[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 71 (Thursday, April 13, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19244-19346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-3344]



[[Page 19243]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Fish and Wildlife Service



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



50 CFR Part 17



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; 
Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 2006 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[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

[[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

0
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]

0
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.


0
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.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
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.
0
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

[[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