; 640247,
4067603; 640033, 4067428; 639935, 4067174; 639778, 4067110; 639405,
4067226; 639029, 4066971; 638921, 4066756; 638947, 4066568; 638850,
4066215; 638012, 4066018; 637996, 4066098; 637982, 4066167; 637979,
4066180; 637573, 4066480; 637560, 4066490; 637527, 4066631; 637722,
4066757; 637723, 4066757; 637471, 4066841; 637471, 4066844; 637470,
4067231; 637470, 4067249; 637302, 4067389; 637261, 4067559; 637203,
4067554; 637006, 4067537; 636973, 4067534; 636959, 4067533; 636928,
4067607; 636870, 4067747; 636763, 4067690; 636753, 4067684; 636532,
4067718; 636425, 4067735; 636317, 4067811; 636317, 4067811; 636200,
4068132; 636197, 4068139; 636163, 4068138; 636073, 4068136; 635961,
4068564; 635983, 4068610; 636004, 4068655; 636092, 4068839; 636145,
4068950; 636128, 4069061; 635991, 4069270; 635918, 4069380; 635904,
4069401; 635741, 4069459; 635690, 4069477; 635637, 4069611; 635605,
4069693; 635531, 4069880; 635535, 4069893; 635762, 4070572; 635979,
4070786; 635638, 4070940; 635518, 4071208; 635534, 4071479; 635648,
4071712; 635705, 4073010; 636117, 4073620; 636042, 4073785; 635602,
4074066; 635336, 4074121; 633538, 4074975; 633270, 4075185; 633189,
4075401; 632764, 4075650; 632735, 4075795; 633860, 4075970; 634467,
4075645; 634857, 4075991; 635579, 4075824; returning to 636333, 4075764.
(ii) Note: Unit SNB-1 is depicted on Map 17--Unit SNB-1, SNB-2,
and SNB-3; see paragraph (26)(ii):
(25) Unit SNB-2, San Benito County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Paicines and Tres Pinos.
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N):
651305, 4072378; 651525, 4072011; 651845, 4071771; 652028, 4071278;
652022, 4070800; 651786, 4070356; 651865, 4070144; 651782, 4070129;
652109, 4069671; 652194, 4069177; 652713, 4068803; 653034, 4068282;
653559, 4067949; 653399, 4067163; 653668, 4066229; 653679, 4065476;
653994, 4063632; 652942, 4063283; 653061, 4062588; 652882, 4062132;
652882, 4061536; 652942, 4061338; 653180, 4061239; 653200, 4060683;
652505, 4060743; 651216, 4060624; 650263, 4060723; 649985, 4060584;
649871, 4060727; 650024, 4061281; 649952, 4061533; 650089, 4061931;
649831, 4062318; 649811, 4062612; 649587, 4062888; 649992, 4063123;
649750, 4063250; 649827, 4063402; 649827, 4063977; 649132, 4064573;
648418, 4064893; 648368, 4065024; 648595, 4065182; 648637, 4065377;
648952, 4065483; 649176, 4065456; 649211, 4065793; 648912, 4066371;
649309, 4066881; 649241, 4067470; 649486, 4067527; 649752, 4067816;
649699, 4067996; 649941, 4068182; 650059, 4068581; 650495, 4068725;
651109, 4069081; 649393, 4070835; 649209, 4071370; 649241, 4071918;
649574, 4072372; 649804, 4072538; 649950, 4072309; 650247, 4072695;
650886, 4072656; 651305, 4072378.
(ii) Note: Unit SNB-2 is depicted on Map 17--Unit SNB-1, SNB-2,
and SNB-3; see paragraph (26)(ii):
(26) Unit SNB-3, San Benito County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Bickmore Canyon, North
Chalone Peak, Topo Valley and San Benito. Land bounded by the following
UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 662185, 4046287; 662287, 4045981;
662560, 4045656; 662682, 4045636; 662867, 4045605; 663004, 4045486;
663021, 4045145; 663396, 4044906; 663532, 4044548; 664504, 4044599;
664848, 4044852; 665423, 4045274; 665730, 4044906; 666332, 4043701;
666667, 4043367; 666712, 4043144; 667158, 4042965; 667850, 4042965;
668162, 4042697; 668921, 4042296; 669278, 4042229; 669771, 4042313;
669964, 4042067; 670188, 4041997; 670325, 4041669; 670826, 4041221;
670822, 4041091; 671218, 4040873; 671427, 4040628; 671347, 4040394;
671047, 4040233; 671021, 4040013; 670823, 4039814; 670892, 4039645;
670684, 4039389; 670027, 4039673; 669533, 4039468; 669472, 4039474;
669158, 4039502; 668868, 4039656; 668663, 4039502; 668237, 4039588;
667896, 4039485; 667521, 4038752; 667317, 4038633; 667282, 4038411;
666942, 4038121; 666788, 4037900; 666746, 4037721; 666720, 4037610;
666297, 4037134; 666174, 4036996; 666152, 4036911; 665902, 4035939;
666004, 4035684; 666549, 4035206; 667129, 4034184; 667043, 4032692;
666753, 4032494; 666436, 4032574; 665616, 4032553; 665419, 4032791;
665323, 4033277; 665298, 4033401; 664899, 4033738; 664759, 4033726;
664319, 4033689; 664050, 4033809; 663280, 4033713; 663165, 4033734;
662763, 4033807; 662623, 4033932; 662588, 4034146; 662267, 4034294;
662008, 4034306; 661746, 4034200; 661635, 4034658; 661689, 4035154;
661690, 4035158; 661637, 4035258; 661489, 4035541; 661490, 4035552;
661492, 4035570; 661521, 4035846; 661526, 4035890; 661498, 4035935;
661410, 4036077; 661129, 4036266; 661106, 4036282; 661046, 4036370;
660789, 4036744; 660733, 4036783; 660641, 4036845; 660433, 4036988;
660395, 4037013; 660333, 4037119; 660281, 4037207; 660113, 4037493;
660033, 4037628; 659995, 4037693; 659949, 4037852; 659953, 4037855;
660089, 4037963; 660464, 4038258; 660685, 4038531; 660907, 4038650;
661145, 4038650; 661316, 4038837; 661555, 4040304; 661452, 4040644;
659679, 4041787; 659458, 4042145; 659187, 4042901; 659773, 4042943;
660108, 4043054; 660531, 4043054; 660978, 4042943; 661067, 4044014;
660601, 4044391; 660598, 4044393; 660576, 4045821; 660769, 4046171;
661080, 4046064; 661674, 4046284; 661687, 4046285; returning to 662185,
4046287.
(ii) Note: Unit SNB-3 is depicted on Map 17--Unit SNB-1, SNB-2,
and SNB-3, which follows:
[[Page 19332]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR13AP06.016
(27) Unit SLO-1, San Luis Obispo County, California.
(i) Unit SLO-1A, Monterey, Kern, and San Luis Obispo counties,
California. From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Cholame, Cholame Valle,
Orchard Peak
[[Page 19333]]
and Tent Hills. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83
coordinates (E,N): 751686, 3964133; 751712, 3964088; 751741, 3964089;
751944, 3964093; 752170, 3963839; 752089, 3963653; 752394, 3963470;
752337, 3963122; 752393, 3962782; 752775, 3962577; 753511, 3961661;
753674, 3961522; 753685, 3961512; 753876, 3961497; 753879, 3961211;
753726, 3961118; 753706, 3961064; 753688, 3961015; 753346, 3960103;
753157, 3960041; 753037, 3960096; 752584, 3959853; 752439, 3959886;
752616, 3959569; 752581, 3959240; 752698, 3958821; 752928, 3958591;
753277, 3958434; 753384, 3958236; 753360, 3958091; 753139, 3957977;
753347, 3957726; 753391, 3957540; 752811, 3957804; 752717, 3957865;
752515, 3958072; 752455, 3958187; 752455, 3958191; 752454, 3958196;
752453, 3958201; 752451, 3958205; 752451, 3958206; 752390, 3958384;
752310, 3958775; 752309, 3958779; 752307, 3958784; 752306, 3958789;
752305, 3958790; 752268, 3958874; 752266, 3958877; 752264, 3958882;
752261, 3958886; 752259, 3958890; 752255, 3958894; 752252, 3958898;
752248, 3958901; 752247, 3958902; 752164, 3958971; 752161, 3958973;
752157, 3958976; 752153, 3958978; 752153, 3958978; 752035, 3959046;
752031, 3959048; 752026, 3959050; 752022, 3959052; 752017, 3959054;
752015, 3959054; 751910, 3959080; 751907, 3959080; 751902, 3959081;
751901, 3959081; 751122, 3959173; 751118, 3959173; 751113, 3959173;
751111, 3959173; 750972, 3959169; 750969, 3959169; 750966, 3959169;
749326, 3958980; 749324, 3958980; 749319, 3958979; 749319, 3958979;
748582, 3958831; 748580, 3958831; 748212, 3958749; 748209, 3958748;
748205, 3958747; 746940, 3958338; 746939, 3958337; 746937, 3958337;
746756, 3958787; 746903, 3959687; 746602, 3959975; 746447, 3960491;
746115, 3960992; 746275, 3961146; 746729, 3961287; 747168, 3961212;
747374, 3961734; 747595, 3961650; 747697, 3961709; 747939, 3962560;
748518, 3963103; 748980, 3963178; 749087, 3963366; 749220, 3963434;
749423, 3963311; 749691, 3963318; 749862, 3963037; 750137, 3963026;
750339, 3963349; 750677, 3963620; 750913, 3963709; 751032, 3963973;
751204, 3964077; 751407, 3964200; 751633, 3964226; 751637, 3964218;
returning to 751686, 3964133.
(ii) Unit SLO-1B, San Luis Obispo and Kern counties, California.
From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Cholame and Orchard Peak. Land
bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 752244,
3958339; 752303, 3958167; 752303, 3958164; 752304, 3958162; 752304,
3958157; 752305, 3958152; 752306, 3958147; 752307, 3958142; 752309,
3958137; 752311, 3958133; 752312, 3958131; 752386, 3957991; 752387,
3957988; 752390, 3957984; 752393, 3957980; 752396, 3957976; 752398,
3957973; 752613, 3957752; 752614, 3957751; 752618, 3957748; 752622,
3957745; 752626, 3957742; 752627, 3957741; 752733, 3957673; 752736,
3957671; 752741, 3957669; 752743, 3957668; 753679, 3957241; 753770,
3957189; 753770, 3957189; 753774, 3957187; 753776, 3957186; 753824,
3957164; 753949, 3957107; 755936, 3955917; 756110, 3955797; 756322,
3955634; 756322, 3955634; 756324, 3955632; 756326, 3955628; 756329,
3955624; 756332, 3955620; 756335, 3955616; 756338, 3955612; 756342,
3955609; 756346, 3955606; 756350, 3955603; 756350, 3955603; 756406,
3955566; 756407, 3955564; 756409, 3955560; 756412, 3955555; 756415,
3955551; 756418, 3955547; 756421, 3955544; 756425, 3955540; 756429,
3955537; 756433, 3955534; 756434, 3955534; 756658, 3955389; 756661,
3955387; 756666, 3955385; 756670, 3955383; 756675, 3955381; 756680,
3955379; 756685, 3955378; 756690, 3955378; 756695, 3955377; 756700,
3955377; 756704, 3955377; 756709, 3955378; 756714, 3955378; 756719,
3955379; 756724, 3955381; 756729, 3955383; 756733, 3955385; 756737,
3955387; 756937, 3954849; 757985, 3954183; 758226, 3953688; 757146,
3954055; 756930, 3954253; 756254, 3954059; 755715, 3954502; 755295,
3954246; 755299, 3954110; 755014, 3953871; 755837, 3953057; 755884,
3952815; 755772, 3952588; 756007, 3952600; 756006, 3952390; 755863,
3952018; 755458, 3951873; 755424, 3951773; 755507, 3951608; 755206,
3951465; 755086, 3951288; 754878, 3951181; 754722, 3950867; 754612,
3950785; 754358, 3950847; 754180, 3950747; 754207, 3950531; 754017,
3950341; 753934, 3950258; 753718, 3949714; 753969, 3949413; 753850,
3949020; 753846, 3948668; 753637, 3949080; 752412, 3950170; 752330,
3950365; 752195, 3950371; 751675, 3950945; 751199, 3951131; 750465,
3952104; 750202, 3952182; 750202, 3952580; 750094, 3953028; 750327,
3954015; 750668, 3954626; 750740, 3954967; 750704, 3955954; 750345,
3956420; 750345, 3956582; 749825, 3956869; 749717, 3957012; 749387,
3957007; 749153, 3957003; 748622, 3956995; 748281, 3957497; 747851,
3957389; 747707, 3957623; 747223, 3957676; 746949, 3957940; 746960,
3958189; 746964, 3958189; 746969, 3958189; 746974, 3958190; 746979,
3958190; 746984, 3958192; 746987, 3958193; 748248, 3958601; 748613,
3958682; 749346, 3958829; 750980, 3959017; 751110, 3959021; 751879,
3958930; 751969, 3958909; 752071, 3958850; 752136, 3958796; 752162,
3958736; 752241, 3958349; 752242, 3958344; 752244, 3958339; returning
to 752244, 3958339.
(iii) Note: Unit SLO-1 is depicted on Map 18--Unit SLO-1A and
SLO-1B, which follows:
[[Page 19334]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR13AP06.017
(28) Unit SLO-8, San Luis Obispo County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Caldwell Mesa, La Panza,
Los Machos Hills and Poza Summit. Land bounded by the following UTM
[[Page 19335]]
Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 742342, 3910355; 742896, 3909995;
742987, 3910011; 743049, 3909814; 743416, 3909965; 744021, 3909620;
744518, 3909447; 744885, 3909015; 744885, 3908647; 746225, 3908647;
746268, 3908345; 746506, 3908258; 746743, 3907826; 746821, 3907792;
747132, 3907653; 747345, 3907423; 747690, 3907221; 747910, 3907092;
747910, 3906919; 748119, 3906818; 748537, 3906616; 749639, 3906465;
749834, 3906249; 750071, 3906227; 750719, 3905644; 750869, 3905120;
750904, 3904999; 750913, 3904672; 751216, 3904477; 751288, 3904321;
751346, 3904196; 751475, 3904131; 751843, 3904131; 752901, 3905104;
754148, 3905082; 753954, 3904740; 753956, 3904595; 754119, 3904319;
753994, 3903997; 754040, 3903708; 753829, 3903239; 753826, 3902991;
753536, 3902799; 753435, 3902578; 753528, 3902392; 753250, 3902082;
753057, 3902009; 752924, 3901603; 753012, 3901277; 753401, 3900906;
753421, 3900721; 753352, 3900652; 752897, 3900587; 752686, 3900236;
752480, 3900225; 752269, 3900006; 752208, 3899942; 752105, 3899557;
751890, 3899641; 751610, 3899752; 751065, 3899718; 750934, 3899819;
750857, 3900160; 750382, 3900434; 750209, 3900688; 749877, 3900774;
749682, 3901061; 749177, 3901338; 748884, 3901682; 748920, 3901927;
748835, 3902149; 748448, 3902277; 748180, 3902541; 747898, 3902431;
747717, 3902498; 747516, 3902788; 747099, 3902976; 746746, 3902918;
746410, 3902963; 746081, 3903296; 745712, 3903361; 745413, 3903584;
745169, 3903525; 744798, 3903936; 744720, 3904350; 744449, 3904751;
743419, 3904715; 742926, 3904904; 742676, 3904893; 742626, 3905286;
742409, 3905213; 741878, 3905244; 741711, 3905511; 741283, 3905727;
740794, 3905414; 740339, 3905647; 740412, 3906357; 740218, 3906811;
739743, 3907372; 739722, 3907430; 739440, 3908215; 739455, 3908624;
739820, 3908802; 739831, 3909034; 740192, 3909165; 740264, 3909401;
740740, 3909546; 740811, 3909852; 740928, 3909862; 741281, 3910151;
741407, 3910358; 742175, 3910446; returning to 742342, 3910355.
(ii) Note: Unit SLO-8 (Map 19) follows:
[[Page 19336]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR13AP06.018
(29) Unit STB-1, Santa Barbara County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Foxen Canyon, Manzanita
Mtn., Tepusquet Canyon and Zaca Lake. Land bounded by the following UTM
[[Page 19337]]
Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 760562, 3876097; 760672, 3876042;
761005, 3876093; 761484, 3875882; 761915, 3875540; 762011, 3875342;
762395, 3875163; 762670, 3874870; 763079, 3874758; 763422, 3875236;
763812, 3875437; 764363, 3875306; 764762, 3875023; 764895, 3875633;
765728, 3875247; 766130, 3874926; 766773, 3874765; 767375, 3874303;
766692, 3873794; 766680, 3873615; 766866, 3873352; 766958, 3872847;
767518, 3872546; 768333, 3872362; 768758, 3872044; 768701, 3871632;
767557, 3871024; 767339, 3871050; 766934, 3870909; 766834, 3869773;
766590, 3869471; 766520, 3869233; 766558, 3868884; 766939, 3868674;
767084, 3868355; 766763, 3867725; 766960, 3867566; 767061, 3867318;
767053, 3866343; 766871, 3866166; 766875, 3865716; 766960, 3865587;
766724, 3865095; 766178, 3864457; 766084, 3864002; 766071, 3863939;
766041, 3863893; 765862, 3863616; 765794, 3863346; 765381, 3863233;
765364, 3863228; 765331, 3862966; 765311, 3862929; 764940, 3862265;
764868, 3862136; 764482, 3862406; 763590, 3862178; 763295, 3862281;
762879, 3862024; 762469, 3861631; 762204, 3861602; 762105, 3861666;
761931, 3861582; 761788, 3861358; 761850, 3860994; 761705, 3860676;
760807, 3861013; 760636, 3861044; 760566, 3860969; 760433, 3861135;
759600, 3861135; 758845, 3862084; 758767, 3862569; 758748, 3862937;
759290, 3863518; 759639, 3863731; 759813, 3864060; 759841, 3864364;
759852, 3864486; 760046, 3865087; 759717, 3865648; 759717, 3866501;
759310, 3867372; 758961, 3868554; 758897, 3869361; 759610, 3869788;
759707, 3869963; 759591, 3870865; 759205, 3871457; 758719, 3871858;
758710, 3872086; 758624, 3872197; 758330, 3872577; 758585, 3873031;
758824, 3873459; 759241, 3873456; 759706, 3873605; 759924, 3873760;
759967, 3873943; 759819, 3874091; 760002, 3874342; 760181, 3874444;
760333, 3875007; 760185, 3875250; 760134, 3875544; 760198, 3876182;
760214, 3876232; returning to 760562, 3876097;
(ii) Note: Unit STB-1 is depicted on Map 20--Unit STB-1 and STB-
3; see paragraph (30)(ii):
(30) Unit STB-3, Santa Barbara County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Bald Mountain, Figueroa
Mtn., Hurricane Deck and Zaca Lake. Land bounded by the following UTM
Zone 10, NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 774262, 3851242; 774038, 3851378;
773599, 3852194; 773610, 3852585; 772721, 3852969; 772605, 3853117;
772049, 3853270; 770806, 3853935; 770526, 3854367; 770502, 3855237;
770473, 3855275; 770208, 3855631; 770277, 3855831; 770248, 3856093;
770455, 3856359; 770525, 3856800; 771005, 3857165; 770696, 3857635;
770372, 3857882; 769786, 3857861; 769225, 3858043; 769214, 3858418;
768882, 3858990; 768993, 3859243; 768942, 3859847; 769055, 3859907;
769200, 3860391; 769683, 3860633; 769973, 3861140; 770820, 3861334;
771313, 3861655; 771327, 3861637; 771705, 3861144; 771971, 3860990;
772182, 3860704; 772385, 3860618; 772427, 3860315; 772595, 3860173;
772560, 3859857; 772675, 3859142; 772587, 3858807; 773540, 3859330;
773731, 3859358; 774108, 3859260; thence east to UTM zone 11, land
bounded by the following UTM 11 NAD 83 coordinates (E, N): 225709,
3859505; 226191, 3859671; 226446, 3859945; 226779, 3861260; 227069,
3862025; 227901, 3862297; 228180, 3862460; 227736, 3861694; 227674,
3861404; 227811, 3861121; 228015, 3860908; 228771, 3860676; 229717,
3860243; 230921, 3859474; 231976, 3855997; 231890, 3855313; 236301,
3853942; 236842, 3853657; 236927, 3853500; 237181, 3853315; 237180,
3853032; 237675, 3852714; 237864, 3852491; 237820, 3852284; 237295,
3852044; 237085, 3851654; 235563, 3851863; 234961, 3851815; 234496,
3851477; 234322, 3850773; 234404, 3850093; 234556, 3849573; 234532,
3848910; 234739, 3848334; 234781, 3847688; 234766, 3847430; 234422,
3846606; 234430, 3846444; 234732, 3845518; 235368, 3845399; 235556,
3845096; 236410, 3844198; 236413, 3844054; 236297, 3843925; 235968,
3843843; 235779, 3843622; 235662, 3843307; 234986, 3842797; 235154,
3842214; 235086, 3841955; 235333, 3841405; 235375, 3841313; 235220,
3841130; 235232, 3840799; 235079, 3840429; 234758, 3840083; 234863,
3839626; 234569, 3839466; 234551, 3839186; 234319, 3839348; 234045,
3839362; 233445, 3839043; 233229, 3838675; 233359, 3838487; 233241,
3838166; 233011, 3837900; 232617, 3837779; 232272, 3837921; 232254,
3838087; 231644, 3838529; 231264, 3838496; 231181, 3838751; 230923,
3838980; 229978, 3839158; 229754, 3839349; 229620, 3839728; 229455,
3839945; 228963, 3840302; 228573, 3840711; 228264, 3841264; 228105,
3841830; 227767, 3841828; 227388, 3841827; 227527, 3842150; 227858,
3842917; 228003, 3843254; 228529, 3843869; 228576, 3844116; 228496,
3844558; 228766, 3844658; 229104, 3845002; 229223, 3845301; 229404,
3845439; 229698, 3845994; 229240, 3845960; 228868, 3846057; 228239,
3846540; 227986, 3846998; 227904, 3847345; 227540, 3847621; 227052,
3848344; 226719, 3848644; 226976, 3849159; 226861, 3849365; 227014,
3849486; 227022, 3849580; 226902, 3849798; 225971, 3850915; 225899,
3851125; 225373, 3851455; thence west to UTM zone 10 to the point of
beginning at UTM 10 NAD 83 coordinates 774262, 3851242.
(ii) Note: Unit STB-3 is depicted on Map 20--Unit STB-1 and STB-
3, which follows:
[[Page 19338]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR13AP06.019
(31) Unit STB-4, Santa Barbara County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Lompoc Hills and
Tranquillon Mtn. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83
[[Page 19339]]
coordinates (E,N): 731548, 3828414; 731725, 3828302; 732482, 3828211;
733060, 3827929; 733373, 3827572; 733774, 3827615; 734461, 3827273;
734567, 3826941; 734874, 3826750; 735166, 3825748; 735374, 3825521;
735892, 3825308; 736056, 3825108; 736007, 3824849; 735520, 3824562;
735383, 3823999; 735198, 3823985; 735011, 3824092; 734837, 3823821;
734370, 3823633; 734241, 3823031; 733859, 3822409; 733592, 3822135;
733760, 3821640; 734349, 3821148; 734434, 3820848; 734395, 3820592;
733328, 3820601; 733075, 3820689; 732500, 3821165; 730834, 3821228;
730572, 3821371; 730039, 3821421; 729724, 3821725; 729488, 3821739;
729276, 3821643; 729286, 3821733; 729502, 3821795; 729515, 3821793;
729523, 3821801; 729615, 3821828; 729923, 3821747; 729935, 3821706;
729936, 3821704; 729938, 3821604; 730174, 3821644; 730245, 3821754;
730246, 3821785; 730311, 3821835; 730316, 3822045; 730366, 3822066;
730318, 3822100; 730375, 3824296; 730715, 3824569; 730844, 3825381;
730736, 3825725; 730416, 3825881; 730459, 3827556; 730445, 3827556;
730447, 3827602; 729977, 3827620; 729742, 3827441; 729579, 3827448;
729425, 3827598; 729508, 3827830; 729452, 3827821; 729430, 3827848;
729395, 3827811; 729190, 3827777; 729126, 3827916; 729111, 3827926;
729386, 3828164; 730093, 3828281; 730232, 3828426; 730845, 3828360;
731042, 3828827; 731183, 3828800; returning to 731548, 3828414;
(ii) Note: Unit STB-4 is depicted on Map 21--Unit STB-4 and STB-
5; see paragraph (32)(ii):
(32) Unit STB-5, Santa Barbara County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle Gaviota, Santa Rosa Hills
and Solvang. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 10, NAD83
coordinates (E,N): 755821, 3827482; 756293, 3827116; 756595, 3827008;
756734, 3826502; 756591, 3826150; 756701, 3825778; 756876, 3825582;
756583, 3824656; 756924, 3824697; 757173, 3824401; 758062, 3824046;
758483, 3824146; 758956, 3824097; 759185, 3823989; 759343, 3823839;
759356, 3823826; 759563, 3823388; 759577, 3822909; 759783, 3822682;
759485, 3822582; 759129, 3822293; 758049, 3821948; 757890, 3821985;
757386, 3821856; 757275, 3821711; 756624, 3821644; 756443, 3821777;
756184, 3821764; 756165, 3821780; 756139, 3821803; 755941, 3821976;
755398, 3821963; 755263, 3821895; 754711, 3821614; 754655, 3821585;
754606, 3821560; 754109, 3820817; 754319, 3820487; 754595, 3820335;
754715, 3820089; 754707, 3819800; 754623, 3819640; 754238, 3819306;
754414, 3818708; 754405, 3818492; 754507, 3818393; 754442, 3818163;
754781, 3818045; 754712, 3817826; 754353, 3818081; 753795, 3818299;
753620, 3818490; 753200, 3818625; 753151, 3818752; 753015, 3819109;
753052, 3819219; 753096, 3819346; 753385, 3819620; 753176, 3819898;
753236, 3820136; 752987, 3820348; 752961, 3820749; 753329, 3821454;
753567, 3821609; 753589, 3821730; 753341, 3821827; 753202, 3822071;
753191, 3822091; 753174, 3822100; 752961, 3822212; 752599, 3822188;
752336, 3822171; 751571, 3822432; 750711, 3822281; 750371, 3822319;
750231, 3822360; 750007, 3822667; 750066, 3822856; 750213, 3822944;
750268, 3823084; 750652, 3823110; 750716, 3823220; 750335, 3823770;
750488, 3824163; 750596, 3824256; 750780, 3824259; 750839, 3824376;
750807, 3824796; 750948, 3825215; 750875, 3825695; 751257, 3826992;
751444, 3827363; 752145, 3827504; 752493, 3827446; 753043, 3828218;
753153, 3828494; 753588, 3828705; 753846, 3828746; 754353, 3828538;
755206, 3828493; 755414, 3828288; 755742, 3828169; 755879, 3827637;
returning to 755821, 3827482;
(ii) Note: Unit STB-5 is depicted on Map 21--Unit STB-4 and STB-
5, which follows:
[[Page 19340]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR13AP06.020
(33) Unit STB-7, Santa Barbara County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles San Marcos Pass, Little
Pine Mtn., Hildreth Peak, and Carpinteria. Land bounded by the
[[Page 19341]]
following UTM Zone 11 NAD 83 coordinates (E,N): 261103, 3828674;
261164, 3826939; 261110, 3826616; 260560, 3825969; 260729, 3825227;
260615, 3824375; 260851, 3823866; 261151, 3823533; 261618, 3823357;
261958, 3823391; 262376, 3823540; 262618, 3823725; 262855, 3824249;
263136, 3825243; 263835, 3826416; 264136, 3826614; 264597, 3826733;
265253, 3826531; 265552, 3826327; 265768, 3825951; 266098, 3824601;
265982, 3823698; 265535, 3823047; 265592, 3822987; 266727, 3823425;
267083, 3823488; 267479, 3823387; 268046, 3823105; 268361, 3822771;
268293, 3821490; 268561, 3821099; 269029, 3820759; 269482, 3820583;
270054, 3820492; 270468, 3819779; 270489, 3819741; 270492, 3819739;
270620, 3819649; 270928, 3819610; 271418, 3819699; 271608, 3819634;
271752, 3819512; 271827, 3819173; 271608, 3819132; 271317, 3819192;
271284, 3819199; 271037, 3819072; 270265, 3819161; 269702, 3819603;
269601, 3819463; 269722, 3819264; 269625, 3819207; 269402, 3819428;
269250, 3819421; 269324, 3819558; 269217, 3819704; 269122, 3819834;
269002, 3819743; 268811, 3819808; 268745, 3819691; 268916, 3819504;
268888, 3819285; 268432, 3819124; 267834, 3819023; 267398, 3819234;
266530, 3819032; 266290, 3819197; 266215, 3819172; 266192, 3819268;
266078, 3819084; 265890, 3819272; 265721, 3819174; 265774, 3819042;
265701, 3818991; 265316, 3818973; 264966, 3819081; 264360, 3818999;
264304, 3818944; 264406, 3818688; 264333, 3818599; 264541, 3818360;
264384, 3818318; 264224, 3818038; 264202, 3818428; 264051, 3818575;
263826, 3818481; 263743, 3818335; 263566, 3818517; 263373, 3818454;
262902, 3818541; 263099, 3819682; 262878, 3820190; 262577, 3820494;
262253, 3820533; 260704, 3819562; 260200, 3819503; 259373, 3819970;
259106, 3820421; 259050, 3821027; 258954, 3821266; 258476, 3821560;
258009, 3821736; 256835, 3821963; 256267, 3822216; 255895, 3822139;
255591, 3821838; 255399, 3821743; 255172, 3821630; 254846, 3821595;
254318, 3821700; 254205, 3821777; 253739, 3822100; 253585, 3822370;
253569, 3822828; 253499, 3822948; 253028, 3822992; 252203, 3822869;
251749, 3822986; 250409, 3823601; 250151, 3823845; 249884, 3824310;
249725, 3824418; 249491, 3824469; 248569, 3824246; 247209, 3824198;
246082, 3824010; 245920, 3824045; 245659, 3824394; 245480, 3824633;
245204, 3824774; 243685, 3824819; 243619, 3824809; 242973, 3824708;
242368, 3824711; 242090, 3824789; 241548, 3824942; 241098, 3825191;
241040, 3825243; 240753, 3825497; 240212, 3825225; 240198, 3825218;
240102, 3825224; 239733, 3825248; 239125, 3825602; 239065, 3825637;
238784, 3826117; 238754, 3826387; 238971, 3826791; 239043, 3827473;
239174, 3827597; 239562, 3827733; 240553, 3827806; 241172, 3827758;
242696, 3827403; 242936, 3827529; 243487, 3828176; 243727, 3828316;
243966, 3828405; 244280, 3828521; 244619, 3828511; 244969, 3828382;
245345, 3828120; 245601, 3827774; 245609, 3827537; 245707, 3827372;
246089, 3827302; 246754, 3826840; 248135, 3826621; 250336, 3826570;
251450, 3826301; 251869, 3825993; 252196, 3825585; 252728, 3825127;
254548, 3824276; 254972, 3824146; 255659, 3824405; 256208, 3824993;
256339, 3825402; 256316, 3826140; 256089, 3826442; 254999, 3827020;
254542, 3827506; 254110, 3828389; 254090, 3828685; 254141, 3828919;
254538, 3829364; 255288, 3829666; 255686, 3829650; 256182, 3829502;
256599, 3829170; 256571, 3828713; 256693, 3828356; 257269, 3827896;
257621, 3827812; 257859, 3827878; 258681, 3829051; 258881, 3829197;
259702, 3829550; 259871, 3829623; 260251, 3829590; 260485, 3829475;
260582, 3829428; 260952, 3829069; 261103, 3828674; returning to 261103,
3828674.
(ii) Note: Unit STB-7 (Map 22) follows:
[[Page 19342]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR13AP06.021
(34) Unit VEN-1, Ventura County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Matilija and Wheeler
Springs. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 11 NAD 83 coordinates
[[Continued on page 19343]]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]]
[[pp. 19343-19346]]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog, and Special Rule
Exemption Associated With Final Listing for Existing Routine Ranching
Activities
[[Continued from page 19342]]
[[Page 19343]]
(E,N): 286767, 3821446; 287051, 3821146; 287541, 3820987; 287716,
3820448; 288081, 3820234; 288388, 3820156; 288676, 3819720; 288797,
3819538; 289000, 3819452; 289049, 3819400; 289251, 3819184; 289865,
3819014; 290257, 3819110; 290385, 3819028; 290382, 3818716; 290168,
3818372; 289870, 3818346; 289698, 3818038; 289637, 3817929; 289617,
3817336; 289730, 3817002; 289419, 3817006; 288934, 3816842; 288898,
3816819; 288224, 3816394; 287682, 3816263; 287327, 3816284; 287120,
3816311; 287012, 3816496; 286768, 3816629; 286380, 3816607; 286341,
3816936; 286253, 3816956; 286201, 3817346; 286083, 3817565; 285618,
3817694; 285106, 3817671; 284491, 3817968; 283910, 3817995; 283570,
3818117; 283229, 3817896; 282887, 3817826; 282295, 3817957; 282286,
3819293; 282458, 3819499; 282596, 3819663; 282602, 3819671; 282643,
3819859; 282998, 3820160; 283025, 3820294; 283114, 3820738; 283185,
3821088; 283536, 3821316; 283765, 3821626; 284412, 3821742; 284830,
3821570; 285434, 3821504; 286232, 3821724; 286706, 3822022; 286767,
3821446; returning to 286767, 3821446.
(ii) Note: Unit VEN-1 is depicted on Map 23--Unit VEN-1 and VEN-
2; see paragraph (35)(ii):
(35) Unit VEN-2, Ventura County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Matilija, Ventura, and
Ojai. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 11 NAD 83 coordinates
(E,N): 292389, 3808989; 292269, 3808813; 292067, 3808838; 292001,
3808540; 291744, 3808513; 291660, 3808360; 291309, 3808445; 291346,
3808110; 291188, 3807970; 290857, 3808078; 290683, 3807876; 290516,
3807881; 290022, 3807626; 289938, 3807423; 289743, 3807351; 289693,
3807054; 289556, 3806919; 289357, 3806257; 288924, 3806106; 288596,
3805768; 288535, 3805756; 288169, 3806170; 288139, 3806566; 288022,
3806679; 287922, 3806605; 287842, 3806111; 287702, 3806086; 287770,
3806708; 287997, 3806862; 288226, 3806724; 288210, 3807181; 288352,
3807324; 288495, 3807334; 288507, 3807633; 288897, 3808046; 289299,
3808143; 289254, 3808351; 289400, 3808575; 289665, 3808668; 289771,
3808791; 290075, 3808823; 290121, 3809125; 290398, 3809519; 290426,
3809709; 290786, 3809928; 291436, 3811102; 291817, 3811326; 291749,
3811476; 291788, 3811585; 292474, 3811706; 292581, 3812127; 293112,
3812393; 293210, 3812196; 293840, 3812153; 294048, 3811973; 294135,
3811749; 293856, 3811194; 293598, 3811103; 293155, 3810614; 292790,
3810406; 292674, 3810144; 292894, 3809713; 292746, 3809412; 292765,
3809204; 292611, 3808985; 292389, 3808989; returning to 292389, 3808989.
(ii) Note: Unit VEN-2 is depicted on Map 23--Unit VEN-1 and VEN-
2, which follows:
[[Page 19344]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR13AP06.022
(36) Unit VEN-3, Ventura and Los Angeles counties, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Cobblestone Mtn. and
Whitaker Peak. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 11 NAD 83
[[Page 19345]]
coordinates (E,N): 339291, 3827835; 339299, 3827739; 339766, 3827357;
340374, 3827063; 340544, 3826712; 341072, 3826348; 340944, 3826090;
340929, 3825836; 341091, 3825360; 340852, 3824908; 340799, 3824021;
340501, 3823636; 340142, 3823657; 339877, 3823482; 339839, 3822849;
339931, 3822610; 340226, 3822571; 340007, 3822097; 339952, 3821528;
339632, 3821505; 339452, 3821217; 339211, 3820830; 339197, 3820598;
338908, 3820272; 338832, 3820187; 338664, 3820291; 338469, 3820694;
338411, 3820813; 338123, 3821148; 338027, 3821260; 337720, 3821344;
337668, 3821358; 336304, 3822097; 336529, 3822597; 336713, 3822708;
336854, 3823475; 335722, 3824114; 335636, 3824514; 335416, 3824690;
334902, 3824748; 334557, 3824905; 334507, 3825194; 334331, 3825218;
334164, 3825391; 334109, 3825598; 333690, 3825882; 333242, 3826358;
333195, 3826701; 333300, 3826871; 333037, 3827486; 332830, 3827662;
333176, 3827981; 333533, 3828042; 335562, 3827839; 336504, 3827892;
336890, 3827733; 336922, 3827704; 337083, 3827558; 337097, 3827574;
337171, 3827662; 337429, 3827646; 337638, 3827729; 337852, 3827893;
338100, 3827946; 338394, 3827861; 339081, 3828201; 339230, 3828192;
339304, 3828065; 339291, 3827835; returning to 339291, 3827835.
(ii) Note: Unit VEN-3 is depicted on Map 24--Unit VEN-3 and LOS-
1; see paragraph (37)(ii):
(37) Unit LOS-1, Los Angeles County, California.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangles Warm Springs Mountain and
Green Valley. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 11, NAD 83
coordinates (E,N): 359031, 3819227; 358730, 3819226; 358022, 3819358;
357682, 3819421; 357694, 3819619; 357819, 3819717; 357871, 3819926;
358218, 3820421; 358455, 3821056; 358466, 3821241; 358352, 3821327;
358424, 3821653; 358610, 3821669; 358704, 3821902; 358598, 3822345;
358987, 3823103; 359060, 3823442; 359387, 3823820; 359806, 3824854;
360096, 3825062; 361616, 3825686; 362356, 3825881; 363057, 3825879;
363330, 3825796; 363561, 3825563; 363803, 3825319; 363930, 3825191;
363867, 3824811; 363846, 3824782; 363757, 3824665; 363724, 3824621;
361885, 3823314; 361706, 3822967; 361437, 3822679; 361231, 3822109;
360167, 3820914; 359852, 3820073; 359475, 3819513; 359153, 3819227;
359031, 3819227; returning to 359031, 3819227.
(ii) Note: Unit LOS-1 is depicted on Map 24--Unit VEN-3 and LOS-
1, which follows:
[[Page 19346]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR13AP06.023
* * * * *
Dated: March 31, 2006.
Matt Hogan,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 06-3344 Filed 4-12-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C